Thank goodness for David Bellamy.

I used to be so worried about 'global warming' that I determined to find out just how bad the facts were.

I became sceptical, principally on account of the constant propaganda, without facts, that I was bombarded with professionally. Why the hysteria, the threats of catastrophy, and everything but plagues of frogs?

It was then I found that there appeared to be a lot of true scientists doing what proper scientists should do, which is to present facts in a quiet, reasoned way. Trouble was that all these, usually eminent, people appeared to be showing why there was not in fact any meaningful 'consensus', and why the IPCC and others were in error.

I was able to find nothing to support the 'climate change' theory.

I do believe that we should not allow CO2 emissions to go through the roof, that we should recycle, conserve fossil fuels.

However, the climate has always changed, we cannot control it.

David, thank you, fight on for sanity.

Dudley Jones, Lydney, Gloucestershire

John Cook's http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php lists 47 long-debunked, oft-recycled skeptical arguments, with names, phrases to click on for a web page apiece, with plenty of good charts and references.

Bellamy manages to use 12-13 of them. It's always easier to cause confusion than to create clarity, so here are the current positions (they change) and codes of these standard arguments, in the same order as used by Bellamy. People who actually want real information can look them up.

20 1998

38 empirical
06 model

12 1934

08 ice70s

22 hockey

18 greenland

29 glacier ?
01 sun
46 solarcycle
41 scl
07 cosmic

34 schulte

Finally:
"President Bush announced today that the United States has agreed with other industrialized nations that stabilization of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions should be achieved as soon as possible."

That was 1989, before science got so politicized:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765

John Mashey, Portola Valley, CA, USA

Wow - what a fantastic source of debate in our schools for the new GCSE science syllabus (so called 'pub' science). If we are to educate the generation for whom this may all play out (either rising sea levels, increasingly variable weather, decreasing food supplies, etc., or nothing to worry about, let's keep wasting our energy resources), then the students of today need to see the controversy generated by this debate, and to see the peer reviewed scientific data from both sides of the argument. They will be the voters of tomorrow, and they will need to be scientifically literate enough to make their own judgments. Perhaps the Times could put together a supplement with all the different view points, AND the data from which learned people are drawing such different conclusions.

Caro Garrett, Southampton,

Very interesting article. Of the rest of the points of view listed here, most are clearly worth nothing. Either eco-warriors or 4x4 drivers following their preferred agendas.

I would be interested to read a reasoned response to this article from a Gore-ite point of view. Could the Times arrange this, please?

Adrian, London,

I can only say that I agree completely with David Bellemy. How can we be SO certain about climate when science keeps on bumping into problems. When the IPCC discovered that temperatures had not risen since 1998 - they had to adjust their computer models. We DON'T KNOW how the planet and the atmosphere works - WE ARE NOT GODS.
Let's get away from this green nonsense and help the poor get wealthy and stop dying.

Richard Gill, Norwich,

David Bellamy articulates a suspicion held by many lacking time and resources to engage in detailed research. The old maxim 'no crisis, no money' finds new application in the world of climate politics.

Stephen Davey, Sydney, Australia

When will people wake up to the fact that Global warming and the green crusade is just an attempt to create another market in which to generate business opportunities for an economy on the verge of collapse as the internet boom reaches maturity and ceases to drive the economic growth required to support the massive debt we have accumulated. Think of carbon trading ! talk about the emporers new clothes, what are you buying and selling ?..

mike watson, Hook, Hants

I am in total agreement with the idea that co2 has nothing to do with anything remotely like catastrophic global warming. I am also in total agreement that we need to take many steps toward sustainable agriculture and fuels - using rainwater for garden purposes, green building materials, ets.

The fight against "global warming" may have catastrophic effects on our lives and the planet far beyond the co2 issue. One proposition, to spew iron laced seawater in the tropical oceans to cause algae blooms has the potential to devistate the oceans - if you read about the Sahara dust (containing iron) blowing into the oceans causing red algae blooms which poison fish, make shellfish poisonous and harm those who breathe ocean spray - especially if they have any respiratory problems. This is being proposed to be done without much research because it will "make money and save the planet" - all in the name of selling energy credits because alge absorb co2. The cure may well kill the patient

Alexandria, Hillsboro, USA

Can I be at the end of this string,and ask will any one remember E M Forster and his short story 'The Machine Stops' (SIC)
Lift your eyes above the political crap and see what the great money gamers are peddling now in the name of ecology.

Chris, Southampton,

Would somebody please tell me where Bellamy has got the impression that climate scientists ignore El Nino events? And what on earth does he mean by "cloud control"? This, plus comments about 1934 being a temperature peak, and the very strange reference to the "hockey stick computer model" all go to prove that his "knowledge" continues (as with his claims made on his cringe-making appearance on Channel 4 news last year) to come entirely from scanning the misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the science to be found in the blogosphere.

Steve Milesworthy, Exeter, UK

I am and have been of the view expressed by the author about the politics of fear engendered by Al Gore's film and the stance which the British Gov't has taken and is looking at climate change of a way to tax the citizens of this country and to bolster the coffers of the Gov't.
What makes me very annoyed is that the scientists who are sceptics and do not agree with the concensus science are not vociferous enough and is allowing the Gov't to be off the hook and pander to the likes of the Green party, friends of the earth, greenpeace and sees a way of gaining votes.
Please let us all as proper scientists rise up with one voice and educate properly the public about the real cause of climate change as I feel the Gov't and others are giving a skewed and lop-sided view of the whole situation.

