I don't think anyone disagrees that the climate changes or is changing now - we don't actually need that proved do we.

What is often questioned is whether there is a contribution from mankind, how much that might be, whether it can be limited or removed - (mind you some people want it reversed, but that's a bigger delusion than can be handled in this forum.)

I do agree with the author though that what will come out of Copenhagen will not relate to science but to self interest. So all the hysterical types I expect will get their wish that nothing will happen and their careers of activism will not be diminished.

Let's face it, if all the world's countries agreed to cut emissions and went home and turned off all the electricity that caused CO2 and stopped flying around the world, using cars etc - would the activists be happy. I'm guessing no, because well, there goes the entire reason for finger wagging existence.

"As we enter another round of negotiations in Copenhagen it is vital that we understand the many valid reasons for disagreeing about climate change. We must recognise that they are rooted in different political, national, organisational, religious and intellectual cultures - in different ways of 'seeing the world'."

Some of them are also based on facts and measurements which fail to support the prevailing AGW hypothesis. It's a little condescending to claim that those of us who are sceptical about AGW are just culturally misaligned. What's next -- do we need 're-education'?

no jj you don't need re-education, if you can't see the writing on the wall by now you are never gonna see it. re-education for the likes of you would be a waste of time and money. we'll get on with it, you may continue your whinges of course, and we will politely ignore you and save your great grandchildrens' lives for you. and no...don't worry, it's ok, we don't expect thanx.

Mike, I suppose it's OK for such exalted persons ar a climate change professor to tell bare faced lies. Important to get the message through, no matter how, is it?

The truth is that nobody has ever demonstrated, or elaborated any evidence that CO2 has any real effect on climate.

The only thing promoting this fiction is computer models, & the predictions based on these models are getting further, & further from the actual climate we are experiencing.

Even IPCC authors are now forcasting a couple of decades of cooling, following almost a decade of just that. If you can show any IPCC scenario which forcast such an event, you just may save some integrity, but I'm afraid you will have trouble finding any.

This last gasp of the AGW gravey train is most unbecoming to the scientific community.

The question was I believe, what to do about it? Well the politicians do seem to know, charge everyone more for everything, More taxes, more taxes....

The IPPC are changing their view by the way and so called man-made global warming is starting to be questioned.So people stay tuned before you start agreeing to exorbitant taxes in the name of turning off global warming. By the way, it can't be done. The world will turn and climate will change and nature has a way of overcoming.

Why do we have the audacity to think we can change nature or the world, the sun and the stars. We are no more than microbes in the scheme of things. Species will live and die and humans are no more than a species. So look at the big picture if you have the capacity.

Like other articles by many similar academics, the “assumption close” is used to open the gambit. The assumption is that AGW does exist. Taking this as an undisputed given, the article then stealthily leads us to the socio/political domain because the scientists have concluded their deliberations and it is now time for some other domain to take over.

This approach by such as Mike Hulme is a direct admission that the scientists have not, and cannot conclude anything; they can no longer be trusted so let’s just trash them and move to a domain where we can influence an outcome without scientific conclusions, i.e. Politics.

Mike Hulme was founding director of the UK based Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. This organization is one of the institutions that endorsed David Mackay’s research on achievable renewables for the UK, a maximum contribution from all renewable sources of 9.5%. A figure that cannot keep pace with demand growth, even with that maximum capacity now!

Australia continues with dreamlike targets of 20%, or if the Greens have their way 30%.

We continue to dream that “clean coal” technology will emerge as one of the saviors of the planet, whilst failing to recognize that “if” we ever achieve this technology, we will have to increase the thermal efficiency by 20% to achieve 10% carbon capture. That of course means burning 20% more coal or inventing 20% more efficient coal combustors.

The same sections of our community who insist on unrealistic renewable contributions and non-existent clean coal technology, are that same communities that have, for some 50 years, infected governments with the political “poison pill” that has stunted nuclear energy development.

That brings us nicely back to the thrust of this article by Mike Hulme. By moving the debate into the socio/political arena it can be influenced by ideology rather than reality.

Future generations will have every right to vilify us, they will do so because we allowed ourselves to be diverted by unrealistic, unachievable, unproven, feel good and ideologically driven concepts, whilst sitting on proven technology that could have significantly reduced our carbon footprint.