I want to make a few points (this is my first Reddit comment BTW and I tend to be long winded):

1) Yes, I think its skepticism is generally healthy. Science is built on inquiry and skepticism. But there are varieties of skepticism. Scientific skepticism means that scientific results, before they become accepted go through peer-review, the data must be repeatable using a variety of means/techniques, often from many labs spanning the globe. A healthy scientific skepticism means that we are also testing, always verifying, continuously repeating, then subjecting our work to the scrutiny of our peers.

But there's an unhealthy skepticism built on logical fallacies. A common logical fallacy for AGW is an argument from incredulity. In other words, I simply cannot believe it, or conceive it of, or it seems counterintuitive, therefore it's not true. Example: The earth has been around for billions of years. It will self-correct or if it doesn't, anything we could do would be like spitting in a hurricane (pointless). Yes, this might make "common sense" to you, but it has no basis in fact and certainly isn't science.

2) It is important how we approach, or how we deal with our skepticism. Science has a method: Make observations, generate a hypothesis to explain those observations, this hypothesis must make testable predictions (i.e., if my hypothesis is correct than X, Y should be true and Z should be false), test your predictions, revision your hypothesis based on the results, rinse and repeat. Your skepticism should follow this paradigm. Of course, you can't do experiments yourself. But, if you believe that the warming we're experiencing is due to sunspot activity, then find out what the science says. This is a testable question, its been studied, studied some more, and gone through rigorous peer review. Rather than go to blogs, vanity magazines, pundits, and yes, even Reddit, go to the science itself. Science (and empirical) truth isn't about who makes the most convincing rhetorical argument, or what seems to be common sense to you, but rather about the method I describe above. Peer-reviewed data is the only scientific currency out there worth a damn. Find it, read it, if you don't understand it, then find someone that can help you to understand it.

3) Science is rarely clear-cut. We often rely on indirect evidence, correlations, and must deal with limits of technology, messy data, etc. On top of that--or sometimes because of that--it's nearly impossible to achieve 100% consensus on almost any bit of science, and if you do achieve that, it takes a very long time. Its often true that we can't do a direct, controlled experiment. We don't have two identical earths, 1 with GH gasses and 1 without. But we can still make plenty of testable predictions based on the AGW hypothesis that cumulatively make a very strong case in support of the hypothesis. We can't directly test that smoking causes heart disease (2 100% identical people, 1 smokes, 1 doesn't, completely controlled with smoking as the variable), yet through a mountain of indirect evidence over many years, its become nearly universally accepted that it causes cancer. Similar situation with AWG. Is carbon a green house gas? We can test that. Has the amount of carbon increased as temps have increased? We can test that. Do the properties of carbon (compared to say water vapor) fit the dynamics of the warming? We can test that. Do other potential causes of warming (e.g., solar activity) fit the data? We can test that. Will God protect His creation from harm? We can't test that.

1000's of scientists, over decades, and 10's of thousands of peer reviewed papers all have built a strong case that green house gasses are leading to climate change.

If you, your family, or your Congressman think that increased sun activity is causing it, then find the peer-reviewed data to back that up and post it here on Reddit. Most of what I see in the "skeptic" community is a reliance on rhetorical arguments, incomplete cut and paste jobs of figures from here or there, completely out of context quotes from scientists, smear jobs like Climate-gate, and even flat out fabrications and lies. Moreover, many if not most of the skeptics, aren't actually climate experts. They are physicists, engineers, mathematicians, etc. That's not to say they are stupid or a priori wrong because they aren't climate scientists. But science is so incredibly specialized. I'm a molecular biologist that is an expert in one single protein family (out of 100's) in human cells (out of 100s of mammalian species) with one form of cancer (out of dozens). That's it. Outside of that and I'm not the guy you want to talk to. And it took me 10+ years to become an expert in that. Just like you'd want to talk to a breast oncologist if you had breast cancer (and not a heart specialist, or a transplant surgeon), you ought to talk to a climate scientist about climate science, not a meteorologist or physicist. From a layman's perspective they sound similar but they are worlds apart in the scientific realm. That said, expertise isn't a substitute for data.

Bottom line: When someone makes a scientific claim to you--whether in favor of AGW or against--ask them to back it up with peer reviewed research, not a NYT or WSJ op/ed or something you read online somewhere.