Sorry but that's ridiculous. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" laid out the facts in an easily consumable way for the public over 10 years ago. We have photography

Sorry but that's ridiculous. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" laid out the facts in an easily consumable way for the public over 10 years ago. We have photography showing massive ice loss over the poles. We have solid data on average temperatures and CO2. How much clearer could it be exactly? There aren't any "sides". There's the science, and there's a propaganda campaign that's driven by energy corporations, and to a smaller extent deluded conspiracy theorists like Adams. Framing it as a debate at all is intellectually dishonest and just makes public confusion worse.