*yawn*
lets go back to the basics, there's some important points here ppl need to recognise.
science is an interaction between observations and models / theories. if you've got a model, you make observations to support or challenge it, and you come up with new models that fit the observations better, and so on. if there are a number of competing models, each gets criticised and the one that explains the data the best, taking into account criticisms, gets the most credibility.
CC supporters have a model. it takes into account a lot of things including solar energy, clouds & albedos, and atmospheric gases and says that current observed temperatures are a result of increase in CO2 etc released by people. some people challenge the model in various ways, but there are counter arguments for these challenges, and overall the model has a degree of credibility.
one thing people need to realise, is there is no real counter model. none.
thats why denialists are not treated seriously. if there was an alternative model that could be held up for criticism, and people could see which model fits the data the best, then there would be a valid debate. the closest we've seen is the cosmic ray / cloud decrease model, but it falls down because there's no trend in cosmic rays. you need a consistent model that explains current observations and makes predictions about the future, which can then be held up for criticism, but there isn't one.
until denialists put a credible model on the table, which explains observations and holds up to criticism, you can't expect to be taken seriously. otherwise you're just throwing stones.
|