The following comment by Paul Williams provides a different perspective on the question asked by Walter Starck a couple of days ago.
“I think we argue over AGW because there’s so many unanswered questions, such as:
1. Where are the climatic catastrophes we’ve been hearing about?
2. Why are the AGW proponents using dodgy statistics to bolster their case? (Even though they’ve now “moved on”)
3. Why are they proposing ineffective “solutions” for climate change, such as Kyoto?
4. Why do they constantly say the debate is over, when it obviously is not?
5. Why do they attack their opponents, rather than their opponents arguments?”