For me it exemplifies the problem with the environmental lobby these days. It is the policisation of science pure and simple. Science is not about proven realities, it's about testing hypotheses. Refusing to engage with someone who questions those hypotheses is, putting it simple, wrong.
We have a policy at Greenpeace that we no longer debate people who dont accept the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change. Its similar to the policy undertaken by cancer specialists who used to debate the tobacco industry but discontinued doing so. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, if we debated Dominic Lawson on climate change it would look great on his CV, not so good on ours.They actually do themselves no favours I think.
I would make clear that that doesnt mean I dont think there should be freedom of speech for people with DLs view, there should be. He is welcome to write about it and speak on it all he wishes, even though I disagree. But by debating him and his fellow-travelers we perpetuate the myth that this is a he said/she said issue, a 50/50 where there is still a debate.
Id debate Bjorn Lomborg, who accepts the science but disagrees vehemently on the need to take action on climate change. But not Dominic Lawson.