One thing that annoys people about global warming arguments is how the usual suspects, often middle class or troubled or clearly looking for funds or righteous kudos, tend to control information. I've been looking for ages for concrete arguments that try and deal with skeptical or contrarian arguments rather than just dismissing them or taking issue with the logic of particular presenters.
I've found this site-- the skeptical science--that may be of interest to you. It seeks to challenge skeptical arguments with arguments of its own. Whilst I am not qualified to pronounce, it is refreshing to see a proper contribution to debate.
This is important. There are many, like for instance my friend Neil Clark, who predicted that the war in Iraq would go wrong and who have been proved largely right. I don't always agree with Neil but on this he was right, as were many others.
Some people, and many were honourable and also friends of mine, supported the war for two reasons. One was that they trusted their leaders not to lie about something so important. Now they know. Perhaps they also drew deeply on the well of world war two interpretation and liberal imperialism that grew deep in the global boom of the 1990s after the fall of communism.
The second group, which overlapped, was composed of those who supported the war because of the sometimes ridiculous people, wrong about everything, who were against it. 'If they won't argue, or hear debate, and have been serially wrong, or have no reason to them, why should I associate with them? They hate Israel, they are jihadis, they have had no clue since the sixties; so their flawed logic is the whole of their case.'
There were people whom I admire deeply and always will who questioned the war, high and low, from the Pope to my brother and sister. Some had seen war, some loved life, some were just rational. To my shame, I was for it, for both the reasons above, and now I know how wrong I was.
It's the same with global warming. I can't see the science. I don't like the spokespeople and their silliness and assumptions. I do not like the restraint of the bulk of humanity by narcissists which follows from their logic, and I can see the logic of skeptical positions.
But we should never embrace what we feel more than we balance it with the evidence of what we think.
So a proper debate is vital. I think that the biggest challenge isn't climate change but peak oil, if I was forced to say. I also think that the data are confused. Discovering this little site though, has in a mad way, cheered me up. At least we can be met with a reasoned case and not hysteria if we raise an eyebrow. I still don't believe in this modern pseudo-religion though.
Here is a video of what happened when someone thought about the sea, got Demis Roussos to take off the dresses, have a haircut and sing over a heavy synthesiser. I dare you to tell me that this blog doesn't live up to its timewasting reputation at the mental home.