When climate change begins to affect us more and more on a personal level and hits the news more as a real event rather than a theoretical future possibility people are more likely to trust the science. The changes that have been predicted are already beginning to take place: there has been an unusually mild winter in some areas and an unusually harsh winter in others. Spring storms have brought floods to Spain and have killed people in Portugal and France.

This is an ‘if’ not a ‘when’. We do not know that the scientists are correct and there will be increasing amounts of extreme weather. Even if there is and the scientists are proven right then it is still not proven that it is humans who are creating the climate change through our GHG emissions.

Science is likely to be much more open with how they compiled their results and how they came to their conclusions. Databases of temperature recordings etc will be open to access so that anyone can check the results a climate scientist gets. Transparency will prevent more farfetched ideas, such as the too rapid melting of the Himalayan glaciers, being considered scientific so preventing these from undermining the credibility of rest of the body of science. Secondly even if individuals don’t go and check the scientists’ work themselves it simply being open to do so will reassure as scientists would not be making everything public if they knew they were likely to be shown to be lying about their results.

There may well be inquiries into the mistakes that were made and how to prevent them being made again. This will increase trust and correct any old mistakes that have been made. They may also recommend changes in procedure that could improve the public’s perception of climate science.

The most important thing is that with their findings being questioned and under ever more scrutiny scientists will go and recheck their work or have others review it. This peer review process should help persuade the public that the scientists are not deliberately falsifying information and are producing results that are as accurate as possible.

Scientists checking their findings cannot be trusted. Equally they cannot be allowed to decide who does the reviewing as the whole of the climate science community may well have been involved in the massaging of the figures and painting alarmist scenarios that suit their interests.

It will always be possible to question the climate scientists findings, their results and their evidence. So they have now cleaned up their conclusions... but they could still be fabricating the data behind their new conclusions. Scientists will never be able to prove completely comprehensively that they are nor fabricating facts.

Sceptics do not need to be silenced. Rather it is better that they get their views out but are marginalised enough that they are outside the mainstream. The public is likely not to believe sceptics once the science has been firmed up.

Climate change sceptics will always be a presence and will always be able to point back to the problems with the science over the last few months as proof that they are right. These events are likely to continue to loom large in the debate for some time.

It is much easier for sceptics to instil doubt in the public consciousness than it is for scientists to eliminate that doubt.