Dr Louis Vydelingum

Dr Louis Vydelingum, London, United Kingdom

The fools who are lining up to praise David Bellamy are being suckered by their own fervent desire to believe everything's OK. How many have actually read the reports that are predicting dire consequences from climate change? Read and understood? How, then, can they be in a position to decide who's right? As uninformed bystanders we can do little but go with the scientific consensus, and we all know what that is.

Besides, there's another argument which clinches it for me. We are, by emitting such huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, conducting a large uncontrolled experiment on the only planet that we have to live on. Even if we admit the doubts about climate change, the outcome of the experiment is uncertain. The consequences could be catastrophic. We may be unable to reverse them. When we consider that many of the countermeasures are beneficial to us over the medium term - more energy efficiency, cleaner energy - to carry on heedless with this experiment is madness.

David Pritchard, Madrid, Spain

The Times is showing more maturity than 95% of American newspapers by printing this article. This issue is debated in an echo chamber here in the U.S. and I am tired of having to explain almost daily to my young children that they don't have to worry about the world coming to an end within the next two weeks. Hopefully some reason and responsibility will germinate with articles like this.

By the way, I live in a very liberal part of the country (Seattle) and I was really surprised by the overwhelming sentiment even here that the bestowal of the Nobel Peace Prize to Gore was political and farcical. The Seattle Times quit publishing reader comments before the end of the first day. Subsequent stories tried to cement the notion that he now has univeral credibility.

Like I said, Echo Chamber.

Jim
Seattle, USA

Jim Ellis, Seattle, WA

The vast majority of the public are suckered in by the media and believe buying solar panels, windmills, electric car etc will make a difference to net CO2 in the atmosphere. Very few people stop and ask how much CO2 was created during production (and later maintenance) of these items and most seem to think that the electricity used to charge electric cars is some how magically generated in a green fashion. Governments clearly like this new world scare as it creates new markets which will generate more GDP and new ways of taxing people.

nicholas Michael, Surbiton, England

temperatures may not have risen since 1998 but the 1960s they have, significantly.

and where does this idea that james lovelock disagrees with global warming derive from? His whole thesis on why we should focus on nuclear pwoer is predicated on the assumption that global warming is taking place

Harry harinordiquy, Toulouse, France

I too feel that science has been undermined for political gain.

I am sceptical of the severity of man-induced climate change, but I do support initiatives that seek to reduce the pollution we produce and the impact we have on this planet.

Harvesting rainwater to water the garden and wash the car is better than having the water board cleanse water through an industrial process only for me to waste it.
Fitting solar panels to produce electricity or heat water is better than having pylons scar the landscape and Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind or Hydro power plants affect nature in their respective ways.
Knowing that the next car I buy will blow out air that does not differ much from the air it breaths in is a good thing irrespective of the global warming debate.

Chris, Sunshine Coast, Australia

New enviromental legislature and protection.
The development of cleaner power sources.
Improved air quality.
Green taxes leading to more efficient businesses
Energetic internationational co operation.
Global public awareness on the importance of conservation.

The list goes on.

Even if global warming, in the end, just proves to be an historical anacronism, surely the benefits of trying to counter this apparently 'non-existant' problem are obvious for all to see.

james, Tokyo, japan

The skeptics use a familiar technique: take areas of uncertainty in scientific results, pounce upon them and quote out of context to disprove the validity of research.

Anyway convenient half truths are far easier to live with than an inconvenient truth.

Oh and I forgot where does that extra 3.2 Gt CO2 go every year?

Bernie Stilgoe, Toowoomba Qld, Australia

First of all, what has David Bellamy's accent got to do with whether he is on to something? What an unpleasant and patronising man Mark must be.

Three cheers for Mr. Bellamy. At last someone has spoken up against the new puritans, the new totalitarians. Climate change has been going on for millennia. It is of course, a good thing to insulate our houses and use fossil fuels sparingly but not because of global warming but because they are running out but the spurious science of C02 emissions causing climate change is not proved.

We are told that all papers produced on the subject are "peer reviewed". Who are these peers? People in agreement with the main thesis of the papers. If they are saying that the science has been validated, then in the famous words of Mandy Rice-Davies "they would, wouldn't they."

The whole theory of human-induced climate change is very profitable hocum. Al Gore and his pals are the new Witchfinders General. It is time the World realised this.

Jane, Thames Ditton, UK

I remember David Bellamy's appearance on Newsnight in which he made a fool of himself. However, this doesn't mean he is a fool. I also seem to remember a programme (Horizon?) in which some scientists (from the University of East Anglia?) confessed to having 'sexed up' their findings in order to continue to receive funding.

The topic of man-made global warming has a stink about it, and Mr. Bellamy is quite right to use the word heretic.

The gullibility of people in accepting all the IPCC throws at us is astonishing. A graph, covering a whole 150 years or so, shows that the curve showing average temperature is a similar shape to the curve showing CO2 concentrations. Really! How relevant is that? I've no doubt one could draw a graph that shows the increase in the use of duvets is a similar curve to a graph that shows the increase in the use of the 'F' word on television. A time span of a mere 150 years is pretty irrelevant in terms of the history of the Earth's climate.

