Matteo V wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:07 pm
Havre wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:59 pm
So clearly there are enough people who could represent the "other side" in debates etc., but I can't think of a single time I have seen anyone whenever those debates are being held.
Neither side has has anything beyond conjecture and belief to present in a debate on AGW.
This tends to make the believers of AGW look bad, when thier arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. While this is equally damning on the side of the AGW deniers, those deniers ally with skeptics and take the position of reality that is - 'we just dont know'. Thus from an objective stand point, deniers and skeptics win the debate because thier position of unsurety is provable. And the surety of the predictions made by AGW belivers are obviously inaccurate, inconsistent, and often rigged.
So now you know why you don't see free debates welcomed by AGW belivers.
What stands out in this topic for me is the extent to which neither side addresses arguments or issues raised by the other side and also how emotional (angry) and rude and arrogant many people become. This is the largely the same for both sides - though I wouldn't call it a fair description of your (Matteo's) contributions - they have been interesting in some cases. And off course there are various others. The other is how little middle ground there seems to be. You'd expect there to be two sides of a range or spectrum. But describing it as two sides seems more accurate.
So then it just depends on how long you want to make the summary, but my way of summarizing is to describe one group as saying "yes it is true", and the other saying "no it isn't true" (repeat). The few of those in the middle who are largely ridiculed or ignored by both sides, as well as some other ideas (global warming is positive, I think we' might be heading for another ice age, Joe is going to save us all, etc), which include a number of very interesting contributions, are in my opinion relatively unimportant so left out of my summary. Let me repeat that: relatively. But feel free to feel different.
I think in general, the lack of addressing issues presented by "the other side", at least in my case, is just because of lack of knowledge and lack of time or interest to "dig deeper". But in that case, you'd still expect people to be surprised, curious, interested etc. That doesn't appear to be the case in general.
The comment above ("So now you know why...AGW believers") follows the general trend. Just more finger pointing. Somebody will probably now say, "no it the AGW deniers that don't welcome free debate"...