The 'smoke in the room' analogy is false. Where are the disastrous effects of the tiny temperature increase of the last 50 years? The level of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since 1940 is at least 5 times the amount produced throughout the preceding 60 years. The sea level is not rising and the global temperature increase is minimal.

Graham Lyons, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire

I believe that most people with a brainstem see the validity in environmentally friendly activities and products. However what is not often clear in these messages is the cost/benefit ratio to the consumer. Driving a Hybrid vehicle or taking public transport is one way of making yourself feel better about your environmental impact but fails to take action where it is needed the most, in our homes. The current government policy is primarily aimed at generation on a national level. This is the area that makes the headlines. Much more benefit would be derived from distributed generation using renewable energy systems in the home or on a street-by-street basis. If the government were really serious about renewable energy, a distributed generation policy should be effected, starting with government and security forces architecture (UK MoD bases, police stations etc). The government currently has no policy for the introduction of renewable energy systems to any of its MoD sites.

Robert, Bedford, UK

A recent IPS news service story by Stephen Leahy in Toronot quotes this commetary by Ms Cavendish, in talking about Dan Bloom's radical idea of polar cities for survivors of global warming, which nobody wants to discuss. Until now. Google "Nortthward Ho" and you will see your quote Camille and Dan's modest proposal. Did someone say Jonathan Swift?

Danny Bloom, London,

and what precisly is so environmentally good about a Prius? they run on electricity, so the co2 they emit is erm more than a diesel car, it just happens to be emitted elsewhere. I fear you neibourhood is responding to fashion not a care for the environment. Will your neigbours be sacraficing their flights to the ski slopes and beaches also? I think not?

Paul the cynic, Welwyn GC, Hertfordshire

The latest appeal to the bunny huggers is "the poor penguins" will die out. If there is a fall in penguin population it is more likely due to a shortage of fish due to over fishing. Penguin seem to live quite happily in temperate wildlife parks if they have water and plenty of fish.

K Wellls, Bognor Regis, England

I've long since realized that "environment" is a trendy word which places responsibility elsewhere.

In the sixties and seventies we were encouraged by popular thought to "be natural". Within about two years, everything in food shops you could poke a stick at, was labeled "natural". This has now been replaced by things like "carbon footprint". "Business", which is a term which really means "money is always right", has already found myriad ways to exploit the new terminology.

Phil Colquitt, New Farm, Australia

Climate Change Hysteria

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams092607.php3

Thomas Laprade, Thunder Bay, Ont. , Canada

Re Camilla Cavendish's allusion to the Kitty Genovese incident, the story as first reported in the New York Times that set the tone for all the following reports over the years has been shown to have a number of dubious elements:

http://www.oldkewgardens.com/kitty_genovese-001.html

Allen Esterson, London,

Those pundits who are bent on DENIAL and agenda-driven INDIFFERENCE about the GW/CC issue, and its profit-constricting solution measures, are analogous to horndogs who want to ignore the AIDS and viral infection risks, forego protection, and "just want to put it in now", simply because the very real dangers are not clear and present before them right now. Those are the ones that pass it off with such blunting and minimizing labels as "the climate change scare"; because they are the ones who want to get off (profit) in a sick way, though we all are the ones who will be affected, and our offspring are the ones who will be born with this epidemic. Analogous all the way.

Nomeh, Bronx, NY

It is refreshing that so many Times (or Times online) readers do take a balanced view of global warming, unlike Ms Cavendish. There are still two sides to this argument. I recommend Messrs Booker and North's book (even if they do write for the Tele graph!) for a critique of the climate change scare. See http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scared-Death-Global-Warming-Costing/dp/customer-reviews/0826486142/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&customer-reviews.start=1#customerReviews

Nick Dougan, Sevenoaks,

Excellent article, Camilla, and so true. Seems to me that we now have 3 major so called "informed points of view" about GW/CC. (1) Global Warming/Climate change disbelievers. A shrinking breed. People who live in a delusional Bubble World. (2) CO2 GW/CC believers. People aware of the hard data & who trust in scientific method & who know that the data indicate fossil fuel burning to be the overriding cause. These people also accept that natural climate change processes are at work. People who want immediate protective actions to be undertaken. (3) "It's just natural" GW/CC believers. People who accept the data & know about the consequences but who seem to believe that no protective actions should be undertaken. But the data indicate that without protective actions, the environmental changes caused by GW/CC will destroy our western way of life within 100 years.

