Warmist Leo Hickman: "we will come to thank climate sceptics in years to come for forcing these obvious improvements"

Could peace talks ever end the 'climate war'? | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Personally, I see the most obvious shared goal being the first: unimpeachable, transparent, uncorrupted science. It's the building block – and stumbling block - for everything else and is arguably where much of the heat is generated within this debate. How can we ever move on to thrashing out the politics of climate solutions if we are forever bogged down in disputes about the veracity of the science, or whether there even is a problem to solve? Of course, this is clearly the tactic of some climate contrarians, but I don't believe it's fair to project all climate sceptics in this manner.

I admit that I sometimes find it hard to detect the signal from all the noise when observing climate sceptics, but the most positive contribution the more moderate climate sceptics (or "luke-warmers", as they are sometimes described) such as McIntyre and Andrew Montford have brought to the debate is their dogged insistence that climate science must be transparent, open, fair and free from influence. I don't think anyone could argue that this is not a worthy goal and, even if you disagree with their motivations, tone and methodologies, we will come to thank climate sceptics in years to come for forcing these obvious improvements.