the title is: why we cna't have civil debate?

the writing focused on one of the most famous CC skeptic: judith curry of GIT.

worth a reading.

after reading i have a new thoughts: soemtimes consensus doens't necessarily mean the issue settled.

2 precedents:

1. Y2K worm. i never saw a serious review on it. i don't know how much money, efforts spent on it, was all a waste? if so, why the IT consensus? hwo about the skeptics and critics?

2. h1n1. again, quite some now question the overreaction.

for both we may offer the excuse of benefits/harm ratio strongly favored it's better to do the works instead of not doing nothing. even if all are wasted effort, the risk2 of computer crash and 1918 repeat were too much to take a chance.

in that writing again hte same set of logic was offered, doing nothing about CC brings too much risk. maybe true, but what about doing htose "green" things? would that also bring another kind of risk, let alone to say the huge investment unmatched bt the two above precedents.