At risk of unleashing the demons of Hell, or at least the twin dogs - Phobos and Diemos, here is an interesting article from my local Newspaper about the Global Warming debate.

Is it possible to discuss this issue in an equally cool and objective manner?

FUll article

Panic plays a role in the climate change debate simply because alarmism is the template for nearly all environmental reporting. Seas are rising, storms are becoming more violent, droughts more severe, etc. (If the reverse is happening, it's not reported.) A recent Time cover story exhorted readers to "Be worried. Be very worried."

Now, it may be true that all the catastrophic signs are indeed there, but I think it's important to remember a couple of things about human nature. First, humans are prone to panic. And second, panic rarely results in anything useful. It usually just freezes people on the spot, like rabbits in the headlights. Whatever big challenges we face in the years ahead in climate change won't be helped by panic. Nothing will be gained if we replace a head-in-the-sand response with a frozen-in-terror response.

(and maybe our dear friend EP could learn something from the article about how to tackle potential future catastrophes?)