95% of the world's scientists do not believe in the current alarmism. This is a ridiculous use of figures. There is a hard core of scientist led by The Hadley Centre and the Tyndall Centre in the UK and Al Gore's friend James Hansen and colleagues in the US. Lots of others climb on board because of the guaranteed funding for anything with global warming in the tag line. The many thousands who disagree keep quiet to avoid censure if they are still in a career, or protest if they are near or already have retired.

Personal attack, as with the comments about Edward Leigh, are the only way in which their arguments can be countered. There is no scientific consensus, there is just political manipulation.

Dennis Ambler, New Quay, Ceredigion

"The fact that so many scientists agree should not be taken as proof of anything."

But once we find out they were right after all, it'll be too late to do anything.

People just don't want to believe it. They want to be able to turn up the heating, go on 6 holidays a year, and drive their gas-guzzlers without feeling guilty.

As for Cameron's tax: that's Conservatives for you. Punish the poor people. The rich people can afford to pay the tax and will fly as often as they like.

Starling, Lancaster,

More than 95% of scientists once believed the world was flat. Science is never settled - if it is it is not science. All conclusions must be tested. There is always a better model.

M. Fernandez, San Francisco,

The Sun is the main driver of climate, climate change and the weather. The entire weather system of not just the earth but all the planets in the solar system, is driven by just that one agent. Before one sets out to investigate any other cause of global warming, it is the Sun that has to be investigated, as well as a more rigorous modelling of the Milankovitch cycles. Mars for instance is heating up because of increased solar irradiance, as well as its own Milankovitch cycles.

Manmade CO2 is a very small fraction of not just the atmosphere but general CO2 level. Besides any small increases can actually be beneficial for a greener planet. The panic response of reducing CO2 will lead to not only economic distress for the over burdened taxpayer but a general worsening of the planet.

Following the Channel 4 programme, I have noticed the near hysteria with which the government has responded to undo the damage of their position.

DaveP, Beverley, UK

There was a time within recent memory when 95% of the world's scientists were convinced that stomach ulcers were caused by nervous stress and bad diet. They were all wrong. There was a time not too long ago when 95% of the world's scientists believed that the continents were firmly fixed in place and the apparent match of coastlines and soils between South America and Africa was coincidental. They were all wrong. Science is not democracy, it doesn't matter how big the majority is.

Rich Clancey, Boston, MA

To Michael Garton. You mention the AIDS outside Africa and Y2K issues as evidence of hype in Science reporting. Though your examples are poor, the reason's that the worst case scenario's did not come true is surely because people took appropriate action to prevent these things coming to pass. People wear Condoms, get AIDS tests etc and most major organisations took steps to ensure that Y2K wouldn't affect critical systems beforehand.

Thomas Davies, London, UK

The scientists who worked on the Global Warming report are nowhere near 2500 as they claim. Some have been included against their express wishes and , in any case, the final report was not written by them and their reservations were deliberately not included. Those that remain wrote what their paymasters - politicians - wanted to hear. So "95% of the world's scientists" is pure baloney. Ms siehart shouled know better.

Then there's the litle matter that it is proven that man is NOT responsible for global warming. Surprise, surprise, it's the sun. That yellow thing up there. All the figures show that when sunspots occur earth temperature rises. CO2 levels follow as a result - not as a cause. The time lag is considerable.

The Global Warming fanatics are existing by scaremongering. Many of them will be out of a job when the penny finally drops.

christina speight, London, England

This article is lazy and insulting. Is it really the best option to follow the herd unthinkingly and jeer at those who dare to question the the consensus (especially when it appears to be fraudulent). Is the author really saying that anything green is good? This is clearly not true and any such unfocused stance cannot produce beneficial results.

The planet is warming. The reason is unproven. Some green solutions are benficial as they save resources. Many are not as they waste other resources. In mean the mean time don't tell me to face facts especially when none are demonstrated.

