Dear Robin

Global warming science and climate policy face a severe and deepening crisis of credibility. The whole climate agenda is confronted by growing doubt and criticism, not least as a result of the so-called Climategate scandal, the Copenhagen fiasco and the revelations about the IPCC's alarmist claims based on unreliable sources.

This crisis is shaking the scientific and political establishments to the core. The scientific community is haemorr­haging integrity and authority at an unprecedented speed and scale. What we are witnessing is a growing backlash over the suppression of scientific data, the exaggeration of global warming impacts and the maltreatment of climate critics. While eminent scientists are suddenly calling for more openness and a dialogue with critics of the conventional view on global warming, the UK government has declared war on so-called climate sceptics who are rapidly gaining ground in the eyes of an increasingly sceptical public.

But how can anyone take the government seriously when it stubbornly fails to heed the advice by its own chief scientific adviser? Professor John Beddington has publicly rebuked scientists and politicians for exaggerating the impact of global warming and urged an honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change. In marked contrast, Ed Miliband, in an interview with your own paper last Sunday, revels in unqualified climate alarmism. He predicted that the next IPCC report, which is not scheduled to be finalised before September 2014, would show that the impact of global warming is more dramatic than the IPCC's 2007 report implied.

Mr Miliband and his senior scientists are ignoring the most important advice outlined by the government's chief scientific advisor: although the basic science of the greenhouse effect is sound (ie, more anthropogenic CO 2 means more warming) what is uncertain is the magnitude and timescale of the effect. Future warming could be pronounced, it could be moderate or it could be insignificant. Moreover, it could be eclipsed by other factors that scientists admit are not well understood. Beddington has made clear that scientists don't know for sure given the complexities of the climate system.

The problem with climate science and climate policy in the UK is that it is completely controlled by a group of individuals who are convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in order to scare the public into submission for costly policies.

Above all, the complete failure of Britain's climate policy in Copenhagen shows that conventional climate policies have no future. What is necessary now is the development of alternative approaches that are politically realistic and economically feasible. In order for a new climate realism to be successful, the government and government agencies should start to engage and involve critics of conventional climate politics. Instead of continuing to follow the futile approaches and failed policies promoted by climate alarmists, policy makers would be well advised to introduce more balanced and more transparent assessments of climate science and policy research.

Best regards, Benny

Dear Benny

Thank you for your email, which encapsulates very neatly the various exaggerations and baseless allegations that are used to support so many global warming deniers' arguments. You state that UK climate policy is controlled by a small number of scientists who regularly ignore and suppress inconvenient data and who make continued exaggerated claims about the dangers facing our planet in order to scare the public into submission for costly policies. It is a perfect conspiracy, in short.

Just why a large number of decent, hard-working, conscientious researchers – involved in meteorology, geology, glacier studies, atmospheric physics, and other climate science disciplines – should suddenly seek to conspire in this unprecedented manner is not explained. Nor do you provide evidence that they are, in fact, doing so. Like so much climate change denial, your email is strong on rhetoric but is painfully thin on science or on evidence.

You also state the climate science is suffering a severe crisis in credibility thanks to the failure of negotiators to reach a proper international deal to limit global warming at Copenhagen two months ago. I am baffled why you should think this is the case. The fact that these individuals did not understand the kind of risks facing the world, and so failed to reach a proper agreement, in no way undermines the cause of the men and women who have highlighted the dangers and outlined what will happen if we continue to pump billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. The fault lies with politicians, not the science.

You also argue that the leaking of climate research emails and revelations about the IPCC's alarmist claims about glacier melting have dealt a fatal blow to the cause of climate change. But then you would say that, wouldn't you? It is the nature of the climate denial cause to blow up minimal bits of evidence to bursting point. The release of the East Anglia University emails is indeed embarrassing, but only slightly, for they contain no evidence of the suppression of significant chunks of science. And while the IPCC's failure to properly peer-review that piece of evidence is to be regretted, it was one flaw in a report running to many hundreds of pages. The basic thesis of the IPCC document still stands: our planet is in danger.

You and other climate change deniers claim that there is no connection between rising carbon levels and global warming and so spend your time nitpicking at every assumption and claim made by scientists about the climate over the next 100 years. But how comfortable are you about your own cause? If we continue on our current trajectory, which you apparently think is an acceptable one, scientists say there is strong risk temperatures will rise by 5C by 2100. If that happens, the planet will roast, deserts will spread, ice caps will melt, coastal regions will suffer devastating floods and billions will be left homeless. The world's misery will be unparalleled. You say this will not happen. But how sure are you? Can you demonstrate with the same confidence and transparency as climate scientists that we have absolutely nothing to fear? And if you say you can, point to studies that underpin your argument that everything is tickety-boo and will continue to be so for centuries. Let me be plain. I believe you and your colleagues are behaving in a hugely irresponsible manner and are putting future generations at immense risk.

