Hugh

"the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence"."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...876541,00.html

Public Debate usually takes the form of one side taking the side of the affirmative, with the burden of advocating and proving the resolution, and the other debater takes the side of the negative, with the burden of refuting the affirmative's case.

Not saying "Stop it, it's wrong"

Oh, and this is on the Royal Society's website
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1
"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."