Downing says ‘we see this filtering through to the number who say that they’re not convinced that scientists can successfully model the climate.`

We then point out that it is not just sceptics who are ‘[un]convinced that scientists can successfully model the climate’. Trenberth says, ‘There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess…’

Andrew then tells us that ‘but almost all climate scientists agree that it is a crisis’.

Whatever the truth of that, it does nothing to justify Downing’s remarks. A crisis doesn’t let anybody say what they want about climate science. As Andrew says ‘To imply otherwise is misleading at best’.

Andrew mentions ‘basic tenets of climate change’. Like Downing, he seems to confuse the tenets with the science.

“So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.”

In other words, he agrees with the basic tenets of climate change and that we must do something about it.

Where he doesn’t think there is agreement is in the details, as he says in the next paragraph:

“However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.”

Note that he isn’t saying that we’re on the wrong path, or that there’s anything wrong with the (mostly) consensus view, but simply that there’s a lot more work to do.

So, don’t go implying that there’s some trouble brewing in science-land. Of course, there’s talk and there’s disagreement and infighting, but almost all climate scientists agree that it is a crisis. To imply otherwise is misleading at best.

Rupert Wyndham