Who is winning the argument?

I have been reading Gerald Warner's blog Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming

I'm wondering who is winning the climate change / global warming argument?

An extract from the article;

The latest institutional retreat from uncritical support of the AGW hypothesis is one that will chill warmists to the core: the Royal Society has announced it is to review its public statements on climate change. The Society now believes that its previous communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood. It has appointed a panel to review its statements, assisted by two critical sub-groups, including a number of Fellows who have doubts about the received view on the risks of increasing CO2 levels.

In previous blog entries I have written that I wanted to be told the truth about climate change and global warming. Up until last year I could of gone into either camp, but when the climategate files came to light I became a sceptic.

I have no scientific knowledge to go through all the data to come to any scientific conclusion, but I have read a lot from other sites like Watts Up With That and I became more sceptical about global warming.

An extract;

Clearly, that kind of blind commitment to the AGW cause will no longer be endorsed by the Royal Society. It is a sign of the times. Two months ago the Science Museum in London changed the name of its Climate Change Gallery to the Climate Science Gallery, as it began to distance itself from the partisan assumptions of the climate lobby. In fact it was abashed by the derision to which its previous posture had been subjected by visitors. Its director said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”

If these societies and groups are, as the article says 'began to distance itself from the partisan assumptions of the climate lobby.' Then the government and the EU should think again about going down the path of carbon taxing, and cutting down the emissions, which will cost us billions.

The argument hasn't been won by any side yet.

There should be an open debate on climate change / global warming with all the facts and figures, for and against, to finally assure the public one way or the other on what is really happening to our climate.

Are we actually causing global warming with the carbon emissions, or is it a natural occurrence?

The public need to be told one way or the other.