David Bannister, Mullumbimby, Australia

Camilla is right. Being the change creates hope. But of course the Prius buyers are also motivated by government action since Prius cars do not attract the 10 pound congestion charge. We need individual citizens and corporations to act ahead of the crowd and create hope in a renewable energy future. We also need governments to shift the burden of taxation from environmentally benign to environmentally destructive activity. It is not about MORE taxes or subsidies as some of the respondents to this piece assume but about taxing and subsidising those actions that do right by the planet and our childrens' futures. And on the climate sceptic front human beings are now responsible for 80 per cent of climate variability, the sun for 10 per cent and volcanoes and other variables for 10 per cent. This is a unique situation in the history of the planet and we have to take our hands OFF the climate accelerator before millions, and eventually billions, die.

Professor Michael Northcott, Ediburgh, Scotland

I totally believe in wind turbines but we are not exploiting tidal power. We should be building tidal farms off our coast. These units can be then used as navigational aids for shipping. There is an abundance of energy due to the tide. it will come in and it will go out. We can predice the tide movements years in advance. There is so much energey in the tide, shipping use it by sailing with the tide on their passage to reduce costs. These tide farm units can be constructed so that each turbine within each one can be easily removed for reconditioning or replacement. Please push harder for these units to be built as in my estimation we could generate at least 20% of our energy needs. All I say to anybody who questions the energy available at our river mouths and currents off our coast is this, just look at how it races into river entrances and how it races out again and check the tidal race off Porland Bill.
The wind may blow but the tide will always flow.

Hedley Ritchie, Exmouth, England

We released about 8 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere last year. There is 39000 gigatonnes in the oceans. The climate is changing but the likelihood of it being linked to fossil fuel burn is low. The climate change circus is like two fleas on a dogs back worrying that the dog stinks because they didn't take a shower this morning.

And meanwhile millions annually die from dirty water and indoor air pollution: and we could fix both for less than the Kyoto-related expense accounts. For shame.

John Hardy, Redditch, UK

Man made climate change caused by CO2 emissions is the 'religion of the modern age', and to ague against it is considered heresy! This unscientific theory cannot be proven (except by Al Gore), yet natural climate change, on a 1500/2000 year cycle can be proven. I know which I support, and it isn't a theory!

Desmond, Barnstaple, Devon

I live on terminal glacial moraine; it’s called Long Island. Brooklyn New York is built on it as well. The glaciers that built it melted back some 10,000 years ago, not from our ancestors overcooking their saber tooth tigers CO2 increases follow the rise in global temperature; thus they cant cause it. This foolishness is PC hysteria at best ; but, deeper, it's neo-fascist/socialistic anti free-market anti individualism. Please keep your hands out of my pockets.

Arthur Heyman, setauket,ny, usa

What is happening re the President of Guyana's offer to the UK of Guyana's entire tropical rainforest in return for assistance with green technological development? I think that it is an amazingly wonderful concept. But perhaps other countries,like Australia are better placed to make the most of Bharrat Jagdeo's offer.

Sarah Morgan, Canberra, Australia

i always find other peoples comments difficult to understand and therefore usually shy away from adding my own, less they spark the usual confused and angry response. However, i feel this article worthy of comment as it touches on a very interesting human phenomena. Why do we give up our individual common sense for collective stupidity?

I understand climate change as an issue requiring each of us to question our relationship with our environment. I do not think it is something that can be fixed by politicians or an international organisation. We must each acknowledge our interaction with our planet; how we contribute to its harm and how we can play a part in its healing. I feel the earth is sick, i don't need anyone to tell me. I step outside and i see that all we do is take. How could any system sustain such a relationship?

Any article that helps us to critically examine why we would chose collective stupidity over our own common sense is an article i'd like to read.

Hannah, Devon,

I find it interesting that an article, seemingly about human psychology, has been hijacked as yet another argument along the lines of “Fossil fuel causes climate change ... no it doesn't ... yes it does”.

Fossil fuel is a limited resource. The consequences of burning them all to exhaustion are arguably grim, but there are those who say it's not a problem. Whichever side you believe, the prospect of running out of fossil fuel before the world has been weaned off its use, ought to be frightening to anyone.

The point of this article then, seemed to be less the usual "The end is nie" eco-horror story that we've all heard too many times. More it seemed to be a message to stop waiting to see what our neighbour does before we take action. This is a message that could be applied in so may situations, whether it be the environment or our terrible homeless problem.

Phil, Rugby,

In 1896 Arrhenius calculated that doubling CO2 levels, a feat which humanity will soon achieve, would raise global temperatures by about 5 degrees Celsius. His prediction lies close to the mean of the IPCC's latest estimates.
I see many denials of climate change expressed by careless, biassed or irresponsible people, usually basing their opinion on unjustified extrapolation from specific facts, misunderstanding of the complex science involved or their own selfish interests.
Nevertheless, CO2 levels ARE unquestionably rising as a direct result of man's activities AND forcing up global temperatures. We do not yet know how regional climates might be affected, but the IPCC have made some estimates which do not make comfortable reading - and possible secondary effects could easily worsen an already alarming picture. Also note the UN estimate that 2 BILLION people were affected by climate-related disasters during the 1990s. Their predicted figure for this decade is 3.5 BILLION.

David Bright, Maidenhead, UK

People resist change, horses were easier to understand than automobiles, gaslight was friendlier than electric light.
So petrol cars are better than electric, standard light bulbs are nicer than LEDs. But as we get used to these 'new fangled' ideas they will become part of every day life.
20th century technology was very different to 19th century technology, and 21st century technology will be even more different. Global warming will make us reinvent our world...so what?

David, Toronto, Canada

As soon as it's too late, people will take huge steps to try to do something about it. Most people on this planet are too greedy to even listen. The others are, albeit less greedy, unable to do without the things they've been conditioned to need, like air conditioning; although, our grandparents were able to cope just fine. I'm one of the latter, and I can't imagine changing, even though I very much care.

I loved the Easter Island analogy, Ian.

Jane, Madison, Wisconsin

Global warming is the latest excuse to raise taxes, nothing more, nothing less, and the quicker the dimwits among us wake up to that we will stop being fleeced by politicians with the aid of their pet scientists, all paid their wages by government grants.

tony, birmingham, uk

You re right Camilla, we are all sleepwalking to disaster.

The crucial element that is missing is political leadership that will ring the warning bells in the most dramatic way possible.

Forget the jaded dullards in the office, keep writing on this topic

David McKnight, Bondi, Australia

I do not believe the theory that we can control climate change by reducing our CO2 output. If you look you will find that many academics working in the area of natural sciences say that they cannot single out CO2 in the atmosphere as the cause of climate change. I would urge anyone to do a bit of their own research on the net to get a more balanced view. It very quickly becomes clear that our climate has changed regularly throughout history. Sea levels, ice cover, temperature have been constantly changing throughout our planets past and it is obviously not going to stop just because we release a bit less CO2 into the environment. Climate change is natural and continuous, get used to it.