Noah, Knutsford, UK

"95% of scientists" etc. - I should love to know how this figure was arrived at - was there a secret ballot worldwide,of which us peasants were unaware? Say 55%, and repeat the previous question. Say 25%, and repeat as before - I had always assumed that science was the pursuit of truth, not conjecture. The reality is that no-one yet knows what is causing Global Warming, although, to my mind the idea of 'cosmic rays' seems more logical.
Then there's that nasty 'hole' in the ozone layer getting bigger apparently, God help us, catastrophe looms: can it have been only in the early 1950's that it's existence was first discovered by the British Geophysical Expedition to Antarctica(don't correct, memory fades), but I wonder how much bigger it has been, let's say, a 1000 years ago.

Mike Medina, St. Albans, England

I am a scientist. I don't have a clue on the alleged link between CO2 and global warming. Not my field.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

I think everyone can agree that the reserves of fossil fuels are finite and, one day, production will start to decline. When that happens the price of oil will sky rocket and the heavy users - US and Europe - will really suffer. The sensible thing is to diversify our supply and use less energy in preparation for this inevitable event. Arguing about causes of global warming is a complete waste of time.

jason white, paris, france

The excellent programme on Channel 4 has been exposed as a fraud, Michael Garton.

Starling, Lancaster, UK

95% of scientists? What scientists? Does "Scientists" include Biologists and Chemists? Does it include Volcanologists and Nuclear Physicists?

How can the author assume that everyone with a PhD is in a position to comment on something as complex as global warming, without devoting years to its research?

As has been mentioned above countless times, these scientists receive government grants from the exact people trying to con us, Blair & Co.

Pete, Cov,

It is incorrect to say that denying human contribution to global warming will result in countless lives being lost. The writer does not seem to understand the issue. The climate-deniers who are being pilloried by pc pieces like this do not deny that climate change is happening - they only doubt the human contribution to this change. This is an absolutely vital element in the whole discussion. If you accept man's contribution is large then you can also accept that man could do something to prevent it - thus the hybrid cars and low power lightbulbs. In this scenario resources are devoted to PREVENTING the change.

If you do not accept that man's contribution is significant, then you would devote resources to DEFENDING against climate change, for example by building sea defenses in Bangladesh.

Richard, Brussels,

Don't think anyone can argue that it's getting warmer or that its sensible to use resources as efficiently as possible. But to suggest Man is making sea levels rise is plain stupid, it seems Blair and co. have conviced themselves that not only they're the most important people in the country/world but the solar system to boot!!! Shame on those who let thier delusions of grandure prevail.

To coin a phrase the earth is big enough and ugly enough to look after itself (as it has done since time began), shame Man can't say the same.

Anthony, Leighton Buzzard,

What a load of old tosh. 95% of scientists, eh? Well it seems like 95% of journalists and 95% of eco-twerps have NO scientific backgrounds whatever. You're all eduacted in nonsense subjects with arts degrees, so you don't have the necessary background to make critical judgements on matters of science or engineering. As an ex-teacher I can assure you that 95% of the public are pretty ill-informed and of low intelligence (otherwise why would soaps and Big Brother be such a hit?) so they'll just think what they're told to think.

Politicians judge the mood of the public and will sell their grandmothers for votes. Plastic Dave has just jumped on the bandwagon even though he has no scientific background either. Politicians also sense the capacity for self-flagellation of the Birtish (oh, woe, we must tax ourselves more....ah, that's better) so sense a way of gaining a false moral high ground for higher taxation.

Mary Ann Sucker, you just fell for it too.

Dave, Notts, UK

"Remember the original panic on AIDS (outside Africa) and the "Milennium Bug"?"

Yes. Do you mean that they were wasting their time running warning campaigns because the events never happened? Has it occurred to you that perhaps THAT'S WHY the epidemic and meltdown didn't occur?

Robert, London,

Actually, Channel 4's documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is an extremely pessimistic take. If the global warming is inevitably just nature driven, then we can't do anything about it! At least, the general view that it is very probably exacerbated by man does give us the hope that we can turn our technological prowess to try to ameliorate the effects of global warming.

Dick, Durham, UK

Sadly the Svensmark study has been wheeled around for a while and discredited on a number of occasions for its poor statistical method. The oceanographer on the C4 documentary is taking legal advice on it because it seriously misrepresented him. Who has a lot to gain, oil money pays better than govt money and some of those people have been linked with Exxon.

