It's difficult because most of the evidence of global warming is not easy for non-scientists to see. For example, if you've lived by the sea your whole life - even if you were 100 years old - you'd not have seen any noticeable rise in sea levels. Similarly, the weather seems pretty erratic and always has done, so changeable weather is hardly rock-solid proof. Warm summers are followed by cold winters - look at the European winter of 2009/2010 - which is confusing for laymen.

One thing that no young scholars should be required to do in a science lesson, is believe "facts" without having them demonstrated, proven or explained. How can they become scientists in the future if they are not encouraged to doubt, to question, to test and, ultimately, to understand?

I would approach it from the point of view of pollution. "Here's the nice clean world that humans found themselves living on. Is it right that we should violate it with our waste, or are we responsible for keeping it in a condition suitable for human life in the time of our children, and grandchildren?"

IF climate change is real, there is, in all likelihood, no way scientists now or in the future will be able to change or particularly reverse it’s effects. Attempting to teach young people to put the genie back in the box is a terrible waste of time and resources.

I think your responsibility is to endow your student with a good grounding in science which, in the future, will allow them to use the technology of the day to make the survival of the human race comfortable and productive in what ever circumstances that nature throws at it.

It seems a shame that this question hasn't received more attention. Getting teenage students interested in science is a noble cause, surely.

I wonder if there's a reluctance among scientists to get involved in what might now be perceived as a "political" issue? I'd be interested to know. From my own slightly guarded response it is probably apparent that I am still open-minded (a polite way of saying sceptical but not denialist). Wozza seems to have adopted similar sentiments.

I'm keen to open up discussions, but it isn't always easy on this forum.

• Has climate-change - as a subject - been hi-jacked by non-scientists?
• Is it viewed as less-than-hard science?
• We are told that the majority of scientists believe in man-made climate change: is the verb 'believe' too unscientific?
• Are the best minds working in climate science? (Or are many of them coming from a non-science background? Not a loaded question; I'm genuinely interested to know what route a scientist might have taken to become a climate expert.)