Are there two sides to the carbon dioxide/climate argument? Yes. There were also two sides to the tobacco/cancer argument. One of them turned out to be held, supported and funded by an industry that made tremendous amounts of money from selling a beloved product that unfortunately turned out to have lethal side effects.
The big difference between the two situations is that the carbon dioxide problem is actually far WORSE.
The basis for the climate change argument is a straightforward one. That carbon dioxide has always been known to be a heat-trapping gas, and that if you double its concentration in the atmosphere, significantly more heat trapping is likely to occur, and a hotter atmosphere has significant consequences.
The other side of the argument has been every conceivable position that excludes either the possibility that this simple heat-trapping proposition is correct, or if it is, that it could possibly be dangerous.
The opponents of climate science have been highly successful in confusing both the press and the public. If you would like to see a good slice of their roster, please read this excerpt adapted from The Madhouse Effect, a book I recently wrote with climate scientist Michael Mann. History will decide who was right about this issue, and I think everybody deserves to be remembered for their role in the debate.