Sun spots? Seriously kids, Occams razor, cut out ridiculous reasons and leave yourself with the most logical. We pump out huge amounts of gas each year, enough to seriously increase the incidence of asthma. Gases which retain heat in an effect which no one is disputing. Does that not seem a lot simpler and more likely than sun spots? C4 produced a cheap hatchet job and should be ashamed. A lot of you should be ashamed for believing in that sort of hocus pocus. You'll be out there burning witches next.

jamesl, London,

While I, on this occasion, believe that 95% of the world's scientists are not wrong and that climate change is a serious issue, the author should note that throughout history there have been many occasions when 95% of the world's scientists are very very wrong, and very slow to admit that they are wrong. The fact that so many scientists agree should not be taken as proof of anything.

Pete Killingley, Haverfordwest, UK

So, the cynics are delighted that a C4 tv programme (forget the earlier warnings on BBC from no less an expert on the planet than Sir David Attenborough) gives them another excuse to be complacent. I'm sure Mary Ann is right though, as are the postings from Al, Ottorino, Huw and James. Like Al, I think it's time for bold actions. David Cameron's tax on more than one flight a year per person would be a step in the right direction. Whatever one's views on global warming, there are also other good reasons for taking action. Fewer flights, for instance, would bring some relief for people living near airports or under flightpaths. Likewise congestion charging can make life pleasanter for city dwellers, pedestrians, cyclists and bus users - cities were built for people, not cars.

Barry, Wallington, UK

You can fool some people ALL the time. I fear Mary Anne is in that category. If she can explain why increasing CO2 levels FOLLOW earth warming and not the other way round then I would gladly take science lessons from her.

Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England

of course like all problems facing the UK it can be fixed by taxing the hell out of it!! C,mon Gordon.

GT, London, UK

Can anybody tell me what a tonne of CO2 is and what it looks like? This is a term bandied around by all and sundry with, I suspect, gay abandon and very little comprehension. But it certainly sounds frightening enough to generate hysteria, however pertinent it may or may not be.

Alan Green, Canterbury,

I, like many, am not cynical about the likely causes and effects of global warming. I am however, like many I suspect, extremely cynical about the likelihood of our reliance on low-energy lightbulbs etc having any discernable effect upon it..

Perhaps Private Fraser in "Dad's Army" had it right - "We're all doomed I tell ye!"

Alistair, Glasgow,

All through the history of science, when 95% of scientists agree, they were almost always wrong and the sceptic was correct.

All major improvements of knowledge were by sceptics. eg. The trial of Galileo, Rev.Charles Darwin and his hounding by the old flat earth society of the creationists. Einstein, Newton... the list just goes on. The massed battalions of ideological pseudo-science have a habit of constantly repeating their ideology and stop any difficult activity like THINKING.

Has there actually been a major advance in pure science in the last quarter century? I cannot think of one. We appear to be in a new luddite dark age after the scientific glories of the period from the Renaissance to the late-20th Century.

It is difficult for the 'Big Green' scientists to even call themselves by that title as they totally ignore scientific method in their desire to 'prove' their ideology and ignore contrary data. A true scientific hypothesis needs to be able to be falsified.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

My uncle (scientist, but that aside) said the other day "Man-made or not, Global Warming will eventually eradicate the parasite called man. The Earth will bounce back, and all will be well. The only regret I have is that I won't be there to see Manhatten overgrown."

Starling, Lancaster,

The 95% figure seems to have been plucked out of the air. While there is much scientific support for global warming theory, the doubts are significant and remain unanswered. Funded research is biased in favour of the theory.

The S Times Magazine at the weekend had a piece more or less suggesting we were on a path to complete methane incineration- once the temperature rose 1 or 2 degrees the rise to a 6 degree gain was very difficult to stop at which point life on earth would stop.
I didn't find that very helpful. "Environmentalists" can't have it both ways. Either this is a very big problem in which case we'd better stop flying, driving and heating are houses immediately or it's a less serious problem solved by tinkering round the edges of the tax system- in which case we can take a bit of time to decide what causes the least disruption.
More research and reasoned argument are needed. Less intolerance of "global warming doubters" would also lead to a constructive debate.

