The climate change proponents avoid debating issues and focus on funding of opponents

The Independent has a story claiming to reveal the Koch brothers as supporting some who argue against the climate change crowd.  I frankly don't find that particularly relevant even if true.  Why is it that the argument of the climate change lobbyist is so weak they are unable to argue on the merits of issues but try to defend their case by describing the source of the funding of someone who disagrees with them.

When it comes to opposition to the climate change lobby, the most effective public opponent is Rush Limbaugh, and I am pretty sure he is not a paid tool of the Koch brothers.  While my blog has a much more limited reach, it has also posted material from those who are skeptical of the scare stories of the climate changers and the anti energy left.  I get no money from the fossil fuel companies or from the Koch brothers.

My own view is that the climate may or may not be getting warmer, but if it is, I see that as a good thing and far from "catastrophic."  If the models used by the climate scientist were valid, it would be much warmer now than it is based on increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  I have not seen a good explanation for the invalid assumptions of these models.

The point is the global warming crowd wants us to invest billions on the basis of their scare stories and models with invalid assumptions.  It is incumbent on them to produce cogent argument and models with proven assumptions if they are going to persuade.  The suggestion that the source of funding of opponents is dispositive is absurd.  They should deal with the arguments of the skeptics on a rational basis as scientist are suppose to do, if they want to be taken seriously.