As a world-recognized climatologist and director of the Tyndall Centre of Climate Change Research in Manchester, England, Dr. Kevin Anderson hopes his prediction is right because his reputation as a scientist depends on the accuracy of analysis. As a representative of humanity, Mr. Kevin Anderson hopes his prediction is wrong because the implications for humanity are so dire.

This is the conflict confronting him as he measures increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, plots the corrective measures being taken by the world's countries, then anticipates the consequences. "As an academic," he confesses, "I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work and that the conclusions were sound. But as a human being, I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and tell me we had got it completely wrong" (Guardian Weekly, Jan. 01/09).

At least 2,500 of the world's other leading environmental experts believe he has made no mistake and his conclusions are correct. In speaking for the collective concern of his colleagues, Dr. Anderson says, "Scientists have lost patience with carefully constructed messages being lost in the political noise. We are now prepared to stand up and say enough is enough" (The Vancouver Sun, Mar. 13/09).

Indeed, these scientists are desperate enough for corrective action that they convened their own Copenhagen meeting in March, at the site where December's United Nations Climate Conference will attempt to address climate change with a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. The purpose of their March meeting is to warn of the consequences if countries and their political leaders do not take "draconian emission reductions within a decade".

Given our present rate of CO2 emissions – the annual increase is now 3.5%, more than the predicted worst-case scenarios of several years ago – we are unlikely to avoid a "dangerous" average global temperature increase of 2°C. Even worse, we are likely to reach a "catastrophic" 4°C increase. And we may even find that a 6°C increase by the end of this century is unavoidable.

Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist for the World Bank and author of a comprehensive study on the cost of preventing climate change – $9 trillion over 100 years – anticipates "devastating" consequences from global warming and urges politicians to grasp the gravity of the situation. Massive sea level rises, terrible storms, drying rivers, flooded landscapes and shifting climates would cause havoc almost everywhere on the planet. "What would be the implication?" Sir Nicholas asks. "Hundreds of millions of people would have to move, probably billions. What would be the implications of that? Extended conflict, social disruptions, war essentially, over much of the world for many decades" (Ibid.).

James Lovelock, the 89-year-old patriarch of environmentalism and originator of the Gaia Theory, began as a skeptic about an impending ecological apocalypse. But the evidence has convinced him we are on an unavoidable path (Culture Change, Mar. 17/09). With age and a solid scientific reputation, Lovelock is free to be blunt, almost brutal in his frankness. While commenting on the publication of his new book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, Lovelock says, "I don't see the efforts of governments around the world succeeding in doing anything significant to cut back the emissions of carbon dioxide." Then he adds, "We have to stop pretending that there is any possible way of returning to that lush, comfortable and beautiful Earth we left behind some time in the 20th century." In his opinion, we have missed the opportunity for corrective measures and now should concentrate on creating refuges where we can escape the worst effects of global climate change.

Lovelock agrees with the major disruptive events predicted by other scientists but is more graphic about impacts. For example, he expects the Sahara to move northward by 2040, turning southern Europe into parched scrubland. Its cities will commonly experience summer temperatures of 43°C, the same as in Baghdad. Extreme weather, rising oceans, droughts and the subsequent displacement of people will take a huge toll on humanity. "It will be death on a grand scale from famine and lack of water," he says. The world's population of 7 billion will be reduced to 1 billion by the end of this century (Ibid.). He insists that this ominous forecast is just a more graphic description of the devastating consequences already anticipated by the 2001 report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Are Lovelock and his fellow scientists wrong in this ominous assessment of our future? Since the global warming alarm was raised three decades ago, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise – not fall – and the documented impacts of actual changes on ecologies have exceeded almost every predicted worst-case scenario. The transformation of scientists, from usually cool and detached observers to worried activists desperately pleading to politicians for immediate action, must be taken as an actual measure of alarm.

Such an alarm does not make for pleasant writing or reading. But the choice of reality over illusion seems a preferable option if humanity is to expect a promising future. Scientists, by virtue of their discipline, try to choose the side of reality. And this objectivity is why Dr. Kevin Anderson – despite wanting to be wrong – reluctantly accepts that he is right. At the very least, his choice should give us pause for sober reflection.