The previous thread on climate skeptics is a marvel in many ways, but I find myself looking for a segue into more productive territory. Fortunately, one commenter has laid out a path:
It would be nice if all sides of this discussion would recognize that there are rational reasons for skepticism as well as for the consensus view. Similarly, it is quite possible to agree with the mainstream science while rejecting any or all of the current basket of policy proposals. Or to support those proposals regardless of the science.
Could this be a framework for common ground between all the sides?
