I sent a letter to Nature entitled Fishery Reform: an Economic Problem, which they published on 28 July 2011. I have posted copies of the original  version (with references) and the shorter published version on my Fisheries page, here.

People who wish to question the validity of climate science usually call themselves “sceptics”. Scientists object to this, since all good scientists are perennially sceptical (indeed, the motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in Verba i.e. “take no-one’s word for it”). The so-called “sceptics” object to being called “deniers”, although that is usually what they do (i.e. deny the validity of statements, despite the evidence that supports them). Perhaps this is understandable, given the association of the word with the unpleasant business of holocaust denial. To avoid accusations of bad faith, I therefore commend the term “dissenters” as preferable. It is not pejorative, and also accurately describes what they do, i.e. dissent from the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion.

By the way, there is an excellent iPhone app called Skeptical Science that has good answers to lots of controversial questions on climate science. It’s a nice complement to the excellent RealClimate web-site.

Letter to The Times (8 Nov 2010) about Matt Ridley’s article on Ocean Acidification

Sir,

Matt Ridley should brush up his basic chemistry & biology before he criticises scientists who worry about ocean acidification.
First, any shift of acidity is still important even if it is (just) within natural ranges; and in the future it will be much larger than that.
Second, it has been known for some time that some organisms may make shells starting from bicarbonate ions.  But there is abundant evidence that dissolution of their shells is controlled by the carbonate ion concentration, so decreases in carbonate means a problem for retention of shells.
Third, Ridley’s claim of “no significant mean effect” of predicted future CO2 levels is only true because that is an average over several processes and many species – among which there will certainly be winners and losers.
Overall, decrease in calcification rate means a change in the ecosystem structure, and probably its function too, with unpredictable consequences.  We entirely agree that that the jury is out on how damaging acidification will be, but the scientific community is right to be concerned to research this “other CO2 problem”.

Professor John Shepherd FRS, University of Southampton
Professor John Raven FRS, University of Dundee
Professor Andrew Watson FRS, University of East Anglia

See also the more detailed responses from others here and here

Revised and extended version of a letter to The Guardian, (Monday 8 February 2010)

Congratulations to Fred Pearce for his balanced and thoughtful articles last week on the climate email affair, and commiserations to Simon Jenkins and Simon Hoggart for having lost the plot so completely. Those who refuse to accept something despite a mass of evidence for it (like climate change and evolution) go far beyond genuine and constructive scepticism. We should call them dissenters, at least, if the term “deniers” is considered to be too insulting. And those who believe in something without a shred of evidence for it (like homeopathy or astrology) can only be called credulous. Scientists, who may spend decades making observations, and using evidence to test their theories, try hard not to fall into either of these categories. If our cars or our bodies need to be fixed, we seek out, trust and take advice only from those who are trained and qualified to do the job. Why should we not do the same when it is the future of the world in which we live that is at stake ?

Response to an enquiry arising from the BBC “Start The Week” programme on 28 Dec 2009

On 28 Dec 2009, someone wrote to me

“Firstly I assume that you are the John Shepherd who featured on Start the Week today, 28th December ’09.

In it you mentioned that there are numerous worthy research programmes looking into methods of mitigating climate change, but that these are mostly underfunded.

Would it be possible to publicise a list of these, with a short description of what they are doing and what they hope to achieve, plus some contact details etc.? This might enable concerned citizens and the growing number of groups dedicated to this issue – and who now see that politics is probably unable to address the problem of climate change adequately – to consider fundraising for such programmes.

There are many organisations supported by voluntary public donation – but it is a prerequisite that donors must be convinced of a cause’s worth. I sense that tackling climate change is a cause to which many people who currently feel helpless might gladly contribut

I am a member of ‘Sustainable Frome’ which is only one of a number of local groups resolved to helping to tackle climate change. Were a list of appropriate research projects to be forthcoming I would be happy to publicise it around our group and around other groups with which we have contacts.”

To which I replied…

Yes, I am that person. The ideas I was referring to are summarised in another Royal Society report, on the Low Carbon Future, which you can get at

http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=5453

PDFs of the slides of most of the presentations to the meeting are also available at:

http://royalsociety.org/Towards-a-low-carbon-future/

Unfortunately this sort of research is very expensive: you’d be looking for hundreds of millions p.a., which is an awful lot of fundraising… As the chair of our local action group (Hyde & District Climate Change Forum) I think we can be more effective at the bottom up stuff (encouraging people to conserve energy). We are affiliated to the New Forest Transitions Movement which does a lot of good things: are you part of that?