Clownfish and rpg it would help if you gave your sources. I have found this:
Flannery: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/24/2751492.htm

For anyone here who's interested in a serious discussion, here is my take.
I'm not responsible for Flannery or anyone else. However I understand him to be saying something like this. Scientists spend their time being sceptical. The bits that are not understood are what they focus on and argue about. We disagree all the time, and if we prove someone wrong our career is boosted. That makes your conspiracy theory pretty implausible. All the arguing does not mean the main conclusions are not agreed upon. The IPCC and other scientific bodies go to a great deal of effort to set down what most climate scientists *can* agree upon, despite the continuing debates. See
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/for-global-warming-sceptics/

The hackers have unearthed, and selectively released out of context, some of the normal scientific debate, which in private is often loose and impolite, as in most human affairs. (Like you, Clownfish and rpg, who choose anonymity.)

You can indulge in wild conspiracy theories, and few will believe you. As I keep asking, what about ExxonMobil et al., who have trillions at stake? What are their motives? Are they actively fostering doubt in gullible minds for their own financial advantage? We know they are, it's documented, here and overseas. So why is it that you choose to believe the noisy minority of dissenters? Are you really interested in understanding the science, and how the scientific process works, as a true sceptic would?

And can you make the judgement as to when the evidence is sufficient and the risk high enough that we ought to act anyway? Remember, the effects of today's emissions may not be felt for another 20 years. What if you're wrong? What will you tell your grandchildren? Especially as it really is not that hard or expensive to start reducing our emissions right now. In fact if we go about it the right way we can simultaneously deal with the several other global crises that are also upon us. See
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/

Geoff Davies: What if you're wrong? What will you tell your grandchildren?

Well I had to tell them I was wrong when in the 1970's they predicted Global Freezing by 2000.

Did anyone look at the Sahul Chart by Monash? Would someone like to comment on that?

Does it really matter if the sea does rise & the weather get hotter? A quick look at the benifits. In the Northern Hemisphere, the sea lanes will open across the Artic. More exploration above the Artic Circle. Sibera/Canada will open up vast more lands to Agriculture. I the Southern Hemisphere The northern Rainforests will expand & more rainfall will turn the inland of Australia green. Antartica will lose it Ice & it vast lands will be able to be exploited for the wealth there. The Great Barrier Reef will move southwards towards Brisbane & boon for tourism.

Sure some people will have to adapt, that may mean moving but that is what humans do. Adapt & move. Humans have been doing that for 4 million years. It's not a new thing. What is everybody worried about? The process will take hundreds of years anyway.

Geoff, you seem to have missed my point: you've repeatedly hosed down skeptics referring to the cooling (or plateau) trend of last decade, and yet here is one of the most ardent alarmists conceding exactly that. My other point was that you also repeatedly dismiss skeptical scientists because they are not *climate* scientists, yet there seems to be a pattern of non-climate-scientist alarmists given free kicks.

This is one of the most pertinent features of "climategate" (bourbon shots to someone - *anyone* - who can make a better name stick! I loathe this lazy habit of attaching "gate" to scandals): a clear pattern of "groupthink", with any and every dissenting voice purposefully locked out of the "allowed" discussion.

I'll repeat (you may have missed my earlier post): I've never believed in, nor do I yet see, any evidence of "conspiracy", but what is clear is that, like Blondlot and his N-Ray acolytes, a small but very powerful clique have determinedly pushed an agenda, along the way engaging in highly unethical and quite probably illegal behaviour.

Yes, the hacked material was obtained illegally. So were the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate leaks. Getting on your high horse on that point is simply hypocritical. Of all people, George Monbiot has at least had the honesty to admit that "it's no use pretending ... there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request."

In fact, it's been more disappointing than anything to see the oft-cited top scientists in this field resort to unconvincing displays of high dudgeon, weak "the dog ate my homework" excuses and shoddy attempts to dismiss very real criticisms.

Disappointing, because it's the name of, and public faith in science generally that is being dragged through the mud by these gentlemen.