Steve, Exeter, Devon

Mr Cavendish,

Mentioning "George Monbiot" and "veracity" in the same sentence is the perfect example of anti-thesis. You should know better!

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

Dr Bellamy claims that the 'hockey stick' curve has 'disappeared' from the IPCC's 2007 report.

Strangely enough, it is mentioned in the text of Chapter 6 and features in Figure 6.10, along with several other more recent paleoclimatic reconstructions, all of which show broadly similar patterns.

IMR, London, England

Let's say there's a 99% chance you're correct, and a 1% change you're incorrect.

Fair?

So this time, we're willing to accept - or unable to unite our global efforts - to avert a 1% chance of global catastrophe?

What about the next 99 times?

PS.

Did anyone else read this article to themselves with the Bellamy-accent?

Mark, Woking, UK

With respect to the veracity of the data, to state "we don't know" is a very different proposition to stating "we do know" (obviously). The fact Bellamy is unable to state his case against based on evidence is not so surprising, given climate scientists are working on little else other than the implausible link between CO2 and catastrophic warming. Using the fabled Russell teapot as an example, please state the evidence that it does not exist. 1,000 flawed studies may show that it does based on glimpses from powerful telescopes. However, it may turn out to be a small asteroid coupled with a lot of wishful thinking. It is not easy to prove *not*.

When you throw into the mix the rather slap-dash science climatologists are performing (see climateaudit.org for a shocking expose on how all this works), along with a very weak peer-review process, you have a recipe for grand delusions and a massive but pointless diversion of resources from more important human problems.

Robin Laundon, London, UK

Hmm. I seem to remember David Bellamy spouting off along these lines recently on Newsnight, and on being challenged by George Monbiot as to the veracity of the source of his data was stunned into an embarrassed silence. Ring any bells David?

Guy Cavendish, London, England

It appears that folks on both sides of the argument have drank the kool-aid. Balanced? Hardly. I could fill up twice this space with facts which were (conveniently?) omitted. And I'm a skeptic.
People seem too willing to jump onto any bandwagon that drives by hauling around their preconceived notions.

Doug McGee, Cleveland, OK

What a relief to read this; a voice of reason in the increasing avalanche of hype and twaddle being peddled wholesale in the media. Well done!! I echo those sentiments of "check out the science for yourself", I have, to great depth and the story we're being told; the science is settled is as far removed from reality as those blessed IPCC predictions. I long for the day when the reality of the world's impending energy crisis is revealed in all it's glory as the true foundation of the fairy tale.

dawn stevens, bath, UK

Very refreshing coming from such a respected source, I personally have always believed that the global warming lobby is political and financial and now is holding sway over people who should know better. How arrogant can mankind be to beleive that it`s rather pathetic activities will extinguish the planet, it is of course a convenient lie that allows all manner of abuses to be perpetrated in it`s name.......green taxes....environmental legislation....green charities, not forgetting the collusion of the media to depress and control the population, not least the school children . I am confident that in years to come this period , dominated as it is by this green agenda and draconian laws and government will be seen as a low point in our modern history.
Just one politician recognising the stupidity of the global warming case and actually having the courage to say so would be a tremendous relief...thankyou David Bellamy

john westwood, Godalming, England

OK David, let's all ignore this climate change rubbish and everything will be fine... I really hope so.

Ben, Chester,

Well said David, too much credability is given the IPCC as 'climate experts' they are not, they are politicians and bureacrats who own a few scientists and decide which politically correct science they choose to adopt.

The Royal Society has lost it's way in that they are promoting the pairing of MPs and scientists. That is a politicians who have fiscal power and see nothing wrong in 'spinning' the truth with scientists that struggle to obtain financial support whos aim is in the search for the truth - under such circumstances as is seen with the way the IPCC conducts itself it is little wonder such politicised science as is the case with climate science is being spun and exagerated greatly out of proportion.

Andy, Leeds, UK

I'd very much like to see some direct quotes from James Lovelock to back up your claim that he "has changed his mind" on climate change.

The latest remarks by Lovelock that I could find are from a letter dated 26 Sept 2007, written jointly with Chris Rapley to Nature magazine, proposing a vast geoengineering scheme intended to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere into the oceans. The letter states:

"Measurements of the climate system show that the Earth is fast becoming a hotter planet than anything yet experienced by humans. Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system — and that of our response — make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo."

Unless he has completely changed his mind in the last 3 weeks, it sounds like he still takes climate change rather seriously.

Alan Wyper, London, UK

I've tried to comment already! Not printed here though :-((

Prof Bellamy's points are all telling ones. I advise /anyone/ who aspires to know something about climate change to get the numerical data for themselves via www, and to carry out appropriate analyses. Have a go with Prof Mann's "hockey stick" data set which is 112 columns and up to 593 rows and see what you find. You will find absolutely no hint of such a diagram, I can assure you.
The IPPC was hoodwinked by the chant of "Peer review" - believing it to mean that the underlying information had been correctly assessed and analysed. It had not. The journal "Nature" was similarly lulled into belief in a flawed analysis that formed a cornerstone of the Kyoto Accord, which politicians appear to believe in as a medicine for all the perceived problems of our society. The analysis they all put their faith in is grossly in error because of faulty statistical methods. Please wake up, everyone.

