I may be reading this wrongly, but here is the argument as I see it (and btw I do believe in AGW):
Ken: I believe in science and the scientific process. I believe that there is a great deal of peer-reviewed science supporting AGW. David: Agreed. David: Despite the above, I am not convinced that we are being told the whole story due to [insert Climategate/email issues/etc]. These things show that some people disseminating the data/science have vested interests and are choosing not to reveal anything contrary to their view. Ken: I don't find the issues you raise relevant. The science stands completely independently of the people disseminating it. David: I believe that we are being told the truth, I'm just not sure if it's the whole truth, so I remain sceptical. Ken: I am not sceptical. I have seen enough supporting evidence and nothing that disproves the existence of AGW. It seems to me that both paths are legitimate choices. Ken/David - what am I missing? Happy Friday Dave
