It's a pity that climate change scientists have to spend so much time debunking falsehoods - especially when those spouting them have already made their minds up, writes Greg Jericho.

This time of the year often brings with it news on climate change. Partly this is because the various agencies recording global temperatures are releasing their annual measures, and partly because invariably we have some pretty hot weather here in Australia.

This year the quirk amidst the usual plethora of reporting and opinion pieces has been the response to an op-ed by the chair of Tony Abbott's "Business Advisory Council", Maurice Newman.

Newman usually pops up on opinion pages or in speeches to variously decry the pay of those on minimum wage; rail against wind farms because they are, among other things, "a danger to human health"; or attack climate change.

Now, he's not exactly Robinson Crusoe when it comes to writing about how climate change is all a bit a myth. Heck, it's almost a prerequisite if you wish to get a regular gig excreting your thoughts over the pages of the News Corp dailies.

Of course News Corp's head Rupert Murdoch once said we should "give the planet the benefit of the doubt", but the point of his utterly meaningless phrase is really just to allow his columnists, journalists and editors to repeat it in an attempt to suggest it balances out the avalanche of distorted (or completely wrong) information which lands on their pages.

It's to be expected though that editors and faux rational opinion writers tackle climate change. After all, they, like those who work for think-tanks such as the IPA, know it is in their financial interests to deny the science. It's as good for readership as it is good for raising donations from mining companies. And besides, you can't spend all your time pretending you care about free speech.

But when the person writing such ignorant piffle is the head of a select group of people appointed to give advice to the Prime Minister, it does perhaps behove us to treat his muttering as more than just clickbait. If only his opinions were worthy of such treatment.

After all, as Newman makes quite clear, he is "not a climate scientist", and we would all be much better off listening to experts.

The difficulty with responding to such amateur climate-change commentators is you have to parse every sentence for accuracy. For example, Newman starts his argument stating he has "closely followed this debate for more than two decades, having been seasoned originally by the global cooling certainty of the 1970s".

Alas, that "certainty" amounted to 10 per cent of all published scientific articles on climate change from 1956 to 1979. This compared to 62 per cent of such articles during that period predicting warming, with the rest taking no position.

If he thinks 10 per cent is certainty, I can't wait till Mr Newman discovers the 97 per cent support for global warming that now exists among climate scientists (or the 99.8 per cent support found in another survey).

But no. We all know that won't sway the "sceptical".

Far better instead to talk about how he really does "believe in climate change" (natural change that is).

The deniers of the science always like to suggest the issue of climate change is too much like a religion - that it's all about "belief". In reality, they are the one most linking religion to the debate - usually by suggesting their opponents are "zealots".

Do I believe in climate change? Sure, in the same way I believe Australia is a better cricket team than England at the moment based on the fact we have beaten the absolute bejeezus out of them in both Tests and one day games this summer. Just because I might use the word "believe" doesn't make my view a religious one.

Newman doesn't rely only on faith either. He notes the "dispassionate" work of Dr Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). Unfortunately, Mr Newman neglected to mention that the week before he wrote his piece, Dr Spencer announced the UAH measurement of global temperatures found 2013 was the fourth hottest year since 1978.

Ahh well. Next year perhaps.

Mr Newman's op-ed received more attention than it deserved because he echoed the challenge made by Richard Lindzen of any scientists to bet that the world would be warmer in 20 years time. Quite quickly Nobel Laureate Brian Schmidt wrote that he would bet Newman $10,000, that the three year average of 2023-2025 would be warmer than 2013-2015. Soon after other scientists also said they'd bet money that the temperature would be warmer in 20 years.

The bet is pretty much money in the bank. The last time the rolling 3 years average was lower than it was 20 years prior was in 1967:

However, it is a pity scientists need to make such wagers. You would hope a near half a century of evidence would be considered enough. But no, it seems we need 70 years.

Michael E. Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, recently wrote in The New York Times that scientists need to engage in the public debate. It's unfortunate that the public debate most often involves debunking oft-debunked statements, indulging in misconstrued arguments and responding to statements which, whether they are true or not, carry little scientific weight.

The biggest problem is such scientists have to deal with people whose opinions will never change. No one thinks that if the planet is hotter in 20 years time that any of the current denier camp like Mr Newman will be convinced.

But scientists need to engage in such debates lest denier columnists and members of the public who have neither the time nor inclination to read scientific journal articles will suggest the reason scientists won't respond to the bet is because Newman has a point.

We could I guess look at a chart of the 40 hottest years and note that 36 of them occurred in the past 40 years (and 2013 is expected to come well in the top 10) and think, well, maybe there is a bit of a trend there:

But no. We clearly need to wait another 20 years before we do anything - just to be sure. And best of all for those who think such things, if they're wrong it'll be too late to do anything anyway. At this point they might blame climate scientists and politicians for not being forceful enough in their advocacy.

But more likely they'll just say it's all due to other factors - the sun perhaps - and then they'll note that anyway it's too early to tell, after all back in the 1970s all scientists thought the world was cooling.

Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. He tweets at @GrogsGamut. View his full profile here.