One version of the 'hockey stick graph', which depicts rising temperatures, as used by the IPCC in 2001.
Credit: IPCC
A few old geology and meteorology practitioners, in particular, are very uncomfortable with this process and over-state the case that their 'historical knowledge' is being ignored.
Surely everyone understands that there have been enormous changes in the world's climate through geological time some of which humanity, and certainly not 6.8 billion people, could not readily survive.
I've been advised to read geophysicist David Archer's The Long Thaw (published by Princeton University Press). You might also check the website of the Geological Society of America.
Being sceptical is fine, but any senior scientist who denies outright a position taken by the vast majority of his active, younger colleagues better be absolutely sure that he/she understands current and emerging data sets and deals with them in a way that is both competent and intellectually rigorous.
Perhaps you've read that the famous 'hockey stick' graph is fraudulent. Look, for example, at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Palaeoclimatology website to see the validated version of the hockey stick graph.
Like biologists, these climate scientists have benefited from massive advances in computing and other technology. For example, new satellites are now able to measure the depth and not just the circumference of the ice fields.
This complex and continually evolving process requires pulling information together from a spectrum of disciplines ranging from astrophysics, to glaciology and marine biology. That's why the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is so important.
A very broad spectrum of specialists collates published, peer-reviewed research from a variety of areas and summarises the information in ways that policy makers and others can comprehend. Despite what you might read the IPCC reports are nuanced and very conservatively written (perhaps too much so). Look for yourself.
Take, for example, the recent beat-up in a national newspaper that claimed the IPCC process is discredited because the ice mass in Antarctica is increasing (and, on average, the world is briefly cooling), though the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is breaking up.
If you look in the IPCC's reports, you will find that they actually predicted 5 to 20% more precipitation and ice over Antarctica through the next century, due to greater hydrological activity in the warmer regions of the Southern Hemisphere.
Though it is by no means imminent, the complete melt down of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause sea levels to rise in excess of five metres. Dealing with that in ways that don't involve serious conflict will require a level of social and political sophistication that has hitherto been lacking on our small planet.
We can't afford to be self-serving and simplistic as we approach the complexities of the climate change issue, we have to think in the long term and we must do whatever we can now to moderate the situation.
Peter Doherty shared the 1996 Nobel Prize for Medicine. He is a Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne in Australia and also runs a laboratory at St Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.
This opinion piece was originally published by the Australian R&D Review.
