1.Many politicians don't understand the difference between trends and events, can't be bothered distinguishing, or do understand and are being deceitful about climate change issues, pandering to special interest groups with which they identify.

2.Climate denier politicians [they will deny they are deniers but skeptics, but there is a strong flow among the denier/skeptics I've listened to from skeptic to denier to conspiracy theorist] are often in cahoots with, or supported by, lobbyists who might/might not fund them. Just take Steve Fielding's trip to a US tobacco and oil company funded "think tank" to gather "evidence" for his erudite musings on the climate.

3.Some populist politicians, particularly neo-conservatives like Tony Abbott, waver on climate change according to how they read the polls;
4.Too much analysis within political parties of phenomena like climate change is about spin - bugger the facts or the vast body of evidence.

5.Too many politicians don't understand how science reaches conclusions, including the ultimate skeptical process of peer review.

6.I think the situation is less the politicisation of science than a rejection of science. Some of that is driven by politicians' religious views [no longer regarded as belonging to the personal realm to the detriment of the secular state] especially evangelical views, some of it by ignorance about science and scientific process, and some of it by allegiance to the relevant industries.

7.The rejection of science is leading us into a new dark age.

I agree with Jim McD's last few points - the problem can be summed up as a "bugger the science" attitude. Most politicians are profoundly scientifically illiterate which includes ignorance about scientific method. Another major problem is the media. According to Journalism 101, the reporter has to get two sides to a story so for all the credible scientists they interview (Will Steffen, David Karoly, Mike Raupach etc etc), they have to come up with a sceptic/denier like Bob Carter or Ian Plimer. Most reporters are too scientifically illiterate to tell whether Carter or Plimer is talking nonsense or not. Most reporters think any old scientist will do for an opinion when it's actually important to have a scientist who has published in the field of climate science, not in geology or astronomy. Never mind that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is real and anthropogenic in origin, reporters feel they still have to get "balance". Well bugger the balance, say I. Let them have a hard look at the evidence.

Speaking of the "catholic" church, many right-wing "catholics" are in the fore-front of the campaign to discredit the science. This is especially so in the USA.

That Pell chap from Sydney is squarely in this camp. Some promote the absurd notion that he is the best and brightest "catholic" intellectual in Australia.

If leading us to a fake war of climate change like Bush did was a crime, what say ye then?
REAL environmentalists don’t sit in the dark once a year with the lights turned for an hour and call it radical.
You remaining believers are just fake fear mongering and so called “liberals” who bow like Greenzis to a fat American politician promising to make the weather colder with taxes.
If any of you faded remaining believers still think the voting public will say YES to sacrifice and taxes to stop unstoppable warming, YOU are the new denier.
The vast majority of the deniers are now former believers, Liberals, progressives and other REAL environmentalists.
REAL environmentalists don't hope and wish and pray for misery for others and probably rubber neck car accidents too.
REAL environmentalists were happy and relieved that THE END OF THE WORLD was averted.

Taxpayers are feeding this guy.

There is so much wrong with this article that it's difficult to know where to start, especially with a limit of 350 words.

Most obviously, Rowan relies in large part on appeals to authority, rather than producing anything vaguely original in the way of evidence or thought. His motivation seems to be "Look at me, I'm politically correct."

Rowan claims "science" for himself, but claims those he wishes to attack are, almost by definition, not scientific - the old straw man technique. But the quality of his own "scientific" approach is revealed in one of his many appeals to authority, this time to the Gallup polls.

Public opinion polling always crashes on the rocks of civic competence. We could, if we wished, ask the public for their opinions on how much weight a planned bridge could carry. Whatever the sample's response, it would be of no account. Talk to engineers instead. Public opinion polls on topics like these have no validity whatsoever. People are generally not qualified to express an opinion.

But Rowan thinks its important that we know "the percentage of voters from both [US political] parties who agree that most scientists believe..." How profound. A sample of people "agree" on what they think others "believe". Thanks for sharing that with us.

Rowan's scientific skills at their height.

It is not a question of denying science. It is not a conspiratory theory or politicisation of science. The “greenhouse effect in relation to certain atmospheric gases, such as CO2 is well understood and is not denied.

What I question is the magnitude of the effect. What is the proof that radiative effects of atmospheric gases are the sole or at least the major determinant of future climate?

If there is a political angle, then it is more important to provide reasonably affordable power at times of extreme cold or extreme hot weather. The question of dealing with current problems has in my philosophy greater importance than any hypothetical doomsday scenario published by the warmers at some date in the distant future.

One other thing why is it ok for non published climate commentators to be pro anthropogenic global warming, but wrong (bordering on wicked) to be anti?