One thing I do know is this:
There are uncounted[1] numbers of glaciers in alaska alone. I mean that literally.
There are so many glaciers on the planet that nobody has ever even counted them, let alone done a study on whether they are, on average, advancing or declining. They do both, advance and decline as a natural part of changes in weather not climate...they'll do one for a very long time and then change as weather patterns change. This is certainly an indicator of changes in local weather patterns, but to draw global conclusions requires a global survey of some sort.
I don't see evidence that we are screwing up our environment. I see that as taken as an article of faith, and when I attempt to discuss the issue with people, as soon as they detect that I'm not a believer, they decide I'm a denier. And once they decide you're a denier, they seem to think that the rules of science no longer apply, because by being a "denier" you're somehow irrational by definition.
I think the Glaciers example you bring up is one of the best... because it is purely unscientific. (If someone's got an example of a holistic study of glaciers, let me know. I have never seen one.)
Another unscientific claim is that all scientists agree with global warming, therefor it is scientifically "true" that it is happening. This simply isn't right. I've never seen evidence that even a majority agree, and even if a majority do agree, that itself is not an actual argument. What percentage of them are experts on the area? Certainly most scientists are not climatologists (and even this "specialty" seems to be brand spanking new, and basically seems to include acceptance of the AGW hypothesis in its definition of what a "climatologist" is.)
The argument that a majority believing makes it true is like saying that science is based on consensus or democracy, and it is not.
Most people in the USA are christians (according to demographics.) While scientists may be more likely to be atheists, I believe that most of them are going to be christians as well.
Since a majority of scientists are christians, and thus believe in god, does that translate into proof of gods existence, scientifically? (If not, why does this same mechanism work for the AGW hypothesis?)
At the same time I've seen many examples of prominent scientists coming out against the theory, or parts of it, and read about a petition with, I think, 45,000 signatures from scientists.
The reason that this issue is so prominent is not that it is a scientific controversy, but a political one. The IPCC and the UN at large sees it as an opportunity to get the UN some control, some global governmental powers, and politicians in individual countries see it as a political opportunity.
If you make carbon a pollutant, then you have the power to regulate every industry, even eventually, people themselves (as carbon emitters). That's significant power!
[1] If you want to disagree with me on this, please first give me a link to some exhaustive survey that shows how many glaciers there are, then we can have a basis for any question not whether a statistical number of them are growing or declining.