Not exact matches
A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is
disagreement • reconciliation is not
about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest
disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of
climate change and the
policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.
In turn,
disagreements about the consequences of
climate change and the proper
policy response are also matters of degree.
But given the un-diametric mutual opposition between Davey and Flint's parties on the
climate issue, this hardly counts as a battle of ideas, and barely even a
disagreement about policy beyond the superficialities of inter-party politics.
The main
disagreement is
about the amount of impact, the net economic cost / benefit, the probabilities and, especially, the consequences of the proposed mitigation
policies versus the
climate damages that would be avoided by the proposed polices.