I disagree. There are those that work on sustainable, inexpensive, and not environmentally damaging energy production. This kind of work is pragmatic, as it approaches the problem as one we can solve.

There are also those that seek to punctuate the discussion and create strawmen, like yourself - that's the dogma side :)

The scientific and technological approach to these problem is pragmatic, of course. In the most parts of the world dogmatic science was abolished after the middle age.

So I don't know what your comment actually tries to communicate, apart of this strawmen thing, which itself is a strawmen.

>The only thing happening is pragmatism in the form "Let us see, maybe it will not be too bad."

>The scientific and technological approach to these problem is pragmatic

Which is it?

I tried to explain that technological approaches are pragmatic anyway. However, a technological solution isn't in sight currently, therefore a political solution would be necessary to buy more time. And I can't currently see any dogmatic political actions anywhere. But as you seem to be convinced that "there is too much dogma" you surely could, couldn't you?

Who here or in the article is trying to stop discussion on sustainable energy? Or do you think that somehow talking about Arctic ice melting is somehow impeding energy research?