Luis, London, UK

Never thought I would see the day when Mary Ann Sieghart caved into the pressure that is put on British society by the Eco Fascists. The "proof" about global warming and man's role in influencing is so weak as to be laughable, if government wasn't taking it seriously. I have long been an environmentalist and even 4 or 5 years ago took it seriously. Since then "pop" science has overtaken hard science in promoting what is largely a social and economic movement. Certainly there are many good, but ill informed people who think they are doing good and there are massive payrolls now dependent on global warming be declared "fact". Anybody who poses questions on the issue, and that includes most of the serious climate experts, are shouted down and ignored. Yet a report, such at the Stern one, which is based on bad science, bad economics and bad math has become the blueprint for policy. Now, Ms Sieghart caves in to popular trends. What a sad unthinking country we have become!

Jim , Ashtead, England

Where does the author get her 95% number from? Has she surveyed all the scientists on the planet to come up with this number? More likely she has just grabbed it out of the air as it sounds compelling. What appallingly sloppy journalism. Does the Times now operate a policy where its journalists are allowed to invent statistics?

Marcus, London,

“That the majority of ‘players’ in the climate change issue were not atmospheric scientists became apparent to Michaels at a 1992 meeting in Germantown MD sponsored by the US Dept. of Energy. At one lunch, he asked for a show of hands - at his table of 12 attendees - from all who held academic degrees in meteorology or climatology. Two were raised. Yet the IPCC had designated everyone at the table as a climate expert.” (The Satanic Gases, Michaels & Balling, p17)

Could Mary Ann Sieghart please do us the favour of researching her claim that 95% of the world’s scientists can’t be wrong so that we know who these scientists and experts are.

Alan G. Ainsworth, London, England

The climate change fraud needs to be challenged at every opportunity - particularly in schools. If your children's school is showing Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the Channel 4 programme 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' they are educating your child. If they are only showing your child the Al Gore film [which I suspect many schools are] then they are not educating your child - they are indoctrinating them. Ensure your children know there are two sides to every argument and let them make up their own minds based on the evidence presented by both sides in this debate.

Lance Grundy, Liverpool, Great Britain

The solution to this doesn’t have to be hair shirt in nature, why not let technology take up the strain? From geneering of algae to produce highly efficient bioreactors producing biodiesel, fuel cell technology using biomethanol (again geneering so that the bacteria / yeast can efficiently metabolise all forms of plant cellulose), nuclear fusion, clean coal, tidal and wind power to high efficiency solar cells, the solutions are being developed. So let’s bin this leftist inspired tax grab and use our common sense to solve this problem.

As for the nay sayers (leaving aside the need to be able to tell OPEC et al to get stuffed),
with no GHG’s the average temp on Earth would be -18 c, so when you increase GHG’s by 33%, then temps will increase unless you’d like to argue that the physical laws governing this should be repealed. I would then like to see your data for this.

Malcolm, London, UK

Who is contributing to the global warming on Mars?

Mark Lyndon, London, UK

The excellent programme on Chanel 4 the other evening which said it all. The link between greenhouse gases and global warming is far from proved (solar activity is far more likely) and CO2 is but one MINOR greenhouse gas. The restrictions which all political parties now seem determined to impose will do nothing for the planet and merely hinder the development of society and in particular the third world. Can we not have a political party honest and brave enough to speak the truth? It is a sad fact that doom-laden prophecies are lapped up by all. Remember the original panic on AIDS (outside Africa) and the "Milennium Bug"?

Michael Garton, Brackley, Northants, UK

It is simply not true that 95% of the world,s scientists support man-made global warming. An increasing number support thge idea that earth' temperature is controlled almost entirely by the activity levels of the sun.
Ice core sample records, when compared with sun spot activity records, show a quite clear correlation. Analysis of the ice cores also shows that CO2 level rises do not precede temperature rises; they follow them with a lag several decades. This is due to the time it takes the oceans to respond to temperature changes. (Cool oceans absorb CO2, warm oceans release it). Activity in the sun has been increasing since the 1940's. So face it. The environmental lobby has an agenda which it intends to follow regardless of any evidence presented and, yes, this has everything to do with the amount of money governments are throwing at them.

