The Air Vent has a killer post by Lucy Skywalker on restoring the civility to the “Climate Change” debate. Given that there are too many people with deeply vested interests in AGW Alarmism, for a variety of reasons, I don’t think there will be any debate cooling coming soon. A debate cooling would result in the removal of the extreme mitigation plans being proposed. This would be a very bad thing in many people’s eyes.
If there is a debate change then I expect it will actually flip to a global cooling scare, such as we saw in the 70s, long before it becomes a debate cooling. Skeptics of the cooling “science” will continue to be ridiculed, though I’d love to be proven wrong.
When a situation has become so fraught, so polarized, that communication between opposing sides breaks down, “mediators” can be called in to set up a process that can enable and allow all parties to feel that they have been heard fairly. Recent engagement at WUWT with Roger Harrabin of the BBC suggests clearly to me a breakdown in communication, with all sides feeling misrepresented. I want to take the line among skeptics that Roger and the BBC are “innocent until proven guilty”, but to do so, I would ask for some conditions for courtesy’s sake. For not only does extra care with courtesy enable disputes to be resolved; I have discovered a surprise: courtesy is the best facilitator for scientific understanding itself to develop.
Great post, here’s the rest: AGW: Restoring courtesy to the debate
One of the comments to Lucy’s post sums it up quite nicely for me. 100% correct in my opinion:
If AGW mitigation required dismantling of authority, implementation of libertarian concepts, and less governmental controls, there would be no interest in AGW among the intelligentsia. Not even Greenpeace would support it. It would be considered a capitalistic, conservative plot…
…AGW is just a lever to gain more power. Take the power out of the equation and AGW would magically disappear from the political world.
Some other posts of mine on motives and such: