I read this piece yesterday by Bjorn Lomborg. And amid all the bluster it's worth thinking about. It's always going to be horrible when science, politics and economics collide, but increasingly this area is looking more a more of an expensive and unsatisfactory mess. My view is roughly: AGW is a perfectly plausible theory and seems to be supported by the data available but ongoign research should be encouraged Unfotunately the science has been politicised so that anyone dissenting form the majority view is labeled a "Climate change denier" (as in "holocaust denier"). Sensible public policy and international agreements to deal with this would be a good thing However much policy has been corrupted by political nesessity, industrial policy, green idiology and short-termism It is never better to "Do something, do anything" than to wait and do the right thing at the right time. It is not the job of scientists to try and move public opinion or get political results. We have lots of politicians for that. What I mean by this is that an issue that should need pure unbiased research, considered political reaction and properly thought out policy and public education has got politics-driven research, self-serving political planning, short-term and inefficient policy and hysterical scare stories in the media. Now my worry for some time is that we have pretty daft policies. E.g. subsidising solar in a northern latitude country and spending vast amounts on importing inefficient Chinese solor panels and granting a nice income to oweners of large properties that can fit lots of panels. The policitians then claim they have created "Green jobs", which turn out to be blokes on ladders fitting the things. What we should be doing is to spend the money on fundamental research and then implement the technology when it is actually efficient to do so. AFAIK the UK currently spends 5.8bn on renewable energy subsidies. Even half of that spent of research into energy efficient technology would have a massive impact. Do that for ten years and you won't need to subsidise the production of the products. What we have is a horrible convergence of interest between politicians looking for a reason to get credit for spending money, environmentalists that see it as a cause and business looking to make a no-risk buck from the taxpayer.