Robin Edwards, Bromsgrove, UK

David the facts are that since carbon dioxide has been increasing the temperature has gone up. Since the highly valued Indusrrial Revolution you talk about. Yes other factor have caused fluctuation such as solar activity but the one constant factor is the rise in carbon dixoide. So David you see the we are causing this problem. We may find a solution. Even if we believed you it would be no bad thing to cut carbon. David you are not only in a minority but wrong. Some things do become political cause but only when things are certain. The industrial revelution was een as a good thing for years until we recognised the mass poverty and polutlution it brought.

Steven, Buckhurst Hill,

Maybe CO2emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are causing serious climate change but the fact that you only get half of the facts damages the proponents case in so many instances.David has given some examples.The media seem to be generally complicit..What has happened to the normal
journalistic rigour when climate change is reported.
Recent examples -Aral Sea,Lake Chad and the Carteret Islands to name but a few.

Jean Welsh, Lampeter, Wales

Ed, Truro, Cornwall:
"Oh dear, the same old tired arguments... If anyone reading this wants to take their head out of the sand and see what real climate scientists think about the hockey stick, consensus, the medieval warm period, etc etc, go to www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/ and look up "Responses to common contrarian arguments:" "

Realclimate is run by Michael Mann and co.
The same Michael Mann who created the hockey stick.
Are you seriously suggesting that he is a credible critic of his own mendacity?
That's like believing Gordon Brown's reasoning for cancelling the election.

Jim Carr, Bospham, UK

An article in the journal Science (Vol 317, p796. 10th August 2007) reports on an ice core (of 3.26km) drilled in Antarctica that provides the longest continuous record of climate encompassing 11 glacial cycles entending back 800,000 years. Isotopic measurements taken along this core has enabled the team to examine millennial-scale climate events affecting the Northern and Southern hemispheres and to reliably calculate the temperatures changes involved. The warm periods were as much as 4.5C warmer and the cold periods as much as 10C colder than preanthropogenic Holocene values. Our current warming is at about 0.8C. So much for the hockey stick. So much for the unprecedented warming.

Rob Weatherill.

Rob Weatherill, Dublin, Eire

James Lovelock (see full quote below) isn't quite right about 55 million years ago. There was a deep-sea mass extinction because the higher acidity from increased dissolved CO2 attacked the calcareous parts of animals at high pressure.

Jim, London, UK

Well said David! Climate Change is a natural phenomenon, it's been happening for millions of years before we got here and will continue to happen for millions of years after we've gone. Global Warming is a political phenomenon, a means whereby politicians, (mostly of the Left), and bureaucrats can tax and control us more.

Man-Made Global Warming Theory is the greatest con-trick ever perpetrated on the people, and the sooner we consign it to the fire the better. It will be a long time dying, because there are a lot of careers built on it, but die it will.

Chris, Lichfield, UK

Just to point out to the previous commentor, the IPCC is not comprised of 2500 'expert scientic advisors' a large number of them are clerics. ( Who are easily brainwashed anyway!!)

Bill Atkinson, Harlow, essex

Spot on David - speak out!

Climate change has always happened, and it is the effect of the Sun, more than Man, which brought about much warmer conditions in England so that vineyards were all over the country pre 12th Century, in Roman times and earlier.

Many scientists absolutely disagree with the global warming alarmists. The Telegraph - March 07- reported:"Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.They say the debate on global warming has been"hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

Paul Butler, Reading, UK

Is <a href="http://urbannewsblog.blogspot.com/search?q=Global">Global Warming</a> really the threat <a href="http://urbaninsuranceagency.com/blog.php?content=displayPost&amp;id=88">Al Gore</a>, The Panel on Climate Changeand most scientists say it is?

I also come away with the following thoughts:

1. I would like to see the world send less money to the Arab states.
2. Pollution is not pleasant, regardless of whether or not it changes the global conditions.
3. I tend to LIKE the people on the environmental side better than the Oil guys. Except I hate all extremists, the ones of the “Left” bother my as much as the one’s on the right.” PETA people annoy me to no end)
4. IF, there is any truth to the global warming concept, I have a concern that “Solid” evidence will not come till it’s too late to do anything.
5. Is there is a way for the US to profit from the concern of global warming?
How could it be a bad thing If . we used less gas?
http://urbannewsblog.blogspot.com

Larry Lubell, Chicago, Illinois

What a great article. I love the religious metaphors being thrown out by both sides in this debate...heretic, skeptic, denier. The passion (oops, there's another one) is quite amusing. Hopefully there won't be any martyrs in this new Church of Climate Change. Good writing.

