Arguing about the arguments is a distraction. If you aren't examining the data you're doing worse than wasting your time.
True. But when you can demonstrate quite clearly that those who argue against Global Warming constantly engage in falsifying data, typically have limited scientific credentials, are often associated with also being paid by the tobacco industry to claim cigarette smoke does not cause cancer, and are funded by Exxon/Mobil, then that should raise some flags.
- Falsifying data: Oregon Petition
- Limited scientific credentials: look up the credentials of the editors of such rags as Environment and Climate News.
- Limited scientific credentials: Google the credentials of the signers of the Oregon Petition
- Tobacco industry ties: learn about the background and history of Frederick Seitz
- Funded by Big Oil: look where the funding comes from regarding every report against Global Warming
Challenge #1: Find credible reports calling into question Global Warming that does not meet many if not all of the above that equal even five percent of the scientific studies saying Global Warming is real.
Challenge #2: State a classic Global Warming denier argument, and it will be explained why it is false or misleading. A classic example is the statement "Icebergs have already displaced the water, so even if they do melt, the sea level will not rise, and thus rising temperatures will not cause a sea level rise."