Over at the Washington Post, several of its expert bloggers at the Capital Weather Gang are mixing it up on questions related to climate science and scientific consensus.
Matt Rogers has doubts.
Andrew Freedman does not.
Meantime, Marc Morano of ClimateDepot looks to maximize the PR value of the debate.
Can climate policy survive expressions of doubt? I think that it can and it must. but this means giving doubt its proper place in debates about climate, as being not just acceptable, but fully expected and welcomed. So good for Rogers and Freedman both for expressing their views. If you read closely enough you'll see that their policy preferences are not really so different, and therein lies an important lesson.
As Walter Lippmann once said, and I often paraphrase, democracy is not about getting everyone to think alike, but it is about getting people who think differently to act alike.