in 1900 pretty much no one disputed Newton's laws of gravity; after Einstein hardly anyone supported Newton's theory.

The fact that all articles in the survey showed scientists supporting the prevailing view of climate change is irrelevant.

Science must always remain open to alternaitve ideas, and should only dismiss them once properly investigated. Too many in the science community take the environmentalist shilling and and lose their sketical powers opf reasoning.

neil murphy, cromer,

In a survey of 928 essays on global warming in science journals, there was uniform agreement, 100%, that global warming is occurring and that humans are major contributors. Surveying articles in the ny times, wash post, wall street journal, 1/2 of the articles gave equal credence to reports that there wasn't any solid evidence of global warming.
The Precautionary Principle is a tool for policy-makers, not scientists.

glen broemer, los angeles, ca

In a survey of 928 essays on global warming in science journals, there was uniform agreement, 100%, that global warming is occurring and that humans are making a major contribution. Surveying articles in the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal 1/2 of the articles gave equal credence to reports that there wasn't any solid evidence of global warming.
The Precautionary Principle exists as a guide for policy makers, is not part of a particular cost benefit analysis, hardly a reason to condemn it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

glen broemer, los angeles, california

I trust The Times will allow publication in its letters columns from people like myself - who urge CO2 emission reduction as a matter of great urgency, while knowing that it is extremely likely that other ignored or undetected factors to do with solar and cosmic radiation, orbital irregularities, or complex terrestrial thermal changes are involved - and will also allow the very level-headed and impartial Scientific Alliance to appear in print there also.

Ian Flintoff, Oxford, UK

There are two debates that ought to be taking place, but are not. The first is the scientific debate about the causes of global warming. Over the past year, I have read numerous papers in refereed science literature showing that the sun and cosmic rays are significant factors for global warming, also that CO2 levels are relatively insignificant. This literature is being ignored in the interest of maintaining the "consensus" position about CO2. The second debate is about the value of regulation, quotas and carbon trading. There is plenty of evidence that such practices create jobs and sometimes can be a route for making money, but very little evidence that these approaches actually work.
It seems to me that the Scientific Alliance is, at least, trying to provide a perspective that is worthy of our attention. To hit the delete button without considering the arguments seems to demonstrate an attitude alien to science.

David Tyler, Manchester, UK

Imagine I would contend that Dr Ahuja’ managed to get a PhD and job at Times only thanks to her stunning good looks, wouldn’t that be despicable?
Well, that was the level to which she lowered herself when she questioned Martin Livermore’s integrity. Ad hominem remarks are normally silly, but hers were close to insulting.

Chris Schoneveld, Clifton Beach, Australia

Hi Anjana - interesting response. Perhaps you were having a 'bad-email' day? Isn't it equally valid that anybody who has worked for antagonist organisations for 25 years can't be trusted to make unbiased comments either? Life isn't risk-free, we are ignorant of many things, good and bad, but turn spotlights on issues and get alarmed, out of context. If it was a choice between GM crops that reduce pesticides, reduce waste and still manage to feed people and keep them alive or 'green' antagonism, I know which I'd choose. As for global warming, any efforts we make to reduce our impacts & footprint, whether they are based on high-tech or not, need be supported. Turning organic is not now going to help the planet, unless we simultaneously reduce the human race by at least 70% in number.
That's my opinion anyway - I hope it is as valid as your opinion - we are both human and in the same boat.
Regards

Meredith Lloyd-Evans, Cambridge, UK

"the Ascham Associates website, which dismisses the precautionary principle as “of no help in rational decision-making”. "
Well, of course, anyone who has ever had to make rational decisions will certainly not have found the precautionary principle to be of the least assistance. It is the last resort of those whose agenda is not supported by the facts.
If we applied it in our everyday lives we wouldn't do anything, but equally, it wouldn't allow us to do nothing either. All actions or inactions carry some measure of risk. The precautionary principle should not be confused with risk-based analysis which endeavours to rationally assess risks, benefits and consequences. No scientist or engineer operating in the real world could afford the luxury of the precautionary principle, or least ways their employers or clients could not. Politicians, activists and, apparently, journalists are under no such constraints.

Paul Buddery, Dolphin Heads, Australia

dear anjana,
you may be a whizz at science, but you desperately need a refresher in the art of communication.
what was your article seeking to say?
out of the blue, we get this cryptic ref. to "ascham associates", never previously mentioned.
i can only commend to you the ancient wisdom - "tell 'em what you're going to say, say it, then tell 'em what you said".
imho, your column was a nonsense and a sad waste of space.

david levin, birkenhead, wirral

Many scientists outside the 'climate change lobby' don't believe the hype. The climate has always changed over time and the current rise in temperature clearly pre-dates both jet aircraft and 4x4 cars. It is simply propaganda (and insulting) to imply that those who retain doubts are in the pay of the oil companies
(Mind you if any oil company exec wants to pay me....)

Brian, York,

Thanks for this post. It's an ominous indicator that American media doesn't cover this stuff.

global citizen, iowa,

quoted in the article

(“Genetic modification is a valuable tool which can be used to produce more desirable environmental outcomes”)

as if there is something obviously wrong with the statement. What's wrong with it? An article about bias (or fake neutrality) should be less dissmissive and should contain more logical arguments. DuPont and Unilever are not evil empires per se. They are publically owned (including the author herself through her pension fund) organisations that perform valuable services to millions of people.

kangda wren, london,

Instead of the various commentaries on the IPCC report - just read the report itself (www.ipcc.org). It is only 20 pages long. In virtually every media report it has been grossly mis-quoted by the Big 'Green' Propaganda Machine. The press reporting (including Ms.Ahuja's) bears no relationship to the report itself.

eg. "There is a 90% probability that humans are contributing to climate change" becomes "Humans cause 90% of climate change". Deliberate mis-quoting through the filter of Big Green.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

Having read the small business article yesterday, I wanted to discuss what I see as the difference between being a natural born entrepreneur and not. I believe that the ability is contained wthin everybody, however not everybody wishes to acheive it. By that I mean if you're doing the right 'thing' anybody can be succesful, (there are obvioulsy levels of success) it's just a matter of one's priorities. The fact of the matter is, that for the majority of people a steady income and life in general takes precendence and the security of 'normal' life will stop them from putting in the required amount of time and effort needed to become successful.

Mark Stubbings, Staines, Middlesex

Irrespective of any agreement or disagreement concerning the issue of anthropogenic global warming, I wonder if this article is science (or anything) appropriate for The Times.

In particular, I found the following barely worthy of the name "ad hominem":

"It came from the Scientific Alliance (SA), an organisation located in the St John’s Innovation Centre in Cambridge. I assumed that it was connected with Cambridge University (it is not)."

Best regards

Nigel Sedgwick, Beaconsfield, UK