I say, you are lucky to be in the environment where the truth is leaving anyway. But that was a pure coincidence and you managed to neutralized any conformation bias from this.

Irrelevant. AGW is not some niche belief where evidence is hard to come by. It is a subject of massive scientific scrutiny. So I do what we should all do in these cases: accept the scientific consensus, while widening the uncertainties. Confirmation bias may have made this easier for me, but it was the right thing to do. When you can slap me down for being biased, is when I use weak excuses not to go straight to the scientific consensus. I try not to, but I'm sure I've got blind spots.

No, I don't buy the AGW story. I don't find it particularly probable, since we have no temperature rise in recent years, predicted by it.

Do the terms "hottest decade on record" ring any bells? (See for instance http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/, but feel free to use any large scale temperature record) These scientists have been predicting rises since the 60s, and have essentially been correct.

And even if it was true, it wouldn't be a very important matter.

By the scale of the existential risks I normally deal with, I agree. On a normal human scale, and in terms of the costs it imposes, somewhat important.