“ I found the rebuttal rather persuasive and on point.

It’s called confirmation bias. It’s a pity you took no notice of our article, which has many links to scientific research from real scientists, not cranks on denier blogs like Siegel’s articles. Did you learn anything from the links in my comment?

have intentionally avoided debates between scientists with opposing views”

You mean you want some of the 3% to “debate” some of the 97%? Are you a fan of creationist vs biologist “debates” also?

Take your pick — which contrarian “side” do you want to take in the debate?

• it’s the sun
• it’s undersea volcanoes
• it’s not warming
• it is warming but it’s not CO2
• there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas
• it’s cosmic rays
• it’s gravity
• it’s Jupiter
• it is warming but there’s nothing we can do about it
• it’s anything but CO2
• an ice age cometh
• it’s mysterious Force X and the notch
• it’s cooling
• burning fossil fuels doesn’t release CO2
• climate science is a hoax
• it’s a UN plot
• it’s a communist/fascist/socialist/nazi plot

…there sides to debates in science: “Is global warming a crisis?”, “Can bacteria survive in the human stomach?”; “Do the continents drift?”..

I expect you are joking, given you profess to have been awarded a degree in science at some point in your life.

BTW continents don’t drift, and most research scientists didn’t know one way or the other what caused stomach ulcers — there was no particular view. GPs put it down to stress, which in GP speak means they didn’t have any answers. (Any ailment for which a cause has yet to be determined is put down to “stress” by most medical practitioners.) H pylori isn’t the only cause, BTW.

I know a thing or two about the power and LIMITATIONS of models

I’m beginning to doubt that. In any case, so do the people who develop and use the various climate models.