One should not read only the sentence after the one quoted first but also those before it. Doing that it seems clear that Fred opposes taking up a simplistic form of controversy, where the alternatives are essentially <i>yes, there is AGW and it presents a serious risk</i> and <i>no, there's no AGW to justify any attention at all</i>. He is explicitly writing that there are controversies at more detailed level and those should be discussed.
I think that very many people from both sides agree up to that point, but are disagree strongly on, how that observation should be formulated in practice.
To me this seems to be a very difficult issue. While I'm fully confident in the validity of the understanding of basic phenomena related to climate change, I'm also certain that many teachers would present the issue in a way that I don't accept even when their presentation includes that information that I consider solid.
↧