Being thrust onto the podium means more people are waiting in the wings to catch you out. Something which the IPCC has had to learn the hard way, as its claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 were exposed as founded on a 1999 media interview with a scientist rather than on peer-reviewed scientific literature. Not that peer reviewing in this field has had much better press in recent months, with the ‘climate-gate’ email scandal apparently exposing the suppression of data flaws and blocked FoI requests. Suddenly, the field finds itself in the midst of scandal with not only one but two exposés worthy of having ‘gates’ added to their titles.

The uproar around these scandals comes in part as a result of the perception that the environment is sacred and we have an associated duty to protect it. This view places the issue of ‘climate change’ on a pedestal, removed from the everyday and ordinary. For those of us living in cities, ‘nature’ is often removed from the ordinary everyday experience of our lives, which only goes to elevate the pedestal. In fact, scientists themselves hold a rather 'pedestalistic' position in our discourse and so the second part of the uproar/shock is tied to a more general shock that scientists, too, improvise, extrapolate, hold prejudices - or even guess. Of course, no one should falsify data and of course we should rely on accurate figures, but to really start to move towards an effective approach on climate change we need to change our perception of the issues.

The issues surrounding climate change are not out there in a bubble somewhere. In fact, even they are affected by the recession. Tim Yeo MP, Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee announced recently that carbon dioxide emissions fell in 2008, much of which “was sadly due to the recession.” Both political parties have recognised the link, the Conservatives in their plans to spur the economy through green innovation funded by their “Green Investment Bank,” and Labour, with their pledges to create a green jobs revolution. However, both parties are designating these measures as specifically "green," rather than approaching green issues and solutions as being part of the wider problems the country is facing. Jules Peck's enthusiasm for a new well-being economics is an important means by which we can transform the situation, at least from the top down, but there must also be a recognition that the the discourse of the "climate change lobby" itself must change. And if we could only bring the issues down from the pedestal and treat them as issues that need to be tackled hand in hand with our other social and economic problems, not as special cases, we would really be heading towards results worthy of a podium.