I’ve also learned something also. The alarmist position hinges more on character attacks than real discussion of the evidence (which is inconclusive anyway.) Many folks are confused by the science, and I think part of this confusion is intentional (it’s called a “snow job”). Even the less-scientifically inclined warmists give up when pressed to defend AGW–that’s when they revert to hurling insults, or simply saying “well, regardless, it can’t hurt to reduce our pollution anyway just in case” (a lot like saying “well, yeah, I can’t prove God exists, but it’s better to go ahead and believe in Him in case there really is a hell.”) But I tell you what–it’s REALLY difficult to find a unbiased discussion of the science, in layman’s terms, on the internet.