While climate change may be a sensitive topic, I tried very hard to minimise my personal opinions and view points by presenting neutral statements. Here are facts:

• I am concerned about the possibility that there is climate change
• there are two sides to the story of climate change: we should be concerned and take preventive measure, and we shouldn’t be concerned because either it isn’t happening or it is not as severe
• each side does make a persuasive argument why we ought not to trust entirely in the other
• I am not convinced that by my understanding the opposing viewpoint would help move the national discourse forward from a position of mutually skeptical and deeply divided impasse to one of a more elevated understanding of the truth

The broader point I try to make has very little to do with climate change per se. I use it as an example of an actual controversial topic that has two sides, but learning about one side doesn’t resolve the deadlock of distrust that exists. I could easily have chosen another topic: proposed solutions for addressing illegal immigration in USA or combating ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

That being said, what point do you think I am making? If so, can you point to specific aspects of what I wrote (feel free to quote me), that made you think that I’m peddling a political agenda. Let’s have a tough conversation about me, if you’d like, and detract from what I believe to be valid questions: when is an understanding the different versions of reported facts insufficient, and what to do when it isn’t?