Tim Knight, Birmingham,

It is reassuring, reading these comments, to find that your readers are smarter than your columnists. There is hope for the planet yet.

Cath , Sheffield, UK

The earth is 4.54 billion years old, humans have been around for 50,000 years at most, and "polluting" it for probably 200 years or so. The idea that we can have such a prolific effect on planet earth warms to the human belief that we are more powerful than we actually are. In fact we are, and will be, a tiny blip in this planets existence.
On the other hand I am sure we are not helping the earths natural environment, and i am more than happy, if not enthusiastic about living sustainably, if this current era of propaganda has brought anything, it has developed new technologies, that reduce the impact, not just on the natural environment, but on the human environment as well.
Those pursuing this agenda should remember Golda Meir's quote, "don't be so humble, you're not that great"

James, Oxford, UK

Yet another person signing on to the 95% of scientists argument. There seems to be considerable evidence that the sun's activity is the principal driver for global warming and not human produced CO2. There should be a proper and open presentation of data to refute (if possible) the altenative causes of warming not just blind following of the current dogma to suit anit-capitalist or goverments looking to collect further taxes.

Andrew Chesterman, Gosforth, UK

I've been led to believe that CO2 is the result of global warming, not the cause of it. I remember all those years ago in geography class when I asked my teacher, "What made the last ice age disappear Sir?", he said almost tongue-in-cheek - "The sun came out!". Boom boom.
And that C4 programme last night confirmed it. Back to the drawing boards everyone.......

Hero, Preston,

There are several perfectly good arguments for saving energy:

1) Oil, gas, coal and uranium (i.e. all current meaningful sources of energy) are finite, and running out fast

2) It would reduce our economic dependence on dangerous nutters like the Iranian government

3) It would reduce pollution of the atmosphere with its by-products (i.e. soot and smoke) which is smelly, dirty and undoubtedly causes respiratory diseases.

None of them include believing environmental scientists, many of whom have their own political agendas. Their jobs depend on global warming being right, remember - especially the ones working for the UN.

Huw Clayton, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion

What a depressing load of nay-sayers. The effects of global warming are totally obvious to anyone who has travelled round the world over the last 40 years, as have I.

Whether we like it or not, at some point we are going to have to start finding alternatives for oil as it will get more and more expensive as the finite reserves shrink. At that point we will have to find alternatives anyway.

All that has happened is that the point at which we've got to do that has occurred earlier than expected. As for the 95% of scientists, the real figure is much nearer 98%.

It's sad that people won't face facts (see all the rubbish above this entry), and think that the whole thing is a conspiracy.

This is a fantastic opportunity to completely redefine the way we live and work. Accept the challenge and make it work : it's not that hard.

Ottorino, Chippenham, Wilts.

The reason that there are so few sceptics is that all scientists are reliant on funding for their research - which comes from the government. Openly questioning the pet theory of the people who pay your wages is not a good career move.

Emma, Birmingham,

Its about Risk. If there is a risk that this might happen, and there is, any sound businessman would do something to negate the risk. Yes in the short term it might be more convenient to ignore it, and you may be more popular for not doing anything concrete that will upset people. I'm sure Chamberlain was popular in the short term for waving his peace in our time bit of paper. What we want isnt the spin of Brown saying he wont tax air travel after he's just increased APD or the long term targets that can be missed and dropped, but real policies with bite. Yes those businessmen that fly to Manchester from London because it flatters their ego to fly might not like it, but tough get the train it takes less than 3 hours. I want a government with Balls not just called Balls to make the tough decisions for the next generation.

Al, Newcastle,

During the early part of the 20th century, only two other scientists agreed with Einstein's findings after he published his papers on relativity. There is currently a growing chorus of dissenting scientific voices on the causes of climate change ; they should be encouraged to tell us what they know, and not written off as merely contrarians.

maurice boiardi, london,

These "smokers who refused to believe that there was any link between their toxic inhalations and lung cancer" could be proved wrong because there were enough of them to build a science.

