Knowing the opposite side and separating advocacy from science are two different things. I started my studies of global warming during a very cold summer years ago by reading IPCC’s report of the scientific basis. As a consequence I am very skeptic of the whole CAGW. Realists and alarmist base their views on the same measurements. There are no parallel weather stations and satellites for each political party. Advocates, activists, lobbyists or whatever you call them make their conclusions based on the cause not based on scientific facts that scientists should do.
As a scientist I am a natural skeptic. There must be at least one test to asses a theory. So, if CO2 warms the climate, how can I show and measure it. That is were radiation budgets, OLR and others come from. There is a hole in CO2’s part of the spectrum. But, does that indicate warming? Shouldn’t we have more OLR if it is warming up. Or less because CO2 traps heat. Continuing from that we come to energy budgets that are so complicated that even IPCC admits that science and modelers in particular have no understanding.Model can’t be used as a proof of anything because its is easy to parametrize a model to match any set of observations. Comparing models to observations have only value for improving our models and understanding. Most value of the scientific reports come from published datasets which mainstream climate scientist try to hide because data does not support their ”cause”.