Having "both sides represented" is reasonable when there is something at least close to an even split. For example, if you want to debate punctuated equilibrium vs steady-state in evolution (that is, do things evolve in large jumps separated by relatively static periods, or by pretty much steadily accumulating changes), that should be a roughly even split, as there are a lot of scientists on both sides..
And there's probably a roughly even split between, for example, the people who think global warming will be really, really, really bad and the ones who think it's only a fairly minor problem. That would be a reasonable "split" debate.
But whether global warming is vs isn't happening? Would be like including flat-earthers in a geography debate.
Yes. A true objective scientist is open to all ideas.
One problem though with global warming deniers is, they typically are not coming from a scientific viewpoint.
And no, there isn't a relatively equal split on global warming in the scientific community.
This explains why:
There should be more representation of skeptics on global warming debates, creationists have more chances to debate than AGW skeptics, they have been shut out basically.
I find it ridiculous when I have watched TV debates on climate change between 4 or 5 scientists, and not a single skeptical scientist in sight.
Perhaps when we have more flat-earthers at debates about the shape of Earth.
IE, is there a relatively equal split on global warming in the scientific community?