Best, Robin

Dear Robin

Since you accuse me of positions that I do not hold and attack straw men which I did not set up, I shall refrain from repeating myself. Instead, I will try to set out why I believe that both climate science and climate policy are unlikely to recover any time soon from their current predicament.

When it comes to the global warming scare, the factors of shock and novelty have lost much of their potency. Climate fatigue and cynicism, if not outright scepticism, are becoming widespread among the public, editors and even a number of policy makers.

During the past 10 years, green campaigners and environmental journalists have turned climate change into a mega-scare and climate alarmism into a new "consensus". By accusing reasonable critics of apocalyptic hysteria to be "deniers", they have excluded a sizable section of the ­scientific community from voicing disquiet about the risk this strategy of fear-mongering entails. For far too long, scientific organisations and the mainstream media did not give appropriate space to authoritative critics of inflated climate alarm.

The reason for the manifest lack of balance is easy to understand: "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen," Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three IPCC reports, stressed as early as 1994. There can be little doubt about the aptness of his recommendation: Without the prospect of near or imminent catastrophe, there would be no social movement and little political pressure for extremely costly and exceptionally risky climate policies.

The distinct lack of balance on global warming (by leading members of the scientific establishment, environmental journalists and government officials) is now causing a real backlash. In fact, the emergence of a powerful counter-culture on the blogosphere is no longer reliant on mainstream media. It is driven by new technologies and fed by independent bloggers and researchers who increasingly publish their research and investigations on interactive and autonomous media platforms.

You invoke all sorts of worst-case scenarios. You denounce scepticism and an even-handed evaluation of evidence because any balanced assessment of global warming is likely to further delay any global agreement on costly climate policies. You greatly exaggerate, without any supporting evidence, the likelihood of disaster, while you ignore the heavy cost, in human as well as economic terms, of the policies you wished to see agreed at Copenhagen and still apparently espouse.

Good science requires a sober consideration of all relevant evidence.

Instead of emphasising certainty and fervour, it readily admits knowledge gaps and uncertainty. It weighs up all data and arguments unconditionally – pro and con – and evaluates the evidence in an impartial, detached and fair-minded manner, irrespective of political considerations or implications.

In contrast, climate alarmism suffers from a manifest lack of scientific scrutiny. Instead of carefully weighing up and critically assessing the quality and reliability of the data, alarmists habitually cherry-pick data and interpretations that seem to confirm their conviction that disaster is around the corner. This manifest bias lies at the heart of the science scandals that have made front page headlines in recent weeks. Unless the scientific community can stop and reverse this dangerous development, the crisis of credibility science increasingly faces is likely to worsen.

Best regards, Benny

Dear Benny

You flagrantly misrepresent the facts when you claim that "a sizeable section of the scientific community" has been excluded from voicing its disquiet about fear-mongering and climate change. Only a handful of truly reputable scientists are sceptical about the link between global warming and our industrial activities. More to the point, that minority is given a vastly disproportionate amount of publicity. Note the same old faces – the Lawsons and Moncktons – who are trotted out to speak on ­Newsnight or Channel 4 News whenever climate change is debated.

By contrast, there is a vast regiment of scientists, including dozens of Nobel prize winners and hundreds of scientists involved in the preparing of IPCC reports, who can speak persuasively to the other side of the debate and who have made it very clear they believe there is a real danger to our planet if humanity fails to limit its output of greenhouse gases.

You accuse these scientists of cherry-picking evidence – rich coming from a member of the climate denial camp, which does little else but carefully select minute discrepancies in reports but which has shown scant ability to muster a coherent scientific argument of its own. You also describe proposed measures to limit carbon output as "exceptionally risky". In what way do they pose danger? Are you really saying that if we develop new technologies, such as wind, wave and tidal power plants, in order to wean ourselves from the use of fossil fuels, that we will directly harm ourselves? What utter nonsense. On political grounds alone, it is simple common sense to reduce our consumption of gas and oil supplies which are controlled, in many cases, by Russia, the Middle East and Venezuela.

And that, at the end of the day, is what makes your cause such a pernicious one. You are actually happy when an international meeting like the Copenhagen summit fails and consider this to be a good result for the planet. It is not. It is a dreadful setback. You also claim to see conspiracies among climate-change supporters where, palpably, there are none. At the same time, some of your sister organisations in the US have actually received funds from organisations with ties to the oil and gas industries.

Your cause is debased because it is an advocacy of inaction. Humanity is showing unusual foresight trying to deal with a problem that will only manifest its worst aspects in several decade. Yet you willfully misrepresent the scientific process which has demonstrated quite clearly the risks of continuing to do nothing to reduce the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases that we are pumping into the atmosphere and which resulted in the last decade being the warmest on record.

