Yes Graham, extremists on both sides should pull their collective heads in.

The vast majority of scientists involved in 'climate change' science think there is very likely a real problem and that the world should do something about it - adaptation AND mitigation. Ergo, living in a more sustainable way.

There will always be debate within the scientific community about the details, Graham. It's just ludicrous to think these nuances can be 'debated' in mainstream media and the blogosphere by arm-chair pseudo-scientists who do not understand the complexities that you correctly allude to.

I understand your disaffection with the IPCC, however, that does not make their processes, rigor or conclusions any less robust. Similarly for the numerous science academies, organisations and institutions around the world - they are not as stupid as some would have us believe.

Moreover Graham, if anyone can suggest a better way of correlating and disseminating the science of 'climate change' any better, let them come forward - they haven't. I have to say ideological think-tanks don't rank, but that is only my opinion.

The 'debate' (at least in the public domain) is not about the science - it's about political ideology, economics and socio-cultural upbringing. Indeed, it is these very issues that the UNFCCC are debating, they are not debating the science.

It is these 'issues' I have no answer for, except to say that given there is a significant risk (and we think there is) associated with AGW, then it is in humanity's interest to work together to lessen its impact.