Most of the people here have been arguing about this same topic (anthropogenic global warming (AGW)) for years. You've missed all that. So when we bring out an argument or a point of science that we've brought out a dozen times before, the anger and frustration that accompanies it probably looks very much like arrogance. I and a few others accept and support mainstream science. The majority here do not. The deniers have argued a variety of positions but one of their most popular is that all the climate scientists on the planet have fabricated the entire thing in order to get rich from research grants and/or to destroy capitalism / destroy the world / put us back in the stone age, because they're all liberals and that's what liberals do. They have others, but they are all equally as unsupported and unsupportable. You encourage them via one significant mistake you have already made: you have suggested a rational equivalence to our two positions. If you're an educated fellow, you really ought to be aware that there simply is no debate on the reality of global warming and its cause. It is at least as certain as the theories of evolution and plate tectonics. The deniers here are the dupes of a very well funded PR campaign run by the fossil fuel industry, very much akin to that conducted by the tobacco industry on which it was modeled.
If you'd like to educate yourself on the state of the science, go to
www.ipcc.ch where you can find the various volumes of the sixth and latest Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR6 of the IPCC). The full report is assembled by three "Working Groups" who assess published science regarding man made global warming. Working Group I produces "The Physical Science Basis". This volume includes a lengthy report (~2500 pages) as well as a technical summary and a summary for policymakers. The latter is the shortest and the most aimed at the lay public. Working Groups II and III produce reports on "Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnerabilities" and "Mitigation of Climate Change", respectively. There is an enormous amount of material in those reports. The WG I's Summary for Policy Makers in "The Physical Science Basis" is probably the best place to start. The full report also has a FAQ attached to each chapter and there is a compilation of all the FAQs available separately for download; a valuable resource.
If you wish to familiarize yourself with the opposition's technical material, you probably ought to ask someone else but from what I have seen here, I would look at a website called "WattsUpWithThat" abbreviated WUWT, as well as websites for Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomborg and Dr Will Happer. The latest denier notable seems to be Dr John Clauser, a Nobel winning physicist, though he has actually written very, very little on the topic of global warming. The fossil fuel industry have funded a number of "science" and "research" organizations that are all simply covers for pro-oil propaganda disguised as serious research findings. The internet can give you a list. These folks will present the more rational of denier arguments. If you roam around the forum here you can easily find examples of the more extreme positions. I'd give you a few names but I'd be denying you the pleasure of shocking new discoveries.
