The debate about Climate Change is increasingly acrimonious and defensive.  At core is conflict over whether or not anthropomorphic (human) carbon emissions are responsible for global warming.

This clash is comparable to Whythawk’s experiences in rating development organisations.  Too often the response has been, “Why are you rating us?  We didn’t cause the problem,” in shocked and morally outraged tones.  That isn’t the point, and we cast no aspersions on the underlying causes of particular ailments – we simply note that they exist and objectively measure whether the prevalence of these ailments is changing with time, and in what ways.

Climate change scientists should be doing the same.  Make no predictions based on complex and impenetrable equations filled with dubious and controversial assumptions.  Make no judgements about the "blame" of climate change.  Simply tell us whether or not climate change is happening and what the likely consequences of those changes are going to be over the short- and medium-term.

The problem with impartial observers and scientists judging their results and offering “blame” is that it risks triggering defensive responses.  And rightly so.  The average person is not deliberately attempting to murder the future.  No-one wants to be held personally responsible for the demise of the planet.  Yet that is precisely what climate change scientists are saying:  “We are 90% certain that human intervention has caused global warming,” say the scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).  Other organisations have been even more shrill.  George W Bush, who can hardly be blamed for creating the entire structure for modern society, is regularly acused of climate genocide.

The debate has stopped being about whether or not climate change is happening and whether or not it is something we should be concerned about.  Now it is about whether or not humans caused it and how we should be punished.

Chris Landsea, previously a leading scientist at the IPCC, resigned and publicly expressed his distaste.  Science has become the domain of politics.  Instead of simply reporting the facts and allowing them to be debated, scientists are attempting to game the system.

Recent research from a wide range of sources shows runaway global warming presenting itself on Neptune, Pluto and Mars (amongst others) and indicates that the Sun may be going through a period of heating that is triggering this run.  So global warming may be a threat to Earth but have an extraterrestrial cause.

When drought, plague or famine threatened Dark Ages Europe, it was usually blamed on the work of the devil or insufficient belief.  Steps were taken, sometimes hideously barbaric.  If a meteor were discovered to be heading towards the Earth now, we would attempt to take steps to stop it.  No-one would offer the opinion (well, no scientist) that we “deserve” the meteor as punishment.  It would be observed, the level of risk calculated, and solutions offered.

The same should be true of climate change investigations.  Who is responsible is immaterial.  If it were discovered to be the result of any other cause but the worst-case scenarios were still likely, would we say, “Oh, that’s fine then, it’s natural, we shouldn’t mess with it.”  Or would we - like we do with Malaria, TB, or international conflicts – do our best to stop the threat?

“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis,” says MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science, Richard Lindzen.

Scientists and analysts are at their most useful and powerful when they are impartial.  When they sacrifice that they discredit not only themselves, but the entire debate.