Thomas F., Laramie, Wyoming, USA

A couple of points for the AGW crowd
1.Why was the summary IPCC for policymakers released in january ahead of the scientific results
2.Instead of quoting realclimate, try and check out climateaudit (www.climataudit.com) and just see how lacking in rigour are the paleoclimate reconstructions (also check out www.sufacestations.org - how many monitoring station can you put next to aircon vents)
3.If Co2 emissions where such a climate driver , then why isn't the green movement pusinh for a massive Nuclear power station building program (Franch has the lowest co2 emissions per capita thanks to its generating over 60% of its power via nuclear energy) instead of pusing inefficient and unreliable wind power (and even fighting the development of a tidal barrage in the avon because it would "damage the wetlands")
4What price all this with the forthcoming Maunder Minimum (that one for you Dr Milne)

G W Sturdy, Nelson,

I advise anyone to ignore anything from the realclimate site. It is a front group, partially funded by Soros. It's sole aim is to spew forth impressively complex, but flawed mathematical support for AGW. realclimate exists to slander and destroy any study or scientist who doesn't get aboard the AGW bandwagon. Nothing at the realclimate site gives credence to the Sun possibly as the primary effector of our climate. It is extremely dangerous to politicize science. realclimate, al gore, and other the other AGW fanatics are doing exactly that. The primary purpose of all these AGW fanatics is to impose totalitarian controls over lives and in the process make themselves wealthy. It is astounding the rush to panic humanity over what is most certainly a natural event. The left seems hell-bent on destroying the future for our children. We should be positive and have faith that free people will "adapt" and survive any climate change.

Barry, Metairie, LA/USA

The 'hockey stick' graph favoured by alarmists IPCC, Gore and many on here is flawed - RealClimate is quoted as an authority but in reality these are the same scientists (???) that produced the 'hockey stick' in the first instance,

The 'hockey stick' graph does not include the medeval warm period that shows natural global warming, does not prove the link that CO2 causes warming (the proof is the other way around as David rightly points out), and worse from a scientific point they have deleted the tree ring data from the last 34 years from the graph because this data shows cooling (see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1579)

People are berating David here but there are other prominent scientists that agree with his views such as Fred Singer along with 19,000 American scientists who have signed a petition denouncing CO2 caused global warming.

Andy , Leeds, UK

Will someone turn up ther air conditioning? It's getting a little warm in here.

Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA

Nice one David, though the eco Taliban will be after you. It's interesting how quickly the pro catastrophe lobby resort to personal insults whenever anyone has the audacity to refuse to accept their proclamations without question. Have you been called a Clarkson yet? Presumably I can forget the swimming lessons, as the rising seas won't reach my 3rd floor window for a while yet?

It seems unnecessary to quote any more of James Lovelock other than what was posted earlier, "Climate change is more serious than we can possibly imagine, but neither the Earth nor the human race is doomed..." That is not what we were supposed to believe before.

Hamish, Glasgow,

Very timely article on the day we hear that certain London roads will be reserved for the so-called "Olympic Family" (including, of course, media and big fat politicians and money-grabbing, ennobled ex-athletes) during the 2012 Olympics in the name of saving the planet from climate change.

Neil, Southampton,

I'm more worried about what will happen when the oil and gas starts to run out - world wide production of oil will start to go down within the next 10 years. It makes sense to convert to a low carbon economy now while we have the chance. I think most government are using Climate Change as a pretext for changing our economies without scaring us too much. Going green make sense for economic reasons rather than environmental reasons.

Jason White, Paris,

Thank you David Bellamy for your brave though probably very unpopular article. The man-made global warming lobby is now part of a vast money spinning enterprise that, thanks to saturation publicity, is growing exponentially and will probably consume mankind long before the the rising oceans and baking summers that are being forecast. Meanwhile as we expend our energies, trying to alter something as large and powerful as the earth's natural cycles, we ignore the real problems as always. In my opinion our real problems are, in order, Human Nature, Overpopulation - Pollution - Disease, the real horsemen of our much predicted apocalypse.

Edward Barber, Hook, Hampshire

Thankyou David for the balanced and honestly expressed opinion piece.

If only Big Al Gore had the decency to debate with you, I think a lot more of his inconvenient lies and exaggerations would be revealed.

And as for Al Gore recieving a Peace Prize.

Well, all I can say is that I am baffled.

Perhaps next year, for the sake of consistency, the Nobel committee will award President Mugabe a Nobel Prize for Economics.

And they might follow that up by giving a Chemistry prize to Mr Stern...

So much for logic...;)

Rod Trinca, Adelaide, South Australia

Excellent article. Nice to hear a respected figure basing their dissent on reasoned and scientific arguments.

A note of caution though. As this article hints, no one truly understands the impact of increased CO2 levels. We also need to acknowledge that the natural resources we consume for energy are finite and will run out one day.

James, London,

Better to err on the side of the 'doom-mongers' I say. This is not something to play politics with!

Peter Day, Doncaster, UK/ Yorkshire

Interesting article - appears well balanced, for a change. I'd like to know how many of the supporters of 'man made global warming' have given up their cars, stopped purchasing goods made by the use of electicity, stopped using the central heating in their homes etc etc. If you can talk the talk, how about walking the walk? - while those of us who are 'deniers' drive past you in our climate controlled cars!

Ian , Bristol,

In the last 2.5 million years the earth has gone through a number of glacial and interglacial periods when the world has been warmer or colder than it is now. Sea levels have been tens of metres higher and tens of metres lower. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher and lower than at present. Through most of these ice ages modern man did not exist on the earth. Indeed modern man appeared only during the last glaciation and spread worldwide in the last few tens of thousands of years. Civilizations have arisen only in second half of the period that has elapsed since the last ice sheets melted. The ice did not melt and the earth warm because of the industrial activities of stone age man! It may warm a little more or it may cool. It will certainly do one or the other. If it cools we will have difficulty in feeding the population of this earth. If it cools more than a little the populations of
the north will seek liebensraum in warmer climes. Bloodshed will follow.

Roger Dewhurst, Auckland, New Zealand

The main point about climate change that has to be realised, and that is honestly acknowledged throughout both the Stern Review and the IPCC reports, is that there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the causes and effects of climate change. Yes, some studies point out opposing views, but the overwhelming consensus is that climate change is happening and is anthropocentric in nature. The thing the scientific community disagrees about is the extent to which climate change will effect us.

However, uncertainty is not a new concept and is dealt with on a day-to-day basis in fields such as insurance. If there is a possibility that your house is going to burn down, however slight, you take out insurance. Concerning climate change, the potential for damage is so great, that financial insurance will not suffice. The precautionary principle has be to utilised, and affirmative action has to be taken in order to avert the worst-case scenario.

A Thornton, Sydney,

Wonderful stuff. At last a respected scientist and broadcaster who is willing and able to put his head above the parapet. Why can't the politicians ask more penetrating questions of those who advise them? More rigour is required from those who advocate that carbon is the cause of all our ills.

Michael Alcock, Bray, Berkshire

Selective misquoting of James Lovelock I'm afraid Mr Bellamy. This is a quote from the world Neuclear News of what he said at the 32nd sypmosium of the World Neuclear Association last month.

"Climate change is more serious than we can possibly imagine, but neither the Earth nor the human race is doomed, said Lovelock. The good news is that the Earth itself is in no danger, with world climate likely to stabilize some 5 degrees C warmer than current temperatures - such stable 'hot' states have existed in the past, including some 55 million years ago when the world's own feedback mechanisms took 200,000 years to recover. During that phase no great extinction occurred, but life moved to cooler climes to survive."

Might become a bit crowded though as 55 million years ago there were not too many people to accommodate.

Peter, Hong Kong,

Hard to argue with anything Dr. Bellamy says although there are a vast number of issues he hasn't addressed. However, after the channel 4 News interview when another scientist, live on national television got him to admit that he may have commited scientific fraud by unknowingly using inaccurate data and reports. I tend to take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

Matt Baker, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Congratulations on a fine article, David. The present IPCC manmade global warming story has this built-in flaw. It depends upon a level of imbecility that does not exist, despite several decades of dumbing-down in our schools and universities. The backlash has begun. The IPCC's infamous Millennial "hockey stick" temperature reconstruction is now utterly discredited as a piece of pseudoscientific junk; Dr Philip Jones of the CRU-UEA, a leading advocate of manmade global warming within the IPCC bureaucracy, is currently under investigation for allegedly fabricating a paper central to the latest IPCC report ; and finally Al Gore's pathetic little film, "An Inconvenient Truth", is riddled top to bottom with errors and falsehoods, that is according to the ruling of Mr Justice Burton last week in the London High Courts.

Only an imbecile could place any confidence in the manmade global warming yarn woven by a selected core group of ideologically driven "scientists" in the IPCC.

Tom, London,

Can't really disagree with any of this, but I think it would be reasonable to sound a note of caution, or even alarm, when we are putting unprecedented amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, nobody knows what the precise effects will be.

Ed W, London,

How refreshing to hear a voice of sanity among the cacophony of hysterical outpourings from the global warming lobby. Why do we all feel the need to climb on the latest bandwaggon to roll out from the "scientific" farmyard?

D LONGFIELD, salisbury, UK

Thank you Mr Bellamy for speaking some true words and thank you to The Times for publishing them. We need more voices of reason to stop the madness that has taken over the media in proclaiming man's influence over the climate. If only population growth got the same publicity as global warming, there might be a chance of a decent future for us all.

Hans Schreuder, Ipswich, UK

Somebody send this artical to the BBC please.

They only have The Guardian over there!

Tim, French Alps,

Mr Bellamy is plain wrong. The Hadley Centre website makes is quite clear they support the views expressed by Al Gore in 'An Inconvenient Truth'. They even endorse the recent legal opinion which agreed with the central message of the film, despite misleading press statements to the contrary. Furthermore Mr Bellamy should have noticed that the data presented by the Hadley Centre shows a continuing rise in global temperatures since 1997, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
I hope the Hadley Centre will respond to Mr Bellamy's grossly distorted references.

Robert E Grindley, Reading, UK

I too is a sceptic. I know though what is the difference between me and all these climate change evangelists. I know what can change my mind. It's facts. Good old facts. Mr Bellamy is right. There aren't any. So I remain unconvinced.

On the other hand, if it is just a variant of a judeo-christian guilt trip, what a waste of resources, talent and money. All in short supply.

John, London, UK

Dr Milne, to what actual EVIDENCE do you refer?

A. E. Poole, La Linea, España

Any chance of this article being made compulosry reading in our schools? Thought not.

Keith, Wirral,

I think many commentators have missed what I think the point of the article to be, that there is no irrefutable evidence which proves a case either way and, much more importantly, that science as a field should not be politically 'sensationalist'. No theory, rule or finding has been taken without due scrutiny in the past and non should now. This does not mean a 'sit and do nothing' ethos will pervade, moreover a check, question and recheck philosophy should be paramount.

Seemingly we are in the position that the government is making recommendations with no hard facts (Iraq, blah, blah) and if you look at it this way, you could almost say that Carbon Dioxide emissions are more government propoganda to enable higher taxes... and without any 'green' benefit to the country by subsidies for personal clean energy generation, I would start to question if the government belives its' own hype. That said, cleaner air is certainly better for you. Take a walk in the Lakes and argue that!

Alistair Kipling, Birmingham,

Political opinion of climate change and global warming is based upon IPCC evidence with it’s 2,500 scientific minds at work. One is hardly inclined to seek for corroboration of their claims, unless one is a scientist. Nonetheless, through the internet, and with a determined mind one finds the IPCC a government think tank, devised to selectively create scenarios that suit political agendas to gain support for cleansing the world, proclaim to be justified leaders in beating global warming, and bill the tax-payer. There is global warming/cooling and climate change caused by a myriad of elements beyond our control, there always has been, always will be, and man’s puny attempts to affect it by reducing CO2 emissions which amount to fraction in hundredths of one percent of vital green-house gas world-wide, will disenfranchise those who need energy the most for next to no change at all. Bravo Mr Bellamy, and all those who dare face governments and alarmists with truth. Power to your pens.

Derek Reynolds, St Albans, England

Dr. Milne' s Clarkson laden critique is: "People die from cancer who don't smoke, but that doesn't mean smoking does not cause cancer." Well, well, Dr. Milne. Because you smoke does not mean it caused your cancer! I hope your diagnosis is better in the surgery.

Dr. Bob, Brighton, UK

An absolutely brilliant and courageous piece by Bellamy. Quiet, rational, scientific and well reasoned, Bellamy's piece is a devastating demolition of the man made global warming argument put forward by the non scientific political establishment. The Times has shown great bravery in printing this piece against a backdrop of an incredibly politically powerful global green eco religion.
And to Dr David Milne: Science is not about moral self righteousness, it is about the rational and evidence based search for facts. Self flagellating progressives may want global warming to be man's fault, but the science points the other way. Perhaps thats why greens try so hard to silence the debate?

Tim Mirsadeghi, London, England

The Hadley Centre data Mr Bellamy refers to is online at

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide24.pdf

i doubt if many unbiased observers or statisticians would come to the same conclusion about 1998 as he does.

1998 was an extreme outlier, the trend (blue line) is inexorably upwards.

Simon Toxteth, Wells, UK

I dont agree doctor. If it aint broke dont try to fix it.
Sometimes doing something is the worst that can be done if it is wrong. Trouble is your subscibers could more than make up for the wrongs without taking the rest of us down with you. Great, let the believers take the Hair Shirt but let the remainder also have the freedom to deny it. What time state would you set as an ideal? Roman? Victorian? And if it were achieved would it remain so?

Keith Peat

Keith Peat, Sutton on Sea, England

Aren't you missing the point, David? Even if what you say is true, what possible harm could come from taking the pessimistic view and assuming we should urgently do something about climate change? Achieving a carbon-neutral society represents a challenge but also an incredible opportunity--potentially as big as the one caused by the Industrial Revolution you remember so fondly.

Jason Deign, Barcelona,

The first thing we were taught in school and then university is that climate and weather are two very different things. the human race flatters itself to say it can honestly say what is going on re: climate change. All we can say with reliablitiy is that it has happened, it is happening, and it will continue to happen. Earths climates are never fixed, but they change. Historical data we can access all points to cycles, within cycles, within cycles. From day to night, season to season, millenia to millenia and so on.

There is no way to prove either way that we're causing, helping or hindering climate changes. the only thing that is true, is the finite resources we rely so heavily on and which are in such short supply. Its a fortunate coincedence that these valuable resources are the very thing causing this global warming which we can't prove. Perhaps this mass hysteria (akin to the earth being flat to be honest) will develop reliable energy sources.

Gareth, London, England

A very interesting article, with some calmly made, considered points. It either convinces you or it doesn't, without laying on a guilt-trip and blame.

Unlike Dr Richard Milne's comments in the Have Your Say section which are purely point-of-view statements with no evidence or even pointers to where the evidence can be found. Comments like "made climate change is real, separating man-made from natural effects is difficult" (while almost being opposing statements) are purely conjecture, 'headline grabbing' statements made with no evidence.

SV, London,

David Bellamy refers to Al Gore's film. I couldn't believe it when I heard there were nine errors in the film. Why was he pushing out these lies?

Then I looked deeper and read the details of the court case. Both sides accepted (like the government) the latest IPCC report. Also errors was actually in quotes. The judge also said that the film was broadly correct. The only thing they did was to alter the notes that went out with the film. The judge said it was constructive litigation.

Digging again you find out that the Scientific Alliance were funding this action. They are not a scientic body but a lobbying group who don't believe in athropomorphic climate change.

And finally back to Bellamy (who used to be a revered figure in my childhood) I see several articles from people like Mark Lynas and George Monbiot who use actual science, not unsubstantiated ravings, to know down all of Bellamy's points.

Have an open mind. Do the research unlike Bellamy.

Keith Garrett, Cambridge, UK

Oh dear, the same old tired arguments... If anyone reading this wants to take their head out of the sand and see what real climate scientists think about the hockey stick, consensus, the medieval warm period, etc etc, go to www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/ and look up "Responses to common contrarian arguments:"

The likes of Bellamy are quick to claim that the AGW consensus is a 'political cause' and imply that it serves vested interests. This begs the questions, 'what vested interests lie behind the politics of denial?'.

