On Monday night one of the world's most famous climate scientists took the stage at the University of Victoria in B.C. as part of the university's Lansdowne Public Lecture series.

Michael Mann, popularly known for his research involving the 'hockey stick' graph – undoubtedly the most iconic and controversial image of global warming science – presented on his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines.

Hounded, hunted and harassed, Mann has suffered much of the public backlash against climate science over the last decade, being accused of everything from conspiracy and fraud to scientific dishonesty.

He has been at the centre of several of the last decade's most high-profile climate science smear campaigns including the Cuccinelli subpoena circus in 2010, the debunked 'Climategate' charade, and a failed climate scientist witch-hunt led by Congressman Joe Barton. 

Despite all the controversy, Mann is resolute in his efforts to address climate change in a meaningful way which involves making some difficult social decisions.

There's "no magic bullet" solution, he says and so "even controversial proposals need to be weighed."

But solutions are what come once we've recognized the problem. For Mann, there is still some work to be done on the ground in that regard, especially when it comes to our over-reliance on fossil fuels.

"We can't have that discussion until we accept that the challenge is real, the problem is real, and we shift away from the burning of fossil fuels."

"We are obviously going to need to incentivise that shift away from fossil fuels, both in American and in Canada," Mann says, mentioning carbon tax and cap and trade legislation as popular considerations on this front.

Although, Mann will tell you, he doesn't necessarily see himself as one to advocate for certain policies. Scientists, he feels, should for the most part stick to science. Although that is easier said than done when the science is being mishandled.

Hazarding the risks of appearing politics, Mann says that sometimes scientists have to weigh in when facts are mishandled and information misrepresented. As a climate scientist Mann, at times, has been given no choice but to speak up. 

"I'd like to think [climate scientists] are not being political for standing up for science. Sometimes I'm accused of being an advocate because I'm fighting back against the disinformation effort, against the attacks on climate science. And my argument would be that, if by advocate you mean an advocate for the notion that our public discourse on this issue should be informed by an honest assessment of the science, then I'm happy to wear the mantle of advocate."

He adds, "I stop short of trying to proscribe policy. I leave that to be worked out in good faith by politicians as long as they're playing by fair ground rules, as long at they're accepting reality of the threat and risks that [the science] exposes."

Scientists have to decide for themselves when it's appropriate to speak out either for or against specific policy decisions.

James Hansen, says Mann, has taken a very strong position on a carbon tax. Some, he says, "are just more comfortable weighing in on these kinds of matters than others."

But in "all matters of policy there is a role for government regulation, for government policy to incentivise. [Incentives] would take us in the direction we need to go."

Looking forward, we've got a lot of options, according to Mann. To avoid replicating the mistakes of the past, we will need to come to terms with our pollution and the way our current business-as-usual model allows us to externalize certain – especially environmental – costs.

"When it comes to carbon emissions, there is a hidden cost: we're doing damage to the planet. But that cost is not internalized. We're not paying for that damage – through a carbon tax or cap and trade legislation."

So when we're talking about accounting for our pollution and emissions, "we're simply talking about levelling the playing field when it comes to alternative energies."

But not all discussions about if or how to move forward can take place in the realm of science, politics or policy, says Mann. There is a moral element not to be forgotten.

"To me more than anything else it's a debate about what kind of world we leave for our children."

Mann moved to a photograph in his presentation, one of his daughter smiling, watching a polar bear swim overhead along a tall aquarium window.

"I hate to think we're going to leave a world for our children where they could come back to a zoo like this decades from now and point to these animals that used to live in the Arctic before we essentially melted their environment," he said.

"And that, of course, is emblematic of a much larger and very serious set of detrimental changes that we are going to be making to this planet if we continue developing these concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere if we don't shift away from our current reliance on fossil fuels."

"So to me," Mann added, "it's really a matter of what kind of world we are going to leave behind for our children and our grandchildren. It's important that we make the right choices so that we don't leave behind for them a degraded planet."

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.