Open mindedness definitely. A willingness to think, explain one's reasoning, provide examples, and engage in discussion.

Unfortunately, the debate largely revolves around lazy people calling others "climate deniers" and other creepy labels because the TV told them to.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Because of elderly people like me who still think in F, stones and pounds and use a cheque book.

Still waiting for the Ice Age that science promised us in the late 70's ...

"Climate Change Denier" is often a lazy phrase used to shut down anyone that wants to debate the official narrative (i.e. free speech).

Stuart Kirk (the former Head of Sustainable Investing at HSBC) was NOT a climate change denier, but ended up getting suspended from his job, just for pushing back a tiny bit against all of the rabid hysteria.

Here is his full presentation, where he (IMHO very eloquently) makes the case for responding to climate change by adaptation, rather than spending trillions up-front based on projections. If you don't like clicking on links just go to Youtube and search "FT Moral Money Stuart Kirk".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfNamRmje-s

In fact, if you listen to him carefully, he actually says "I do not doubt the science at all". Evidently this was not enough for the mob though. Why? My guess is too many vested interests (reputations/careers of scientists/journalists, university research budgets, consultants fees for climate metrics, investment management fees, etc) in keeping the current big spending approach going. Also politicians and campaigners love creating a sense of crisis to make them appear virtuous.

Barry Norris at Argonaut also has an interesting piece arguing that we already have enough renewables, and adding more provides nil benefit:
https://blog.argonautcap...wer-has-already-peaked/

In my opinion, continuing to spend £billions on renewables is more than a bit irresponsible until sufficient scale battery technology is developed (if it ever happens at all).

NASA went through a phase of issuing engineering standards. Working for an American company I was asked to evaluate them against ISO and recommend which to follow.

I recommend ISO. My summary also included the question “if these standards did not have a NASA badge would I have been asked to evaluate them?” No was the answer.

They also published papers in the field in which I was involved. I was again asked to evaluate. Utter, academic rubbish.

NASA has been looking for an identity for two decades, since the engineering was subcontracted. My friend who works there Richard Draycott likens NASA to a car company which simply assembles cars from components procured externally.

Sad to see really.