Writing in The Australian last week, Maurice Newman, banker, stockbroker, climate change sceptic, and the Abbott government’s principal business adviser, informed his readers that “there has been no global warming since September 1996”. Nice, simple, factual statement. But the climate scientists I know tell me it is drivel. The problem is that you are not going to persuade Mr Newman, or those who agree with him, by showing them more graphs, or talking about heat transfer to the oceans. Because for all of us, the UCL commission report says, beliefs come first, and science second. We accept information that confirms our prior beliefs, and reject information that does not. It’s called “my side bias”, and it has nothing to do with intelligence or education. On the contrary: the people at greater risk of becoming polarised over climate change are those who perceive themselves as intelligent and scientifically literate.

That’s because the debate about climate science, though ostensibly about facts and numbers and projections, actually engages some of our most fundamental political values: whether we favour big government or small; unregulated or regulated markets; whether we preference individual liberties or the social good – in other words, the very issues which distinguish “right” from “left”. And because it engages these fundamental world-views, says the report: It has of course become blindingly obvious that whether or not you accept the findings of what the report calls 'the climate science community' depends crucially on your politics. people’s natural inclination [is] to denigrate those who hold opposing convictions. So the climate change debate brings out the worst in all of us.

It has of course become blindingly obvious that whether or not you accept the findings of what the report calls “the climate science community” depends crucially on your politics. It shouldn’t, but it does. But what can the climate scientists do about it? Well, the UCL policy commission is clear about some things that they should NOT do. They shouldn’t wash their hands of the debate, and bury their heads in their computer printouts. Our view is that the communication and explanation of results is not an optional role: it should be an obligation. Still less should scientists (and other advocates) exaggerate the threats posed by global warming, in the hope that they can scare the public and the politicians into action. What the report calls “alarmism” has been counter-productive, it argues.

The failure of specific predictions of climate change to materialise creates the impression that the climate science community as a whole resorts to raising false alarms. The report doesn’t include even one example of the kind of alarmist predictions its authors have in mind. That’s unfortunate, because the so-called sceptics label “alarmist” anyone who argues that the accumulation of atmospheric greenhouse gases from human activity poses a significant danger. By those standards, the commission itself is very “alarmist” indeed: Climate science offers a stark message: that to avoid serious future risks, rapid transformative action is required to reconfigure the world’s energy generation system, the economic system and global political practices. “Time for Change?” outlines the problem facing climate science with great clarity. Sadly, I don’t have much faith that its suggested solutions will work. It calls for the formation of a global professional body that can accredit climate scientists, and provide “a clear route for engagement between the climate science community and policymakers”.

That’s roughly the job the Gillard government’s Climate Commission was supposed to do. But it achieved no across-the-board acceptance. It was widely reviled by the sceptics, and the Abbott government abolished it within weeks of gaining power. The UCL policy commission, with supreme optimism, recommends a more “co-productive” approach by climate scientists – a genuine attempt to work with decision-makers to find ways forward that everyone can accept. But it recognises that “progress will require a willingness and openness on the part of government and other policy stakeholders … to commit to such an approach”. Well, if by “other stakeholders” the commission means the sceptics, inside or outside government, don’t hold your breath. The way the report itself has been treated by much of the media illustrates the problem. News Corporation’s The Times of London published a story last week that focused almost entirely on the couple of pages (in a 150 page report) that scolded climate change “alarmists”. That story (republished by The Australian under the headline: “Alarmism hurts climate science”) was gleefully taken up by the sceptical blogosphere. The Spectator Australia published an editorial that utterly misrepresented the report, conflated the “alarmism” the commission condemns with the science it supports, and concluded: “For Australians to pay the slightest heed to the global warming alarmists is like letting Wayne Swan handle your superannuation portfolio.”

Ho ho. How witty. The UCL commission says climate scientists should reach out to such people in a search for common ground. That will be tough. It might not be “co-productive” to call climate change sceptics rude names; but it’s a temptation that’s hard to resist. Jonathan Holmes is an Age columnist and a former presenter of the ABC’s Media Watch program.