Good science, bad debate

In these days of environmental certainty where the accusation of being a climate change denier carries the same social stigma of admitting hold an RBS directorship, it is interesting to read that the Met Office now plans to review 160 years of temperature data.

The announcement comes, says the Times, after an admission that, “public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails”. Analysis work is scheduled to take three years to complete.

The move reportedly goes against urgings by government ministers – who probably to see an environmental accord at Copenhagen as something along the lines of Gordon’s legacy - in which he actually does save the world. But the close working links between the Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which has figured in claims of temperature data manipulation, makes the action inevitable if scientific credibility is to be re-affirmed.

Met Office sources claim to be confident that the review will verify the figures but also say that there are plans for a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

Of course, none of this helps in a debate over climate trends where expert opinion remains as changeable as the weather and it often seems that as much, if not more, effort is expended on rubbishing the respective messengers rather than the message.

If it all comes down, as it so often does, to a matter of trust then it is vital for citizens to feel that a distinction still exists between the respective roles of scientists and politicians. For a great many people, the increasing tendency by both groups to confuse evidence with agendas represents just as big an obstacle for the planet.