Climategate, global warming, global climate change...

Climategate, global warming, global climate change... it goes on and on and on and o... you get the picture of how I'm currently feeling. I must confess to it being slightly self-inflicted having spent most of today reading two blogs arguing from both ends of the scale, http://climateaudit.org/ - for the sceptic arguments - & http://www.realclimate.org/ - for those in support. The first is written by a statistician and the second by a collection of expert climate scientist and general scholars. I will state now the Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State, currently under investigation for poor practice, does write for realclimate.org but he is only one of a large panel who write on there.

My whim of ire is one that I'm sure many people suffer from, that of the partisanship of the media and apparent repetitive counts of failiure to follow due process. On one hand I hear that the data is flawed, cherry-picked and adjusted to suit their cause, then you hear that this data is but a flick right at the very end of what is already a flick, or in the current characterization of it as a hockey stick on the tip of a hockey stick. You then see the graph depicting this and it does nothing to help clear anything up, yes there are some lines which show a general upwards trend in the last 200 years but on this graph are some broad shaded areas which, one assumes is the error range, can show a relatively constant temperature for the past 2000 years or what would have to be described as an emergence from an ice age in the past 200 years. This graph seems to be being used by those in favour of climate change... WHY?

This graph, to me, shows absolutely nothing! A sausage could almost ell me as much. Okay it does tell me one thing, that in the past 200 years we have been better able to calculate a world average. This graph, when used, has only minimal explanation for the references, again why? I am trying to make an informed decision based on research that has been done, when the proposers of this phenomenon use strange graphs which explain little to back up statements it makes me more skeptic.

This though is being counter-acted by those who disagree who concentrate on small items. I know people will say that they are attacking the fundemental data upon which this has been based, but from what I have been reading the skeptics have gotten stuck purely on temperature, yes important but not the whole picture.

What happened to science being impartial?!
How can I make an informed decision when the two sides start arguing different parts of the arguments at the same time?!

If you were watching two people arguing over two sports A & B and the two arguments you hear are "A is better because it is more popular" and "B is better because it is more challenging." How are you as a simple observer going to be able to decide which is better on a level of understanding when the two sides don't stop to talk about what is agreed.

Would it be too much to ask that several experts with opposing interpretations of this topic to sit down and set down what is accepted fact, and what is under contention? Surely it is impossible that one side of the argument is a complete fabrication, invented on whims and anomalies?

Can a brother get a little help around here?