Far as I know, there's just one earth, not really enough to support global warming as a science. Hysteria more like.

John Dempster, London,

There is nothing wrong with being more energy efficient, I drive an efficient car, I use energy saving equipment, but this is not because I think it will effect global warming (it won't), it is just better use of resources. When you provide huge sums of money to university studies to prove something it sort of distorts the reality of the situation. Give me the money and I will prove anything you want me to. If there was money up for grabs to prove the alternative theories the evidence would not be so overwelming. It is funny when oil and energy are becomming scarce commodities all of a sudden the earth is going to melt if you don't start paying more for it, sorry using less of it . The sad fact of the matter is the government don't really want you to drive an efficient car that can run on biodiesel and be carbon neutral, if they did biodiesel would be more available throughout the UK. If you use less they have to tax you more.

Malcolm Richardson, Durham,

95% of all scientists - really?

A few years ago all bar a few scientists thought the world was flat and the centre of the universe. Still it was much warmer then.

John, Shrewsbury, Salop

We have to worry that scientists have turned irrational when we thought that their discipline was based on empirical methods. This Global Warming phenomena, the impulse of millions of closet environmentalists to suddenly concur on the implications, evolution and consequences of Global Warming, is very similar to the Lady Diana effect. Then, the disparate masses threw aside decorum and modesty for public displays of irrational behaviour. It's all to do with Instant Neutral Social Aberrational Normality Evolution (INSANE). A complaint brought about the media's gluttony for stories and the scientific community's efforts to attract funding. Worse, INSANE is probably a condition induced by putting something in the water or the bread (a real concern); a Government project to hide their failings or sew confusion. Covering its failure to secure affordable fuel; it seems a natural response for them to promote 'concern' while cobbling a policy together and posturing as caring at the same time.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

The rate of temperature increase for the past 30 years of (allegedly) CO2 driven global warming is 1.75C / 100yrs. At this rate by 2100 we'll only be back to the surface temperature experienced 1000 yrs ago. So yes we're contributing, but is it going to matter? No, not on the present data. And by the way so far this Century there's been no increase at all in average global surface temperature. That's a fact you don't hear about.

David Jenkins, Weybridge, UK

It would be nice if instead of 'save the planet' it was admitted that the planet per se will be quite OK whatever we do to it, except blow it up. It will rattle round the sun like its always done! What we are trying to save is either the human race, although Im not always so sure thats such a good idea, or the present environment.
I read somewhere the interesting theory that humans are a plague on the face of the planet which is using global warming et al to stave off the infection! I rather like that theory!

Bill Glanvill, Horsham, W Sussex

Scientists do NOT agree that CO2 is the cause of global warming. The IPCC report does not reflect the views of top scientists who sat in the IPCC committees. When the report on global warming was published as a political document in a way which contradicted their views, hundreds of these scientists tried to have their names removed from the report and this was refused. Whatever is causing global warming, it is not CO2, man-made or natural. Global climate change has become a political bandwagon and scientists dependent on public funding are too afraid to stick their heads above the parapet and say so.

M.A. Howley, Prenton, England

A few points:
What is the source of this '95% of world scientists'? Have enough been asked what they think, and what exactly is it they agree on? (for example Richard Lindzen, prominent climate sceptic and former IPCC author, believes human CO2 has an influence, but only at the level of about 0.1 deg C)
The correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature is poor (although not non-existent), hence hypotheses and models include aerosols to force temperature down (as in the 1942-1975 period). Also, ice cores inevitably show a lag of CO2 behind temperature, including frequent occurrences where temperature decreases whilst CO2 continues to increase. This strongly suggests CO2 is not a prominent driver of temperature, but changes in response to it.
It is ironic that this article follows the publication of Svensmark and the first scientifically coherent (although incomplete) alternative theory (sun spots-clouds-temperature link)

Dr Ian Blanchard, St Albans, UK

I found the Channel 4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" particularly enlightening. 95% of scientists emphitically do not believe that global warming is down to mans activities. Many have strong reservations, and a dispassionate examination of the evidence shows little or no link. Variations in solar radiation are the cause of the current warming phase. The global warming industry is drawing attention away from far more urgent environmental concerns such as habitat loss as well as actively sabotaging the modernisation of the developing world

Arnold Ward, Weybridge,

Perhaps Mary would like to explain to us how short break holidays and nasty bad cars caused the medieval warm period? And another thing. Am I the only person who switches off as soon as the phrase "save the planet" is uttered - as if the morons who brought us the dome have suddenly acquired superhuman or godly powers to control the universe. What a load of old cobblers.

