What's up with that climate debate?

This website is a modest homemade affair, my visitation is low and discussion zero. That's fine this started as just a place to post and hopefully share my essays.

However, I do enjoy discussion and am quite active at the Skeptic Society forum's "Climate Change" board. I invite anyone interested in some, hopefully, serious discussion to join us.

I bring this up because of a tiny exchange between Anthony Watts and myself, followed by this post over at Skepticforum:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[quote="D--"]What I find interesting in this dialogue is the fact that there is enough information on both sides to make plausible arguments in any direction. The fact that this issue gives arguments for both sides, meaning it cant be falsified, should allow for enough room of skepticism to preclude conclusions such as "well settled" and look at this as some kind of battle.

No one can be wrong and everyone has enough material to present back and support their premise. It is still vague enough to continue to explore.

~ ~ ~
You know D this sounds all beautiful and politically correct and I couldn't agree more. Well except for your claim that "skeptical claims" can't be falsified.

Don't you know a part of skepticism is being skeptical of oneself and to remain enthusiastically curious about new information and to be able to admit to errors and to correct one's errors... to reorient one's outlook?
~ ~ ~

For instance, your words sounds reasonable.
But, if a university was putting on a program about the moon landing, do they owe equal time to folks, some with degrees, who have built perfectly logical arguments defending their belief that the moon landing was a hoax?

Sure let them have their day. They present their case. What if the panel/public decides they have no case and dismisses them after day one.

What if those folks come back day two and totally ignore all the correcting they received the day before?
Not only that now they have megaphones and tons of literature claiming the same claims as yesterday.

Why should that be tolerated?
~ ~ ~

D, you seem to present this attitude that the continued debate is worthy.
I agree A debate is very worthy.

However, in a worthy debate there are agreed upon ground rules.
But in this past decade's climate debate there have been two distinct sides, with very different codes of ethics.
{Fact is, one side has turned this into a political dogfight and believes in the anything goes ruthless aspect of realpolitik.}

I myself would define the tragic split:
~ ~ ~ scientific, learning oriented.
{as witnessed by the collective effort of many thousands of serious scientists}
~ ~ ~ political, agenda driven contest to win.
{as witnessed by the manufactured, "think tank" driven attack on science}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Guess my main question to Mr. Watts would be:
Why is it OK to continually recycle soundly discredited notions?