jamesp & TBYJ:

I (genuinely) think you're being unfair to Alice. She is sure - as are so many people - that AGW is real and dangerous. For her, the overriding priority therefore is what to do about it and she doesn't wish to be distracted from that. She's quite open about her position on this: "I don’t claim to hide that I have assumptions about the science". Nonetheless, she recognises that some (e.g. Geoff) don't agree and suggests they discuss the matter elsewhere. That seems to me to be entirely reasonable. Here's what I said in the first paragraph of my (sole) comment:

You’re right to remind Geoff that there are other, more appropriate places to discuss the practicalities of how best to reduce GHG emissions and to investigate your and the World Bank’s assumptions about climate science. And it’s just as well: no one needs yet another tedious debate about wind turbines or the reality or otherwise of dangerous man-made climate change.

The fact that she sees the issue as an opportunity to progress a left-wing agenda (economic and social change) is another matter altogether.

TBYJ: yes, it's starting to stick in my craw as well. And I'd love to be able to shout at these people that they should take their fingers out of their ears and start listening. But, like Alice, I think we have to decide our priorities - focus our energies.

There are many things that worry me about the likely outcome of current energy and climate policies and about "green" action and lobbying. For example, at one extreme, I'm seriously concerned that a combination of a severe winter, high pressure with little or no wind and zero effective back-up could mean massive urban disruption causing utter misery and thousands of deaths; few people appreciate the extreme fragility of a modern city. More immediately, I know just how dependent most disabled and elderly people are on reliable electric power and how they would suffer if that reliability were jeopardised.

I want to do anything I can to help the UK come to its senses and avoid such outcomes. One possible approach is to try to communicate with supporters of current policy. But, in doing so, what's my best course - (a) to get into more endless and rancorous argument about climate science (especially as I have neither relevant experience nor qualification) or (b) to show how current policies exacerbate these risks and, in any case, are pointless in the light of international political reality?

Of course (b) is a long shot. But I've little doubt it's a far better bet than (a).

Paul: Judith Curry discusses this interesting development here. It seems those Republicans have (surprisingly sensibly) been reading my posts : )

There seems to be a note of defeatism creeping into this discussion: a feeling that these people (i.e. pretty well the entire "Establishment") are so out of touch with basic, practical reality that there's really no prospect of persuading them that current climate policies could well be leading to misery and disaster. It's almost - it seems to me - as if some of us regard such people as unworthy of our attention.

I refuse to accept that. As I said yesterday, I want to do anything I can to help the UK come to its senses. OK, it's a long shot - but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. And in my view the optimum way to do it is (a) to construct a simple message outlining the probability of damaging consequences of current policies coupled with a reiteration of the pointlessness of it all in view of international political and economic reality and (b) to communicate that message using - as John Shade very helpfully noted at 12:06 PM - "the odious Alinksy's rules against [these] intolerant authoritarian ideologues".

I strongly recommend reading the short article to which John provided a link.