Although he later returned to supportive applause, problematic arrangements returned to haunt all delegates in Copenhagen at COP 15.

In the week following his resignation, Yvo de Boer professed deep regret in a letter he sent to all official delegates at ‘some members not being able to observe official proceedings, the cancellation of some side events, exhibits, bilateral meetings and interviews.’ He went on to deplore that ‘members had to wait in long queues, in some cases for several hours, in the cold without services’, saying that ‘COP 15 posed immense logistical challenges. The record number of participants stretched the organisational capability of the secretariat as never before.’

Undoubtedly the queues and changed regulations at COP 15 were very irritating. I myself sampled the capacity of the Bella Centre in March 2009, when the world’s scientists gathered to re-confirm our message of urgency and restate the undeniability of climate change. It is a new venue, but was not designed to handle either the massive numbers of COP delegates or the arrangements required to deal with security concerns surrounding attendance of an unprecedented number of Heads of State and Government. And yet Mr de Boer felt it necessary to defend himself so sadly in his letter, reiterating that ‘the Executive Secretary has the authority to take any action necessary to maintain this security, including denying access to the venues.’

Climate change is, and will remain, a risk management problem for the foreseeable future. But suddenly it seems as if the risks all relate to people and personalities rather than the policy issues of curbing emissions, reducing existing levels of infrared-absorbing gases in the atmosphere, and adapting to a warmer, more extreme future climate with an increasingly acidic ocean.

I wonder why a scientifically-driven imperative has, over the past three months, degenerated into a gossip-columnist circus. Why do we avidly read in the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) flagship magazine, Science, that Rajendra Pachauri (Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) works an 18 hour day, and why do we follow blogs and newspaper feedback forums about hacked emails? Given that none of these activities can possibly help us to constrain the likely potential for ‘dangerous’ outcomes, that cannot be ruled out with less than a 10 per cent to 20 per cent chance, the process seems to be wandering.

I am told this furore is all in the name of transparency, an essential ingredient in any relationship. Perhaps it is more comfortable to worry about the actions of a few individuals—good, bad or ugly—than to act ourselves to reduce our environmental impacts and make life for posterity at least hopeful.

I am asked repeatedly, ‘What will science do to rebuild trust?’ In light of the recent resignation of Yvo de Boer, maybe this question should be broadened to, ‘What must the academic and policy community, and the UNFCCC itself do to re-engage the public?’

I wonder what more we can do.

In the final months of the 2007 IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report consultation, the world’s three leading climate science agencies asked people directly involved with the report for their views. Some of the comments now seem frighteningly prescient – for example, ‘WGII is easily the weakest of the three reports. The reasons seem to be two-fold: poor downscaling and the lack of a coherent methodology for impact study.’ Consider this in the blazing light of the Himalayan glacier-melt debacle.

But, as shown by the mistakes and intemperate emails, climate scientists are neither foolish nor infallible. They recognise that climate change is an issue that is much larger than ‘science’. Indeed, back in 2007 it was said that there was an urgent need to:

Firstly, examine policy-driven questions in conjunction with broader representation of disciplines, stakeholders and governments–not just to write and approve reports;

Secondly, develop strategies for mainstreaming climate change adaptation to (sustainable) development;

Thirdly, monitor the trajectory of climate change to assess whether we are heading along a path which will result in high social costs and dangerous impacts; and

Lastly, examine policy-driven questions to learn to understand how others see the world and what scientists need to do to help resolve such non-science priorities.

The urgency and forthrightness of many of the IPCC leaders’ comments still hold:

‘Progress requires more attention to addressing basic model flaws. Without alleviating these, future IPCC assessments will look very similar each time. What a waste of resources… climate science will get what it deserves if it does not apply itself more to basics rather than what it is doing currently.’

These still currently standing issues need to be shared, discussed and acted upon.

Of Mr Yvo de Boer’s untimely departure from the vitally important role at the UNFCCC, I echo his own words – ‘This I deeply regret.’

Ann Henderson-Sellers holds an Australian Research Council Professorial Fellowship in the Department of Environment & Geography of Macquarie University and is former Director of the United Nations World Climate Research Programme.