Further to the previous two posts…
Courtesy of Club Troppo’s always excellent Missing Link, I was led to read Lyn Calcutt’s view on the climate change blow-up of the last few days. Interestingly, it relates pretty well to the previous two posts on Gatewatching. She thinks the latest GW spat is pretty unedifying, and writes:
Compare these brawls among a few high profile figures, where expertise is guarded with complexity and specialist terminologies, and the amazing collective intelligence at the psephological blogs before the election where both sides of politics left with more than they arrived with. People who just wanted to know who was going to win came out of it understanding some pretty sophisticated stuff about stats, demographics and strategy, and they could join in and learn even more from one another. The whole became more than the sum of its parts.
Hmmm. I can understand Lyn’s point of view, though I think the comparison has its limits. It should be remembered that the psephs have attracted their share of snark, too, getting some heavying from people in high places, and I have to say that I, at least, had to take some of their statistical reasoning on trust 
Still, the point is that she feels that the GW discussion is largely a matter of people sniping from entrenched positions, and that she’s not learning anything. For Lyn, the discussion is a little sterile.
I suppose it’s a fine line in all blogosphere stoushes - at what point does fighting your corner become raking over the coals of a stale debate? It’s very difficult to gauge, especially for people at the centre of the action who hold their beliefs passionately. And for some bloggers, on some issues, “agree to disagree” is not an option - there’s too much at stake.
Anyway, let’s hope no permanent damage is done in the current kerfuffle.
Recent Comments