http://www.rtcc.org/climate-science-and-politics-where-two-worlds-collide/

Last week the UK's former chief climate diplomat John Ashton addressed scientists at the UK's Meteorological Office. The speech was called Climate Change and Politics: Surviving the Collision.

n it Ashton argues that it is in scientists best interests to actively communicate their findings - but under certain conditions.

You can read an extract below - or download the full speech at the bottom of this page.

Speech by John Ashton at the Met Office, Exeter, 11 April 2013

Everyone is entitled to a view about 2°C or any other aspect of the debate. But the message from analysis is that there is no technology reason why we should not give ourselves a fighting chance of keeping within 2°C.

My view, which also has no special authority, is that we can do it if we can find the will to embark on Plan A, to treat this problem as Promethean, Imperative, Transformational and Urgent. We must do the politics, not just observe the politics.

Here are a few suggestions about how you can contribute to reality-based politics on climate, without straying into crude advocacy or otherwise sacrificing your values.

First, as I said, distinguish between where you have professional authority and where you do not. Never cloak a political judgement in the mantle of a scientific one.

Second, always put scientific integrity first. Never say anything that you could not substantiate, not just in a newspaper but among your peers. Simplify as far as possible but never oversimplify. What you say should be compelling, not necessarily simple. Life is complicated and people know that.

Never of course exaggerate. This dossier does not need sexing up. But integrity also means calling things as you see them. Never tone down a statement that has a scientific basis for fear that it will be too shocking. That just helps those who want plan B and in the end undermines your authority.

Third, always speak with clarity. Use language that reaches people. Make it easy for them to place what you say in narratives that resonate with them, to derive meaning from the information you give them.

Fourth, show transparency in the conduct and presentation of scientific findings. You have nothing to hide - so don't allow anyone to claim that you are hiding something.

Fifth, speak with confidence. Don't let your opponents make you sound defensive, as some try constantly to do, because it serves their "disputed science" narrative. The stronger the appearance of dispute, the weaker the impulse to act.