Paul Jones, Plymouth, Devon

"preferring an efficient transport system" - Mark from China

Yes, I would. Where is it? Ten years after the empty promises of John Prescott and his mates (with 2 Jags each, or is it more now?), we still don't have cheap, affordable and convenient public transport, or any plans to build such a system.

The MP's pension fund, alone, could probably build a complete new light rail system in a medium-sized city!

KR, Stockport,

I've spent my whole life wondering what possible evolutionary advantage there could be to my antisocial, curmudgeonly personality. Now, I"m beginning to get the answer.

This is not the first time this has happened, of course. We don't know who it was who cut down the last tree on Easter Island and condemned the entire population to slow starvation. But we do know that whoever it was, he knew it was the last tree.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

A world population increase from 3 billion to 9 billion in 100 years is a far greater curse. Cut the population and you will also see a cut in carbon (if indeed that is a problem). But that will never happen . The result will be ever increasing Oil and food prices as the increasing population will consume more and more of the planets resources..

Steve Byrne, christchurch, UK

A very good article. Please, please force Clarkson and your other motoring journalists to read it. Their collective apology is awaited...

JerryW, Maidstone, Kent,

I was in England for most of April to August, when the weather was generally poor. If someone mentioned global warming, the most common response was "Yes, please!" There's been a tendency for people in cooler climes to relocate to warmer climes if they can; now the warmer climes may come to them.

Faustino, Brisbane, Australia

Camilla, good article. I too am constantly wondering why, when we have an irrefutable record of shrinking ice caps, massive numbers of respiratory illnesses, some fatal, in industrialised areas and roads gridlocked by mindless commuters who'd rather sit in a traffic jam for the sake of having their "own" space instead of preferring an efficient transport system - why nobody actually gives a stuff.

Climate change deniers, who do you want me to side with? People whose court cases against Al Gore films are funded by mining companies, or scientists employed by the United Nations?

Petras Vilson, the vikings might have lived in a warmer climate, but it was not of their making. The current phenomenon is more than 90 percent likely to be our fault. Why, just why, take the risk? My girlfriend's just had to have an operation to clear her nasal airways because of pollution in China. Her, yours and my health is worth more than any company's profit.

Mark Binnersley, Beijing, China

Before the industrial revolution, before Amazon deforestation, before Al Gore, for 500 years the Vikings lived in Greenlands glacier-free coastal valleys. They planted wheat, harvested hillside apples, sailed the North Atlantic... during a much warmer period. It was 800 till 1300 AD.

The polar bears survived... Europe was not under water...

Greenland, half of Canada, and Siberia could all benefit from new forests, new grasslands...
I can't wait.

Petras Vilson, Ottawa, Canada

Most people are sick of being told what to do, by people who are not doing it.

We're sick of politicians telling us not to travel, or making is so damned expensive to drive our cars, while they have gas guzzlers, by people telling us to use public transport, while they use cars to drive two streets away.

We need to be shown that politicians are serious about it, by having them use the 'do as I say, and as I do' method.

Arthur, Newcastle,

You fail to indicate anywhere in your article that many equally reputable scientists have said this is a tempest in a teapot. Though you may not subscribe to this viewpoint, it's wrong to ignore it completely since it would directly answer your question. Why isn't everyone taking action in response to scientists preaching global warming? Because not everyone believes them, and rightly so.

The experiments you cite provide an equally incomplete picture. Just as people may relax when the people around them are relaxed, so do they panic when those around them panic. The lack of masses swarming to your banner could just as easily be a sign that you're actually OVER reacting.

Your article obviously presupposes that global warming is a fact and that humans can affect it. However, the evidence is not conclusive and until we know more there is really no way to react logically. A strong reaction based on partial knowledge is hardly useful, so why seek it?

DoyleLonnigan, Albany, New York

Maybe people are fed up with the media shouting "Fire" every five minutes to fan the flames of eco-hysteria. Scientists who do not believe CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming barely get any press. They are treated like heretics.

Mark Foster, London, UK