The climate change debate has now polarized public opinion to the extent that abuse and vilification between groups is now rife and escalating. This applies to our politicians, industrial opportunists, academia, media, NGO’s, economists, blog sites, research organizations, financiers, celebrities and scientists.

Does our nation and all the people and institutions it comprises deserve this level of vexation and angst? Do we have better, more rewarding and joyous things to do with our lives?

Does this impasse need to continue to consume us emotionally, politically and economically or are we capable acting like we exist in the third millennia?

If our children were relentlessly squabbling and wrecking family harmony with no resolution in sight, would we as parents step in with an adult resolution? Yes, of course we would and the first step would always be to start dialogue.

Since the warring parties cannot convince each other, perhaps it is time to do something adult for our nation and sort out the differences?

The scientists at NIPCC and the IPCC have now drawn opposing conclusions from the same body of published scientific research. Interestingly these two groups don’t resort to abuse of each other, but the rest of the various advocacy groups certainly do! How curious.

Could a Royal Commission into human induced climate change draw out the issues of difference and offer reconciliation?

Are there other alternatives? What might they be? What might the Commissions TOR include?

Since it is clear that reconciliation by the parties themselves has proved impossible, it is hoped that rather than “feed the beast” with more of our favorite pro’s and con’s, it must be possible for us to focus on potential resolutions, to clear the decks of abuse, name calling, shooting each others messengers and denigrating contrary scientific opinions.

Most of all, are we capable of achieving this without the relentless “link wars” that focus only on the causes of our differences rather than the effects and any solutions?

Surely the thinking adults on OLO are up for a real debate on potential solutions rather than replays of the causes?

spindoc,

"The scientists at NIPCC and the IPCC have now drawn opposing conclusions from the same body of published scientific research..."

The only point that needs to be clarified is that you appear to be lending the NIPCC scientific credibility by referring to it as somehow in the same league as the IPCC.

http://theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience-17378

"What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an “N”?

Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change “sceptics”, bankrolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute’s backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation.

The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience."

Next.....

Throughout history, versions of the false flag attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the force of the people toward whatever end the ruling class may be seeking.

At times, that end may be war, or it may be the curtailing of domestic civil liberties and basic human rights. In others, it is an economic agenda.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/11-signs-of-false-flag.html

indeed, false flags are themselves capable of taking on a wide variety of forms – domestic or foreign, small or large, economic or political, and many other designations that can often blur into one another.

Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require.

this will kill you..
long before global warming..ever will
http://bit.ly/1hSCRsi
[In an extremely unusual joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2, a patently bitter secretary of state asks why Israel keeps taking Palestinian land, and why the Israeli public doesn’t seem to care about it.]

Poirot,

<<The NIPCC ...These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym.

I'll bet you haven't read the NIPCC report cover to cover --as that comment would imply-- but rather, lifted that comment as gospel holus -bolus from on one of your leftwing rags.

<<However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience.">>

ii) ROFL you mean to say the IPCC has neeeeeeeeeever sought to suppress/discredit unfavorable finds/comment?

FFS Spindoc, with locked-in syndrome like that exhibited above by the little froggie detective how on earth can you ever have a meeting of minds(and minds may be a poor choice)?

Poirot,

I thought I’d posed the following;

“ it must be possible for us to focus on potential resolutions, to clear the decks of abuse, name calling, shooting each others messengers and denigrating contrary scientific opinions.”

“are we capable of achieving this without the relentless “link wars” that focus only on the causes of our differences rather than the effects and any solutions?”

If you won’t enter the debate as an adult, why try to kill off the thread and spoil it for everyone else by slagging off contrary opinion and diverting the thread?

You have already told us you only come back to OLO to “bait” the opposition, I really don’t understand why you’ve become such an infantile spoiler?

SPQR, yes it is frustrating. There must be something terrifying about debate that acts as an intellectual inhibitor. Funny that those with the most to defend have nothing to add.

spindoc,

"If you won’t enter the debate as an adult, why try to kill off the thread and spoil it for everyone else by slagging off contrary opinion and diverting the thread?

You have already told us you only come back to OLO to “bait” the opposition, I really don’t understand why you’ve become such an infantile spoiler?"

I come here to "reply" to the opposition.

How is pointing out that the NIPCC is a front group for Heartland diverting the thread?

You deliberately inserted the "false premise" that the NIPCC is somehow on an equal scientific footing with the IPCC.

I was merely informing readers of that false premise.

What's more interesting is that you claim I'm being an "infantile spoiler" because I call you out on a misleading inference.

Premising an argument on global warming by citing a group backed by Heartland has little scientific credibility.

And, finally, let's face it...anyone with any real scientific credibility is quickly abused and chased away from OLO by "skeptics".

Without recourse to links from credible scientific research, it all boils down to amateur partisan "opinion" - and that is not going to solve anything.