Redcliffe, London, UK

The questions: whether global warming is actually occurring, and if so whether it is a short-term cycle or not, and just how much humanity has to do with it; these are not questions that many earthmen are capable of deciding with any probability of accuracy; including, if one may point out with a modicum of courtesy, most if not all of our scientists, and the great majorityof our politicians And by God,certainly Ms Sieghart, about whom I know nothing.
John Redwood is a most intelligent, mature and sane man and I back his judgement- where it coincides of course, as here, with my own!
I remember we all gave away our scrap iron, fences, gates, in the war, because Beaverbrook said it would be used to build Spitfires. He raised morale, and we all felt good about it, But it was rubbish of course, Now we have to make ourselves miserable, not travel, ride mopeds and so on; and again it is all rubbish- largely for political ends, to divert attention from real problems.

Robert Sebag-Montefiore, Geneva, Switzerland

95% of scientists? What an amazing number. Who invented it?

Dennis, Seattle,

Galileo we are told was once part of the 5% as was Einstein.....funny how majority voting does not make factual accuracy.

Then again we survived the ice age in the 1970s, and the Y2K Bug in 2000,,,,,we might even survive the latest media hype of impending apocalypse. What it takes to keep media overcapacity in existence....best to deregulate the BBC and put VAT on newspapers

Observer, Peterborough, UK

How about believing that its the sun which warms the earth-nothing else and that variations in the amount of solar energy can result in a rise or fall in global temperatures.I dont dispute that global warming is happening but I do not agree that carbon emissions are the principal cause.

Mabel Yam, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

actually, if the mavericks are right, and i for one am not so quick to accept the wisdom of "95% of the worlds scientists", then there are other routes to follow. Firstly, "most" of the worlds scientists are not in the field of climate studies; secondly the many who have joined in recent years have been funded by governments looking for carbon correlations; and thirdly, how often in scientific and medical history have we been confounded by the new discoveries or interpretations that have turned received wisdom on its head?! Scarce resource such as cardon fuels are best allocated through market price (we all know that by now, surely). If you choose to reduce your use of it for other externalities, that is your choice, but not one to be imposed, unless the truth is clear. And it is not! And a focus on alternative energy sourcing is a must for any government looking to be less reliant on energy from decidedly capricious sources such as the middle east - but not for the sake of climate

abhijit banerjee, london,

That C02 is the driving force behind global warming is NOT a scientific truth rather a tenet of the belief system of environmentalists and the soft left. It is primarily an article of contemporary faith, a curious mixture of egotism and guilt. That humans could destroy the planet and then save it. Such millennialism is merely the replacement for the cold war and the threat of global nuclear destruction.

Philip Triebwasser, London, UK

By what calculation do you arrive at "95% of scientists"? There is a majority that agree that global warming is occurring and, indeed, this is a demonstrable fact. However there is substantial disagreement over whether human action is the primary - or any - cause of this phase of warming. As an example, the ESA research on solar activity and our climate leads to some interesting correlations between solar radiation and warming/cooling.
Scientific investigation requires debate; not the treatment of dissenters as heretics.

Andrew Roberts, Montpellier, France

I must admit I am still not convinced of global warming. However, whether or not global warming is a man-made phenomenon, pollution is causing an increase in respiratory diseases around the world and we will soon run out of important resources. Therefore whether you are a sceptic or not, we need to find a better way to power our lifestyles.

Andy, Reading,

You are wrong. Try reading Michael Crichton's State of fear in which he preovides a fully referenced case demolishing man-made global warming, and points out that 100 years go well over 95% of scientists believed fervently in eugenics and proposed, as today, a number of unpalatable policies to put their beliefs intp pracrice.

Peter Croft, Cambridge, Cambs