Went to a climate change discussion in Princeton yesterday evening.  Useful in that I was able to chat to Rob Socolow.  And some good speakers.  But they tried to balance the debate by having two from each side of the debate.  Meant that anybody undecided came out even more undecided because the skeptics were able to put forward their cases in a plausible manner that any non-scientist, and many scientists, would find difficult to dismiss in such a setting because it is so complex.  As one questioner put it, the panel should really have 97 scientists putting the case for action on climate change and only 3 against.  That would more accurately reflect the true scientific consensus.