> I tried in the past to get access to actual raw data so I can play with it, and draw my own conclusions, but all I got was always many levels above the raw da

> I tried in the past to get access to actual raw data so I can play with it, and draw my own conclusions, but all I got was always many levels above the raw data. I don't think you want to hear this, but: Do this if you want to goof around, but not if you want to reach a legitimate conclusion. People spend their whole time in grad school learning how to analyze such data. It's easy to fall into simple pitfalls (like ignoring known calibration issues) without that kind of intense training. (This is true of any scientific measurement.) And further, people who spend their careers on this have the benefit of critique of their initial results from their colleagues. Some of these errors are caught in conference posters and in peer review. The best place for a determined amateur like you (or me) to start is the recently-completed National Climate Assessment: https://science2017.globalchange.gov https://science2017.globalchange.gov . That will point you back into the primary literature. The amount of experience and judgement that went into that report is not something an amateur (even a very determined/intelligent one) can approach. As a point of comparison, consider the story of Berkeley Earth (http://berkeleyearth.org/about/ http://berkeleyearth.org/about/), which was started by skeptics but ended up reaching conclusions about rising temperatures similar to the ordinary climate science consensus. Will you be in a position to do better? Source: I work with a couple of co-authors of sections of the IPCC and NCA reports.