First, it has not been properly proof-read and has literally dozens of typos. This suggests rushed and sloppy work. Many of the citations in the text are missing from the reference section, so one does not know the quality of many of the sources of information or even if they say what is claimed. Many references are of poor quality and credibility – privately-run websites, blogs, newspaper articles, etc. More seriously, many assertions are presented as if facts, with no reference and no apparent research. An example is (p.19): “This physically very large ‘albedo switch’ [caused by loss of summer Arctic ice] will lead to further warming in the Arctic of several degrees which will contribute to the destabilization of the Greenland ice sheet”. This is simply not proven to be the case, though in my opinion (an opinion only), it will probably happen.

It is a shame that is has so many obvious shortcomings, as a few days of extra work and more care would have made a very powerful and pursuasive document.

Rob I love your ability to inspire hope in spite of terrible, terrible news. Thank you for your work.

At the very least, something like a further 2-3 years dramatic decrease in arctic summer ice cover, down to say half the summer 2006 value. More likely, it would have to be a reputable group of scientists (?lead by James Hansen) declaring that the Greenland and/or West Antarctic ice sheets had commenced an irreversible meltdown that would produce several metres of sea level rise this century. Of course, then it might be too late.

For politician-led action before that time, a paradigm shift in thinking would be needed and that would only come through overwhelming public pressure through growth of popular movements, or some sort of phase-change in the economic landscape due to peak oil. While the majority of people elect politicians on the basis of vaguely credible promises of economic growth, that is what politicians will continue to promise and action on climate change will continue to be token.

They claim to be listening to the scientists and not to politicians, but it really isn’t true is it?

They are taking the current politics as their starting point, not the current science.

I am already involved in a productive email exchange with the Head of Policy at WDM, who is actually pretty sympathetic to my position. With a few more protests from members I think we would see movement on this.

I have sent him the link to these reports, and I suggest we all campaign for the campaigners at least to work to realistic targets. If they do not then how can we expect the Government to do so?