Don, appreciate your reply.

It does take time for the scientific community to overturn orthodoxy. Indeed, AGW theory ‘developed’ from the late 1800s (countering about 70 years of prevailing orthodoxy) until as you say, governments worldwide started to take notice. I agree with Barry when he says “some people will attempt to hijack science for political or ideological reasons” – we will see just how much governments and vested interest groups hijack the UNFCCC and IPCC process leading up to Copenhagen.

Nevertheless, science is not politics and yes, ‘climate change’ isn’t central to government thinking. In my opinion, all governments/nation states should focus more on sustainable development. However, this would require a paradigm shift and my guess, like yours, is that dealing with the issues of climate change will take some people (and treasuries and finance departments) out of their comfort zones.

Of course there is more science to conduct, particularly in climate sensitivity and attribution studies. However, there is a preponderance of evidence (due in large part to the immense strides we have made and are making in science & technology) that robustly supports the theory of human-induced global warming … but, this is NOT to say it can’t be refuted. Any individual, group or organisation that knocks AGW out of orthodoxy will become rich, famous and be treated like modern day Messiahs. They will be able to save the world from the huge costs predicted if even the most conservative of the SRES pans out to be true.

for Q&A: I am for sustainable development, and opposed to what I see as the unthinking belief that growth (of the economy, or population) is somehow the ultimate good. To me, 'climate change' is a fact of existence. I am well aware of the ways in which climate change has affected the shape of human history. 'AGW' is not the same thing. Our governments should be alert to climate change, sensitive to its implications, factor it in to their long-term goals (always assuming that they have any), and act with due diligence towards the people. They should, for example, point out that floods are likely in that area, and that building houses there is bad. They should, as Goyder did in South Australia, indicate the danger of growing wheat in areas of unreliable rainfall.

They should act with even more diligence with respect to AGW. It seems to me that there is abundant disagreement about it, at every level of the proposition. Nothing whatever that our government can do will make more than a trivial effect on global climate, even supposing that AGW is correct in every IPCC particular. What then? We are constantly being offered black/white, true/false alternatives. I think there is a huge grey and uncertain area between the choices. I would like to see that area explored, openly and publicly.

Finally, I accept that Professor Brooks sees the world as he does. It would be odd if he did not, given his position, though he might be more temperate in what he says. Likewise I would expect ministers and public servants in the environmental domain to be loud in their convictions that what they want is correct and must be done now. But I am simply a social scientist who thinks that climate change is an important area, and that we should move past what 'authorities' say, because they have an obvious interest in the outcome.

Don,

You say, “nothing whatever that our government can do will make more than a trivial effect on global climate.” I would go further, even if AGW is NOT “correct in every IPCC particular”, it would require ALL signatories of the UNFCCC to play ball. This is the difficulty we have been experiencing; this is where politics, economics and social differentiation play one off against the other (black/white, true/false … right/wrong, conservative/liberal, us/them, etc). Unless all players agree by the rules (that they are trying to formulate for post 2012) we may as well all ‘spit the dummy,’ pick up our individual balls, go home and put our blinkers on in our own little corner of the globe.

It is a huge task that the UNFCCC is trying to do, and no doubt is a mine-field for political or social scientists like you. But do it they must if the collective wisdom of the world sees AGW as a real threat to world stability – energy supplies, food/water resources, national security, biodiversity, etc.

I don’t think there is abundant disagreement about AGW. It is my belief there are ‘alarmists’ on both sides – the outliers, and the distribution curve of scientists that concur with AGW to those that don’t is heavily skewed to the former. It is true that there is some debate in scientific circles about attribution, sensitivity and feedbacks, but these are nuances that in time will be resolved. There are some genuine sceptics (in the scientific sense) whom I admire and wish well in breaking down the orthodoxy of AGW, but they have not been able to do that – time will tell.

We all have an obvious interest in the outcome. My sincere but as yet unanswered question to Barry (we are all busy) alluded to how scientists disseminate their knowledge to the public (while maintaining a semblance of normality) without the political dogma that many people perceive to be inculcated within the IPCC.

Q&A: My last for this thread. I spent most of my working life in the research domain. My reading of what I have encountered in re AGW is that the natural sciences are much more given to 'authority' than are the humanities and social sciences. The curve you refer to seems to me built on that 'authority'. Quite a lot of scientists have written to me supporting what I say and agreeing that I have it about right. They include very highly regarded people indeed. Why don't they take a public stand? Well, that is not their culture. They don't support what, for example, the Academy of Science says, but they don't publicly deny it either, even if they are Fellows. For one thing, climate change 'is not their area' and they are wary of being seen as someone who strays outside his domain, in case they say something and can be shot down. I would argue that, on the evidence, much of the supposed 'consensus' fits comfortably inside this culture.

It seems to me very likely that the earth's temperature (ie average global temp) has been warming for the past 150 + years, and quite slowly. Just about everything else seems to me highly conjectural, and the closer we get to AGW the more conjectural it gets.

Don, I acknowledge your background in research; you are a very respected, recognised and influential public figure, a man also given to authority. However, the debate is not about an appeal to authority, natural sciences vs humanities or social sciences. Put simply, I am not saying that something is true because experts agree - this is a logical fallacy.

What I am saying, and what my curve refers to, is that the vast majority of experts believe something because the vast majority of data supports that belief.

I appreciate that “a lot of scientists have written to you supporting what you say” and “include very highly regarded people.” However, it is not enough to say they don’t take a public stand because “it is not their culture” or “climate change is not their area.” It is not enough to say that “we don’t think this,” or “we don’t know that,” or “the models have flaws,” or “the IPCC have got it wrong”.

If your learned colleagues have serious doubts, they should investigate; if there is an alternate hypothesis, publish it; if there is a better model, run it; if there is something better than the IPCC process, let us hear it. To do otherwise amounts to blowing a smoke-screen at best or akin to distorting or misrepresenting the science at worse.

My last post as well. Thank you for engaging, I have enjoyed the dialogue and have gained further insight into the issues. I guess in a way, Barry has seen some fruition in his call to action; “Active and forthright public communication of science is not only an obligation of scientists, but a critical necessity. This is especially true for climate change and environmental sustainability.”

Regards