Via the London Times:

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the [British] Government’s chief scientific adviser. John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding. . . . Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports. He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.
He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.” He said that the false claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

Whole thing here.

Professor Beddington’s belated recognition that an environmentalism of doubt has a legitimate role to play in the discussion over climate change is as welcome as similar comments from Gore, Obama, and the rest of the fundamentalist crowd are rare. It is, I suppose, churlish to ask if the good professor would have been quite so forthcoming without Climategate or, for the matter, the way that bloggers such as Richard North of EU Referendum have been questioning the way that the IPCC is being run.

This whole “blogosphere” thing has its uses, it seems.