[Liberty1970]

I recall the warm vs. cold blooded controversy being explored in Mace Baker's book Dinoaurs, back in the early 90's. I don't recall the details, but what I came away with was:
1. The pro-warm side presented concrete, solid reasons why the dinosaurs could not have been cold-blooded.
2. The pro-cold side presented concrete, solid reasons why the dinosaurs could not have been warm-blooded.

Not stated was, to me, the obvious answer: the dinosaurs (or at least some) had a unique thermoregulatory system that does not match either of the 'standard' systems we are used to dichotomizing this subject into. (Dr. Wayne Frair, for example, published an article in Science in the early 70's describing unique aspects of a thermoregulatory system in a species of turtle, such that it could not be simple described as 'cold-blooded.')

[decimon]

Oh sure, you’re one of them moderates. ;-)

[flowerplough]

1. The pro-warm side presented concrete, solid reasons why the dinosaurs could not have been cold-blooded.
2. The pro-cold side presented concrete, solid reasons why the dinosaurs could not have been warm-blooded.

If warm-blooded, such huge land animals would have likely overheated, or at least been unable to maintain the entire body at roughly the same temperature, but if cold-blooded, they would have been too lethargic and dependent on environmental conditions, that's the way I've heard it explained.