It sounds as if NickB is ignorant of the peer review process used in science and, moreover, of the real IPCC AGW debate.

Rejection of the IPCC's conclusions is not the same as the rejection of valid science or of the scientific process. Fundamentally, the IPCC is a political body whose reviewers contain many non-scientist political appointees. The WHOLE POINT is that the IPCC's review process itself is flawed; it is not a scientific review process as one would associate with publications such as Nature or AAAS Science, and it is known to squelch opposing viewpoints and evidence which opposes its [pre-ordained]desired conclusions. Therefore, the validity of [each of]all of its [reports]conclusions is in doubt. That said, basing national policy decisions on IPCC work is in the least, irresponsible.

There are many other more immediate issues facing the world than "Global Warming." Try overfishing, water reclamation, food and energy, or whale hunting But these won't allow for the global redistribution of wealth.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

I agree that the climate change deniers are, alas, ignorant of the science and the most basic facts about what is already happening. There is no excuse for this, you can read it at www.ipcc.ch or even in a basic form on Wikipedia; if you don't accept this you should reject science generally, it all comes from the same process and methods. Stern wants us to take action so that future generations have something left. Hardly ignoble I'd say.

NickB, Southampton, UK

Man made pollution, over fishing and over population are bigger threats than this nebulous nonsense about whether man has much of an effect on the climate. Shouldn't we be looking at those first?

Mister Jones, Nanaimo, Canada

"Global Warming" is a misnomer. It is really "Global Fleecing."

Global Warming is a trend no doubt, a simple natural cycle of nature. But Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka the Al Gore hypothesis) is discredited science at best, intentional fraud at worst and is being soundly refuted. See:

U.S. Senate Report:
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

http://tinyurl.com/24ym5b

Intro:
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."

Yes, AGW is pure POLITICAL science, not hard science.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

"Global Warming" is a misnomer. It is really "Global Fleecing."

Global Warming is a trend no doubt, a simple natural cycle of nature. But Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka the Al Gore hypothesis) is discredited science at best, intentional fraud at worst, and is being soundly refuted. See:

U.S. Senate Report:
Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

http://tinyurl.com/24ym5b

Intro:
"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."

Yes, AGW is pure POLITICAL science, NOT hard science.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

http://tinyurl.com/24ym5b

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus") Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC's peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired.

Dave, Phoenix, AZ, USA

"Fact 1 - The Antarctic had the greatest ever recorded depth of ice last year."

I doubt that is a fact. How long have we been measuring the thickness of the Antarctic ice? At how many points is it measured? If it has snowed a lot in Antarctica this year all that evidence of is increased precipitation, it is not an indicator of local temperature changes and certainly not of global temperature trends. Global temperature trends show a clear warming.

It was proven 150 years ago that CO2 absorbs radiant heat - its basic physics. Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 30%+ in 100 years will effect the climate. The Nobel winning chemist Arrhenius first noted this in 1896. There are 100+ years of scientific study to back up the IPCC's conclusions. You saloon bar scientists just aren't qualified to refute the scientific case.

Paul A, London, UK

I am still unconvinced that there is a man-made global warming problem. I say this because I am a historian and thus am fully aware of the many times in history that the climate has been warmer (and colder) than it is today.

However, I am willing to accept some precautions with one great proviso - are those who are pushing these ideas willing to incorporate in their rules, regulations and laws a clause that will cause them to expire if it turns out that the problem is a hoax? If they are not, if they then claim there are "common-sense" or "conservationist" reasons to keep everything in place, then they reveal what this entire event is - merely a classic attempt to reduce the liberty of the masses for the purpose of increasing their political power.

So will anyone stand up and say, "Yes, if it turns out the predictions are wrong, I will support dismantling wind farms, permitting SUVs and manufacturing incandescent light bulbs?"

D. Smithson, Philadelphia, PA

Fact 1 - The Antarctic had the greatest ever recorded depth of ice last year. Funny thing that?
Fact 2 - Remember 'mad cow disease and "scientists" predicting confidently that cases would multiply exponentially due to bad beef already eaten......wrong again sunshine!

Why is it that people seem to want a reasom to suffer? CLIMATE CHANGE IS A NATURAL PHENOMENA, GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!!!

steve, Christchurch, New Zealand

Can anyone tell me what difference to the global temperature the Kyoto protocol has made since it was introduced? No? I thought not.

