The climate change debate is a complicated one. We are repeatedly subjected to abstract facts that, on their own make sense, but can easily be contradicted by another, equally as compelling, titbit of information from the other side.
It seems that, when it comes to climate change, most people have formed a view, then share these bits of information amongst others who see things their way, and each side has gradually become more steadfast in its outlook. It’s not a scientific approach is it? It’s a classic case of who has the loudest voice, wins.
I put this to two men with deeply opposing views on climate change. BNET blogger and expert on practical emotional intelligence, Chris Golis, who is against any sort of climate change policy because he doesn’t believe the issue is real — and telecommunications regulation expert and blogger, David Havyatt, who sees the carbon tax as a worthwhile compromise on the path to a full emissions trading scheme.
Stand by for an interesting half hour debate about climate, the tax, the media, and democracy. Who wins? Is it the man with the loudest voice?