I think, given the stakes being presented by both sides - the apocalyptic consequences of climate change being toted by those who use science to say it's real, and the immense waste of money being toted by those who use science to say it's not - warrant a more serious approach overall. No matter who is right, there is something heavy at stake. I think something better than a flippant upraised middle finger should be demanded by both sides....don't you?
Let me turn this over to you....why do you debate this so hard? It must be important to you...would that be correct? And if it is correct, would you want this important view you hold to be delivered with gravity, or by a clown?
I debate, because this concept of catastrophic man made global warming, is an abomination of the scientific method.
It draws on partial data, to construct a limited view of the future earth, based not on science but a political agenda.
And then attempts to exclude any data that shows a different conclusion. The consensus, and the science is settled!
Science is not a consensus game, and the science is never settled!
In addition, The AGW movement, is addressing the wrong problem!
Humanity does not have a CO2 problem, we have an energy problem!
Earth does not contain enough naturally formed hydrocarbons, to allow every Human alive now, to live a first world lifestyle
if they wanted to. People who speak of social justice, will often mention wealth distribution,
but energy distribution may end up being more important!
Simple things that energy provides, that are not universally available, like hot and cold running water, refrigeration,
reliable electricity, transportation, ect, ect!
Our sustainable future, must move beyond energy sources we fine laying about, and look to what sources we can adjust to our demands.
Only one technology combination currently available fits.
Electricity for alternate sources like solar and nuclear, combined with man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels.
Alternate sources like solar and wind, lack the duty cycle coverage to do the task alone.
Nuclear is great for electricity, but cannot fuel jets and tractors ( I suppose a battery tractor would work, but not a battery passenger jet).
Man made hydrocarbon fuels, allows the intermittent alternate sources to be stored and accumulated, in a form of
energy storage we already have a demand for, and could allow the storage of nuclear generated electricity,
for demands beyond the nuclear plants transmission range.