Tim Montgomerie links to the Standpoint debate between Nigel Lawson and Oliver Letwin on climate change.
Though I'm very much of the opinion that we need to de-carbonise our economy, I found interesting points to agree and disagree with on both sides of the Lawson-Letwin exchange. However, aside from the substantive issue, there was a clear divide between the debating style of each man.
While Oliver Letwin was polite to the point of graciousness, Lord Lawson was downright rude, at one point responding to his opponent's argument with the words "I have seldom heard such a farrago of wishful thinking and muddle."
What provoked such an outburst? Merely a series of perfectly respectable points on energy insecurity and efficiency that, while open to debate, are backed up by a great deal of evidence that cannot simply be dismissed with an insult or two.
Of course, there are plenty on the green side of the debate who also stoop to insults, but just as two wrongs don't make a right, two competing streams of abuse don't make a constructive discussion. I would have hoped that we could, within the Conservative Party, set a good example.
To the extent that a lowly blogger is capable of setting an example, I'm sure I've not always set the best one myself; but while I still believe in the concept of truth, I'm increasingly conscious of the inability of mere human beings to possess it in undiluted form.
