A balanced view

Interesting isn't it, that there is still debate about global warming? Isn't it great that we live in democracies where this can happen? That we can talk about something while the cows keep farting until we are blue in the face - from not being able to breathe.
Barry Brook on the radio the other day was asked about the importance of having a 'balanced' view about global warming - making sure that all opinions were represented. Interestingly he works at Adelaide University with a colleague who is getting lots of publicity on the other side of the debate - Professor Ian Plimer - who does not deny global warming but sees environmental changes as 'inevitable and unavoidable' (sorry, this is a Wikipedia quote rather than the real thing - time issue). They are both working for the same institution. Presumably there have been no punchouts in the corridors or staff bar. That is the nature of academia - civilised.
It's hard to argue calmly and rationally about something as potentially divisive and life threatening as global warming. It is probably upstaging terrorism at the moment and the media/business moguls are recognising this by calling it the new terrorism (this from an American site called Green is the new red.
Anyway Barry pretty much said (from memory) that you can only present a balanced view up to a point. At that point, the view tips in favour of one or the other side, usually through evidence. Which is saying that time will tell. This is unfortunate, as we don't have time and the debate has been raging for at least 40 years. Perhaps that will be seen as humankind's biggest downfall in the annals of whatever civilisation follows us (unlikely that one will but still) - 'Them humans talked too much.'
It's likely that the Western world is divided into three main camps: those who deny global warming altogether (throw in those who think it will take generations/hundreds of years); those who think it's nothing to do with us (which to me is a cop out as it means we Westerners can keep on keeping on); and those who believe (as I do) that we are responsible for speeding up what is probably a natural process (and aren't there the graphs to prove it?), and we could therefore do lots about it. As someone has said: 'We don't want to have to say sorry to our grandchildren.' So let's stop being reasonable and democratic and recognise that harsh methods are required. We need a Churchill!