The answer is the unfettered global market economy. All it needs is a little constraint and it might work quite nicely... how about a carbon tax?

..and lastly, where does the '$50 billion' spent on greenwashing come from and more importantly, what does it mean? 'Greenwashing' is a term that describes an attempt to appear more environmentally friendly than one actually is, not an attempt to persuade scientists to join a consensus.

Ed, Truro, Cornwall

Thankyou David, time will prove you right and I applaud you for sticking to the fundamentals when all around you have lost their minds to Governmental meddling and Hollywood tripe.

There is a mountain of evidence against the theory, yet we stick with it because it 'seems' the right thing to think.

Anyone who is interested should just look over the last 150 years of climate scaremongering by the world's media, a classic cycle of cooling! warming!

AGW is the Emperor's New Clothes of the 21st century, in fact we should rewrite the greatest fable of all time and call it
'Al Gore's new Oscar'

Chris , Birmingham, England

Its amazing how people will celebrate someone saying what they want to hear even when it comes from such a dodgy source. The basic debate still being portrayed as being in scientific doubt, when such an organisation as the IPCC has been acclaimed as an authority on the subject (don't forget that the Al Gore Nobel prize went to the IPCC too). And incidentally an organisation which made some predictions which have now been proved as having been conservative. The IPCC is comprised of 2500 expert scientific reviewers, 850 contributing authors, 450 lead authors, from 130 countries (the countries all having to -agree- before their reports are published, which frankly is amazing when you look at international politics generally). Yes, there are occasionally maverick scientists who buck the prevaiing view but they tend to have evidence to back themselves up.

As I understand it, if we act -now- then the changes are not painful, but if we leave it till later, the risk of massive recession, natural disaster, and possible complete societal breakdown are vastly increased. I don't think anyone who is clinging onto 'business as usual' has any concept of what it is like being in a non-functioning state (and certainly not those in power who are inflicting such a situation to other countries abroad).

I'd quite like to carry on living in a functioning country, listening to my ipod, being able to eat well, and have a job, and if that means I have to fly less now, well so be it.

Ayesha Garrett, Harrow, UK

Spot on. Good to see that a sceptic is allowed a voice.

If only people would do themselves the favour of looking into the "science" behind the dire predictions of the UN Climate Panel. As just one example: Their "scenarios" for future climate is based on computer models using a number of parameters which are poorly understood by present science. It can only be garbage in - garbage out. Why else do they need 19 different models, none of which can be verified on existing data, to work out their predictions. Surely, if the science was "settled" they would need only 1 model - the right one.

Lars Kjoeller, Skaevinge, Denmark

This is a worthwhile article. Bellamy does fail to mention, however, the scandalous failure of some key climate scientists to release their raw data and code.

Since so much of the science cannot therefore be replicated, we should treat it as junk science and ignore it.

Bishop Hill, Scotland,

Well said. Industry does make a contribution, no doubt about that. However, that has been used as an excuse to commit us to carbon-trading schemes that were invented by politicians, drafted by lawyers, passed by politicians and then policed by accountants and tax-collectors. It's the money, stupid!

KR, Stockport,

Rather there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.

Now I know why heretics are not burned in the modern world - it would add to global warming,

You will hear lots about the virtues of tolerance, until you dare doubt the ideas of one who won the Nobel peace prize

Christopher Gillibrand, Brussels, Belgium in exile

Good article. IMHO People need to develop a better perspective about global warming. Global temperatures have increased by 0.7C in the last 100 years and the blame for this is being attributed to a gas that makes up 0.04% of our atmosphere. In my view we have plenty of time to both better understand what is going on and then come up with the technolgy to fix it if necessary.

Chris W, Liverpool,

This is an article which was a long time coming in mainstream media of international repute. Climate Change is the Y2K of the new millennium - a disaster that never was. The cyclic fluctuating nature of Earth's climate is a well understood fact amongst many scientists and has been so very well explained even in Bryson's book (A short history of nearly everything). I hope more such similar viewpoints get the kind of coverage it deserves in the media instead of the incessant histrionic shrieks on global warming.

Toby, Calcutta, India

Oh David, you used to be a hero, now you're spouting the same line as Jeremy Clarkson. Just because there are natural variations doesn't mean there are not real and serious effects from human emissions. People die from cancer who don't smoke, but that doesn't mean smoking does not cause cancer. Do you see? Man made climate change is real, separating man-made from natural effects is difficult, but that is no excuse for playing into the hands of the sit-and do-nothing brigade. While I hope you're right, the evidence is not on your side.

Dr Richard Milne, Edinburgh,

Well done David! You are not alone!

Andrew brown, derby, uk

Finally, an "inconvenient" breath of reality, confirming what many of us have thought for some time. Nevertheless, the juggernaut of the ecomentalists will continue to roll on, and on, and on ...

Adrian Ryan, Donegal, Ireland

It would be helpful if David Bellamy gave chapter and verse for some of his statements - I need to see the James Lovelock comments that indicate that he has had a remarkable change of view.

It is unlikely that his conclusions about the severity of inevitable climate change and that the human race will be considerably reduced in numbers have altered.

Keith Thomson, Bradford, West Yorkshire