> For a long time the global warming skeptics argued that the only alternative was to shut down modern civilization and let billions starve. Some did for sure,

> For a long time the global warming skeptics argued that the only alternative was to shut down modern civilization and let billions starve. Some did for sure, and I agree that they were wrong. But that instinct to imagine the worst was just working in the opposite direction to those that believe there is no chance to stop global warming and humanity is doomed. But that's really a separate discussion. What we're really discussing is how we come to know truth, and how much we can trust our conclusions. And more importantly how we treat each other in the face of the unavoidable ambiguity and uncertainty. If people argued with less conviction in the absolute truth of their positions, i believe they would actually be more convincing and get more people willing to start pulling together in one direction.