I therefore repeat my request, which you conspicuously ignored in your last email: can you demonstrate with the same confidence and transparency that is by employed climate scientists that the world has absolutely nothing to fear? And if you say you can, point to the studies that underpin your argument. I strongly suspect you cannot.

That is why you have already ducked the question. I look forward to your next email.

Best, Robin

Dear Robin

By now, most readers will have noticed you constantly banging on about the link between global warming and CO 2 emissions although this is not a point that I have questioned. What I am rejecting is the dogmatic certainty with which you claim that global warming will inevitably trigger global catastrophe and that anybody who dares to distrust your apocalyptic predictions is a 'denier.'

Your aggressive rhetoric and line of attack is a strategy of intimidation.

Its real target are open-minded scientists and millions of people who no longer accept the apocalyptic party line and authoritarian policy prescriptions promoted by green campaigners.

You ask whether I doubt that global warming poses a potential risk. Of course it does. So do asteroid impacts, nuclear warfare and ice ages, to name just a few. What these potential risks have in common is that they have a low probability but a high impact. Just because we cannot rule out any of these risks doesn't mean that there is a need for panic measures. In the case of global warming, I suggest that you accept the advice by Professor John Beddington, the UK's chief scientist: stop exaggerating the impact of global warming and accept the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change.

I am not advocating political inaction. Far from it. While I reject economically damaging and, for that reason, politically unattainable climate policies, I am in favour of adapting to a changing climate and making our societies more resilient, as mankind has throughout its existence. Today's and tomorrow's high technologies enable us to do that more effectively than ever before. What is more, better monitoring technologies it will provide us with more reliable data about the extent and dynamics of climate change.

In all likelihood, we will not know for the next 20 or 30 years who is right or wrong on the scale and impact of global warming. The stalemate in international climate negotiations is likely to become cemented for years to come. As long as global temperatures remain more or less stable, as long as climate policies and green taxes are a growing political liability and as long as the deadlock between the West and the rest of the world lingers, we should not expect much progress in the heated climate debates. I believe the time has come to bring back reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become irrationally alarmist and all too often depressingly intolerant.

Best regards, Benny

Dear Benny

I am sorry if I have upset your sensibilities, though I find it rich that a climate sceptic is troubled by "aggressive rhetoric". The abuse heaped by many of your supporters on those who disagree with them is a lot more offensive than I anything I have said. You should be able to swallow your own medicine by now.

In its last report, the IPCC said it now thought it very likely that, if left unabated, greenhouse gas increases could make the planet a further 3C hotter by 2100, and possibly 4.5C to 5C. If the latter scenario occurs, the consequences could be catastrophic. Ample evidence to back these precise assertions was supplied by the panel, which is noted for its conservative inclinations and which is certainly not "irrationally intolerant" as you misleadingly suggest.

I asked you, twice, to match this careful forecast and let us know, in detail, what you think is the precise risk of allowing carbon emission rises unabated. I also asked you to highlight those scientific reports on which you base your claims that the IPCC is wrong and that we have nothing to worry about from greenhouse gases.

But as I predicted, you have been unable to give such assurances, never mind provide scientific backing for dismissing the dangers posed by greenhouse gases. You have flunked this basic test and instead have attempted to fob off the public with a vague forecast that global warming catastrophe is as unlikely to occur as an asteroid striking the Earth or a nuclear war breaking out.

But which? The risks of these two events are very different indeed. The first is remote but the second is worry­ingly real - why do you think there is such concern about the nuclear plans of Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan?

You also deny that you espouse inaction. This is a disingenuous claim - to say the least. Your whole cause rests on your opposition to the introduction of any climate-calming measures because you think the dangers of pumping of billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere are still not established. Yet, when pressed, you cannot provide any support for such assertions.

Thus you ask the world to take an astonishing gamble but provide no rationale for taking it. But then your cause never was based on scientific principles. It rests, instead, on a bedrock of right-wing, libertarian politics. Sceptics instinctively dislike suggestions that we need to curb our profligate lifestyles and so seek ways to discredit those who promote such action. Thus deniers nitpick at evidence and recoil in horror when a single mistake is uncovered in a huge IPCC report - a "crime" for which panel chief Rajendra Pachauri was expected to resign.

Yet deniers' own literature is littered with grotesque exaggerations and errors. The egregious nonsense promoted by Ian Plimer in his books, in which he claims volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans, is an example. Then there is your foundation's website which was recently found to be displaying a version of a Met Office temperature graph that had been altered so that it obscured the fact that eight of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the 21st century. I note you have not resigned.

You say that we will not know for another 20 to 30 years who is right: the scientist or the denier. By then, of course, the damage – whatever its nature – will have been done. So we have a choice. We can take the option suggested by climate science and act now. If that turns out to be wrong, we will merely have cleaned up our planet a little earlier than necessary. However, if you are wrong, then millions of people will lose their homes and possibly their lives. When you think about it, it's not a very difficult choice.

Regards, Robin