Oh, and don't try the "what did you do in the War, Daddy?" emotional blackmail for Cthulhu's sake, it's cheap and hollow.

Jayb: "What if you're wrong? What will you tell your grandchildren?"

Dear grandchildren,

I went along with the scientific consensus, thought that AGW was real, and wholeheartedly supported efforts to mitigate it. Its odd how things turn out, because even though AGW was wrong the things we did in response - putting in high speed electrified rail lines between cities, developing renewable energy sources, investing huge amounts of money in getting "clean" fast breeder nuclear plants working, de-centralising the electric grid, investing in energy storage solutions like dams and compressed air, turned out to be really good things to do anyway.

Dear grandchildren,

Its all lies. It was never AGW - this is all part of a natural cycle. Besides, what is your problem with most of the Polynesians moving in. They are the only reason we are winning at Rugby again. And isn't it good to have our northern border secure now that most of Indonesia is under water. That is where it belongs if you ask me. And for gods sake stop your pathetic whining about the heat in Cooktown. Yes, it is a dammed sight hotter than Adelaide but Adelaide is just a ghost town in the desert and has been for years. Get over it. Be glad my generation kept those coal fired power plants running so you at least have air conditioning.

Editor's Note: this letter is published as the last request of the grandmother, who died of malaria last week. It was returned to the sender as the grandchildren and their parents didn't survive the Category 6 cyclone that hit Cooktown that June. The grandfather that same year from heatstroke. He refused to conceded it was hot despite having no air conditioning. The summer load sheding that had just started at the time and he was intent of writing a letter to the premier, pointing out the huge refugee intake was pushing the states infrastructure to breaking point.

What if you're wrong etc

Do you write letters of apology to your grandchildren for the world wars? For the massacres in various places, for the holocaust?

Of course not, it's a sentimental and emotional hand wringing play at gaining sympathy for those with no valid reason other than, "we're really right you know"

That's not good enough.

You tell your kids and grandkids that life is tough, don't expect everyone else to chip in to make your life better, some people have better lives than others (ever been to Orissa state in India, now those people have a hard life).

This silly business that we have to share, because we are the haves, with the have nots, because they don't have is ridiculous - that's survival of the fittest, harsh, sure is but so is life.

Why did we bother trying to better ourselves, it's so we can pass on a better way of life to our children, not share it all with people who are not successful. Oh they didn't have the chances we have, so what?

Why is it our job to make it all better and everyone equal - what rubbish, when people in Australians realize that's the upshot of the climate socialist state, they will reject it - at the moment it's seen as a mild charity that was going to cost us each a dollar a week (PM Rudd last election), now it's up to $2 per day, and climbing.

Re: What if you’re wrong –

The point is not to induce guilt, it’s to focus on *risk*. If the consequence is catastrophic, even if you think the probability is small, the prudent course is to avoid increasing the probability. Climate scientists think the probability is well beyond 1% of some very nasty consequences, including a great deal of disruption and possibly millions of deaths. Most people wouldn’t get on a plane with that level of risk.

If the (sensible) remedy is not expensive (as distinct from Rudd's "remedy"), and it is beneficial in other ways (thanks rstuart), why would you wait? Why would you wait? Why all this outrage and name-calling?

Jayb –
You really ought to get informed on consequences.

Clownfish –
1. There is no network/conspiracy of scientists agreeing what we’re going to say. Do you think because Flannery allegedly says something I have to agree? 2. I think you misunderstand what Flannery was saying (verbally – words are not as carefully chosen as when writing). 3. Look at the graphs. There are some short-term drops, but the longer-term trend is clear. Yes the past 2-3 years have been cooler, but that does not negate the trend.

I have not dismisssed scientists because they are not climate scientists, keep your comments relevant. I’m not one either, but I know how to interpret data series.

Why do you automatically believe those who make accusations based on cherry-picked, out of context, informal communications? Where’s your scepticism? Isn’t it possible they’re pushing an agenda?

If some scientists push a message, perhaps that’s what they think the evidence demands. If the news is alarming, the messenger is not an alarmist.