I commend you for this. I shared it out, but here’s what I posted to my friends:
After reading the whole “he said/she said” I came to what might be an odd conclusion: they prove each others points.
Proponents aren’t clear in their message, and this allows the critics to point out flaws. Issue remains murky.

Again, I commend you for the effort. The “two sides” aren’t even talking to the same points, leading to a very murky, ugly, fight. The proponents need to get it together, as the IPCC report showed.

I’m with the consensus overall on climate change. That said, I do have a real problem with ‘deniers’ being used as a synonym for ‘sceptics’ (or even ‘skeptics’) in these debates. The use of the term ‘deniers’ in this context is a crudely provocative attempt to tar climate change sceptics with the same brush as Holocaust deniers. Although you do use ‘sceptics’ in your body headings, ‘deniers’ is present in the head of the document. I know a lot of sceptics are nutters, but there are some genuine sceptics out there too, and to characterise them as ‘deniers’ doesn’t help advance the arguments one bit.

This article exactly reflects my own feelings when I tried to research the topic for a presentation! The internet is a terrible place to try and research controversial topics like this.

People with no experience or real understanding of the matter air their views in exactly the same ways those who have worked in the field for years. It is impossible to sift through thousands of pages, checking sources and comparing to find out who knows what they are talking about.

Eventually my presentation was a disaster. I had no confidence in what I said. I should have given this image and talked about the difficulties I encountered instead!

I like what you’ve done. I found it absorbing and compelling. I have found that the internet can be a frustrating research tool – but I think your work will prove significant in moving people away from political dogma and towards fact-based decision making.

Thank you very much for this – please keep going.

Was usefull one, thank you

My only objection to this image is that both sides are given equal space, suggesting that there are as many “skeptics” who are legitimate scientists as there are on the consensus side. A better representation would have devoted 5% of the page space to the TINY minority of scientists with PhDs in relevant fields who question the fundamental conclusions of the IPCC, and the remaining 95% of the page space to the thousands of experts who feed into the IPCC reports. The way it is now looks as if the scientific community is equally or close-to-equally divided – a dangerous myth that muddies public understanding.

i particularly enjoy looking at whether the sources of “data” have an axe to grind… and particularly appreciate finding some that don’t seem to.

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm offers some very interesting reading for those open-minded enough to read ‘em.

of course, some Warmites as well as some Skeptics come at this from “religious” standpoints, and no data from ANYONE in disagreement is acceptable or believable.

it’s been fun watching. enjoy the link.

The website http://www.skepticalscience.com shows many “skeptical” arguments with their warmist counters very succinctly and removes all offensive posts from the Comments which is good.