Dave, Southampton, UK

Dr Coles in LA is a classic example of a climate change denier. Do you know how many scientists there are in the word, Dr Coles? 400 is a tiny minority, and many of these know nothing about climate science! Others are paid by oil companies. If every scientific advance had to wait until the last few doubters agreed with it we'd still be in the middle ages.
Every argument I've heard from climate change deniers is so obviously full of holes that it makes Al-Fayed's case against Prince Philip look watertight by comparsion. Lord Stern, on the other hand, knows what he's talking about. Climate change is man-made, and those who say otherwise are either ignoring, or unaware of, the evidence.

Dr Richard Milne, Edinburgh,

Just look closely at a map of the world and then tell us what impact this country could have on climate change.

F Kimbal Johnson, Louth,Lincs, uk

All this hectoring... all these demands to control all our lives. All from the usual suspects who have been trying to boss us about on one pretext or another for the last 50 years. Always "for our own good".

A witch doctor at an eclipse might have said something similar. "Oh no! The sky-wolf has almost swallowed the Moon virgin! Give me silver and I will make him let her go!"

Climate change is clearly a myth.

Roger, Ipswich,

Why, now that man-made Global Warming has been disproved as bogus science and now largely discarded by the independent non-governmental scientists do we still get endless articles and statements from politicians and columniusts?
Sunspot activity has virtually ceased and with it temperatures have fallen, giving us the coldest winters in the Northern and Southern hemispheres for a long time. Antarctic ice is at record levels and ice between Canada and Greenland is also at a high level. The EU is retreating from both its biofuel and its emission controls policies.

Reputable - as distinct from government funded - climatologiksts are now speculating about another mini ice age. We shall look very silly if we stop emitting CO2 which provides the earth with its protection from becoming a giant snowball . We shall also starve and many will die of cold.

But hey-Ho build some more wind turbines anyway

christina Speight, London, UK

It is reassuring to see that Europe has learned from Enron. You too can make a fortunre by defrauding an unsuspecting public into investing in carbon offsets, etc. At least Al Gore will become even filthier rich than he has already become by convincing you Euros that no scientists can disagree!

David, Minneapolis, USA

If people care about this stuff, there's a great petition on the Downing Street website:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Fight4ourfuture/

Bob Robert, nottingham,

Politicians like carbon trading because the stinking rich can afford to apy for more carbon emissions. Energy rationing with fair share for all is more equitable.

Barry Crossland, Elland,

Doug from Basel,

"Pity we can't all sing from the same hymnsheet...."

That is called Fascism, and even if you Swiss never had a taste for it, the rest of us would rather not see it again.

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

"Howver, Lord Stern, and others, would see us go back to a pre-industrial age society....for what?"

For what? For the ego-trip of dictating to us all and for the consultancy money that will surely inundate him. I don't think the earth is flat but I'd suggest the emperor is stark naked.

Neil McF, Southampton, England

Actually, the Earth isn't round - it's an oblate spheroid. Also, it doesn't have a temperature.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

The argument seems to be that we have to reduce oursleves the the level of a third world country, whilst at the same time watch all the third world countries try to achieve the level of a first world country. The biggest producer of CO2 is China, which is only going to expand its output and India isn't far behind. Even if the UK reduced its output to zero, this would have no effect on global warming. Howver, Lord Stern, and others, would see us go back to a pre-industrial age society....for what?

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Why is the scientific consensus on climate change so veremently attacked or denied by people with no background in climate sciences? I'm a biochemist and I don't expect climate scientists to start doubting or disagreeing with the consensus on how cells, DNA, proteins or other aspects of my discipline work. They don't have the background and, likewise, I don't have their background in climate studies. Therefore I accept their conclusions, confident that its gone through peer review and the science is solid.

Ross, Brighton,

With finite fossil fuels in terminal decline it is no longer a question of wether we agree or not on global warming. The technology exists to provide more than enough power the world needs through renewable scources, not Nuclear which is also finite and expensive and dangerous. It's a shame Governments can't join the dots, preferring to dither rather than take positive action.
400 Scientists are by far the minority.

Pete Furtek, Ostrava, Czech Republic

Conflicts arising from the shortage and high price of oil will cause damage on a much shorter time scale than global warming. Sea level rise is only a few mm per year

Paul , northwich, england

Hi Dr. Coles

A lot of people - including scientists - disputed that the earth was round. "It' s gotta be FLAT", they said, and such ignorance lasted centuries in some cases. Do we have to suffer more degradation of this planet, in the years to come, because of the slowcoaches? Pity we can't all sing from the same hymnsheet....

Doug, Basel, Switzerland

Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

Dr Coles, Los Angeles, USA