In search of climate change science

By a strange series of events, last Monday I found myself listening to Ross Garnaut on the Perth leg of his Climate Change Roadshow. (A "strange series of events"? Let's just say at 9 am I was jogging in to the city with a friend, and soon after 10 am, having jogged from the Perth Town Hall back to Hyde Park, where my car was parked, and done a superman-like change into jeans and jumper, I found myself sitting in a room with a few-hundred suits listening to Professor G. wax lyrical -- if it's possible to wax lyrical about climate change and the global economy.)

Anyhow, the good professor impressed me. After 30 to 40 mins of his 'sell', about an hour was allocated for questions. "I wan't you to direct the discussion; take it into areas that are important to you," was, more or less, his invitation to questions from the audience.

The way he handled people's questions -- not to mention the everpresent axe-grind-thinly-disguised-as-a-question, of which there were far, far too many -- was also impressive. Here was a man who clearly had his head around the innumerable possible economic, social and political implications of this CC beast. I should also add that, as well as his answers being substantial, Garnaut was polite (perhaps even gracious).

For me, there was an elephant in the room. And, very early in his presentation, Garnaut showed us the elephant's trunk. The elephant? The science. To quote Chapter 3 of Garnaut's report:

Climate change policy must begin with the science. When people who have no
background in climate science seek to apply scientific perspectives to policy,
they are struck by the qualified and contested nature of the material with which
they have to work. Part of the uncertainty derives from the complexity of the
scientific issues. In the public discussion of the science, additional complexity
derives from the enormity of the possible consequences, which calls for a
millennial perspective. Part derives from the large effects of possible policy
responses on levels and distributions of income, inviting intense and focused
involvement in the discussion by those with vested interests.

The Review is not in a position to independently evaluate the considerable
body of scientific knowledge, and it is not the intent of this chapter to debate
the existence or extent of human-induced climate change.

In the terms introduced in Chapter 2, there is a great deal of uncertainty
about the magnitude of the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions
on science.

I want to explore this mysterious pachyderm called the science of climate change.

Not being a scientist, I realise this will be a challenge. So, if any scientists reading this can explain the scientific issues involved, I'd be much obliged (plain English explanations preferred ;-]). Or, if anyone else, scientist or otherwise, knows of balanced and helpful stuff to read, please let the 'rest of us' know.

I have a preliminary list of hope-to-reads, which I will post soon.

PS Excuse the miniature font size of the quote!