2 ms·

I'd say people are better informed if they get to hear the best of both sides instead of only one. Have the global warming skeptics been able to put something

by yters 18y ago

I'd say people are better informed if they get to hear the best of both sides instead of only one. Have the global warming skeptics been able to put something out that gets the publicity of "An Inconvenient Truth?" Even in the case where one side is clearly correct, I think its position can only be strengthened in the public eye if its arguments are compared to the best opposing arguments. Only if people assume the opposite can I see a good case for one sided propaganda, but I don't know of a good reason to assume this.

mseebach 18y ago
In an ideal world, yes. But we've just seen a couple of guys debate the next four year of one country in a very public way. It took them a year, not to reach any kind of common ground, much less agreement, but to get to the point where a few pct.pts. likes one guy better than the other. This was even made easy by pre-defining that there will only be two sides to the debate. The climate debate discusses the future, not of one country, but of the entire earth, and if we end up on the side of the "alarmists", we're not trying again in 4 years - this is a 20-50 year plan. So, yes, I agree with you, but my pragmatic practical side (the one that will not be allowed in a brainstorm session) argues that it's just not practical.