Balancing climate pragmatism with moral clarity | Grist

The right has quite deliberately, with enormous assistance from a self-contained media ecosystem, created an atmosphere in which standing behind climate reality brands one an "advocate," a (gasp) liberal. Lots of people, for whatever reason, are extremely keen to be seen as reasonable, common-sense folk, not like those ideologues, certainly not like those hippies. (I have called them, somewhat awkwardly, "characterological centrists.") They have a very visceral personal aversion to taking stances that get them labeled as partisans. So they are recoiling from climate change now. If it is polarizing, they've concluded, let's drop it and emphasize things that aren't.

The Murdochs had nothing to do with 'Climategate' email hacking | @mjrobbins | Science | guardian.co.uk

Attempts by Climate Progress to link the UEA email hacking to News Corp have little basis in fact, and make advocates of climate action look silly
...
Leaving all that aside, the e-mails emerged not in a News International publication, nor in any other mainstream media organ, but in the blogosphere. There they were pushed by hard-of-thinking internet eccentrics like James Delingpole, until proper journalists eventually took notice and began covering the news. It seems like a pretty circuitous way to break a story, like the Telegraph getting hold of the MPs' expenses documents and handing them over to Guido Fawkes.

"Cool Dudes", Hot Temps; The Climate Change Battle Will Get Us Nowhere | Risk: Reason and Reality | Big Think

The solution is obvious, though hardly easy. We have stop making climate change a zero sum if-you-win-I-lose battle. We have to frame the issue in ways that work within everybody’s underlying cultural/tribal perspectives. We have to realize that answers are more likely to be found, and solutions are more likely to be reached, if the goal is finding common ground, to one of the most serious threats humans - all of us - have ever faced.