Life would not exist wihout the sun. The earth's orbit around the sun is affected by wobble, tilt and precession leading, every 100,000 years to an elogated orbit and consequently a change in the heat that reaches the earth. This is well known by scientists. These movements are known as the Milankovitch cycles.
Yet not once, in all the millions of facts, or rather claims,that pour from the IPCC, have they considered what effect these cycles have on the climate.
It is very clear to many people that the intolerant campaign that is being thrust upon us is more political that scientific.

Chris Wood, Camberley, UK

Absolutely correct.

There is a climate of misinformation designed to shift the spotlight off the real culprit and onto the world's population in general.

Big Oil is about to get a broadside. The world's climate is in worse shape than you have been told, and it has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Remember tobacco, well this latest deceit may lead to the extinction of human beings.

Very SERIOUS

See Book "The Death of Clouds"

omegafour.com

John Caley, Launceston, Tasmania

I realize my comments are coming 10 days on the heels of this article. You were linked from National Review Online in the USA. Indeed, it is time that the Eco Thought Police be given their due and serious challenges be made to their trenchant theorizing.

If these theories have the underpinnings sufficient to withstand serious scrutiny then they will rise beyond the theoretical and rest in the practical. However, the continuous dismissal of opposing points of view (and the list seems to be growing daily) and unwillingness to even consider alternative theory(s), leads one to conclude that the objective is not climate: these are political hacks intent on controlling something - anything - through fear, intimidation, and political tactic.

While not a scientist it seems odd to me that these "Greenies" contiue to correlate wheather and climate. Even the uninitiated like me can figure this one out.

Suggestion: check your wallet now. Then calculate what is left if they get their taxes

Bill, El Dorado Hills, USA

"Their technique is to search out the odd dissenting view of a scientist (probably on the payroll of Exxon Mobil) and amplify this view over all the thunderous collective weight of respected scientific opinion."

In response to this, your attack is ad hominum, or in simpler terms, avoid the facts by shooting the messenger. The overwhelming opinion of scientists is that CO2 and global warming are not connected, as evidenced by some 17,000 scientists signing a petition to that effect.

The IPCC claims that 2500 scientists support their view is smoke and mirrors, the 2500 includes burocrates, government officials and scientists who are not listened to, some of whom have left the proces in disgust.

I found the article to be very informative and a breathe of fresh air. We need more of this.

John Nicklin, Comox, Canada

When socialism, as a practical political philosophy, collapsed in the late 80s (along with the Berlin Wall) the poor old lefties had to find another way to manipulate the masses. Many turned to environmentalism and CLIMATE CHANGE & GLOBAL WARMING are the simply latest manifestations of socialism. Time will tell whether they've got it right this time but you wouldn't want to bet on it - the Left has never been right about anything yet!

Mike, Perth, Western Australia

Is there anyway to determine what atmospheric CO2 levels were, say, 25-30 million years ago when there was no glaciation on Earth? From what I have read, the glaciation that has characterized the past 2-3 million years is actually anomalous when compared to the last 200 million years or so. If the atmospheric CO2 levels can be determined for most of Earth's history, correlation with average temperature for much of geological history to determine the real trend, if any.

kurt, Portland, Oregon, USA

Scientists who question anthropogenic causes for climate change are consistently accused of being in the payroll of industry/oil companies. This may be true, but the only other source for funding research into this incredibly complex science are governments which run by politicians always looking for ways to raise funds. What a great potential scam..pay more taxes, but you must realise its to "save the planet"...who could object such a laudable tax? As John Short says above, will we get our taxes back if the theory is found to be wrong?

michael killpartrick, Dunkerton,

Perhaps people favoring the "we have to do something!" approach toward global warming should really think before even uttering the word "malaria" for any reason whatsoever. You know, before someone winds up mentioning how the hysterical environmentalist movement wound up getting DDT banned which has literally, inarguably led to millions of human deaths. But hey. At least those egg shells aren't thinning anymore. What's a million human lives compared to that?

Paul Escalona, Lawrence, NJ,

The claim that for the first time in the history of the univers, climate change is not natural is an algoreism*.

*algoreism = A lie that is so big that you do not dare not to believe it.

Tom, Oslo, Norway

This a surprising and welcoming article to see in the current mainstream media about this subject.
The lack of rigorous crititicism of the projections of the IPCC, and the blanket regurgitation of the worst case scenarios across banner headlines is leading us into a dangerous situation.
When other research will eventually (I am sure of it) call into doubt the validity of a lot of the proxy measurements, and computer model projections, and when other potential causes are diligently investigated, such as the current marginal solar theories. Then the collapse in the 'Oil-tanker' momentum of the hysteria industry will cause a melt down in certain scentific circles, and the trust of all Educational and scientific organisations will be harmed for a very long time afterwards.
This a future predication that I think has a high probability of happening, if we continue as we are now, although in this case I think we can actually do something tangible about this to bring sense to the issue.

Stuart, Leeds, UK

"Africa cannot be simultaneously threatened by endless droughts and by a rapid increase in malaria."

For an article that wants to rely on facts this article ignores the fact that Africa is a large continent that can suffer from drought in some places and an increase in mosquito habitat in others. Perhaps all the thinking that went into this article's writing is equally uninformed.

Randen Pederson , superior, wisconsin

The phlogistin theory once held the "thunderous collective weight of respected scientific opinion" as well. This did not make it accurate. If the theory is accurate, then there is nothing to fear from serious inquiry. The fact that serious inquiry is stifled raises (and finally is raising) serious questions.

Mike, Houston, USA

Depressing to see here that all 5 comments were written by people who believe man made global warming is a conspiracy theory.
Their technique is to search out the odd dissenting view of a scientist (probably on the payroll of Exxon Mobil) and amplify this view over all the thunderous collective weight of respected scientific opinion.
Man is plundering the earth and changing it. Why can't we look after our planet and not carry on destroying ecosystems and the careful balance of various global cycles which were created over millions of years?
I neither want to move to nor could be sustained on the moon when planet Earth is done. We only get one chance with this planet.

Jonathan, Budapest, Hungary

At last we see the beginnings of serious media coverage of views sceptical to the theory of man-made climate change. It is only a theory, convenient to tax-raisers and others with a political and/or financial agenda. It is not an established fact. I know nobody who genuinely believes it, and in view of the real uncertainties and gaps in our scientific knowledge of the complex variables at play, I do not understand how any reasonable, unprejudiced person could possibly be so dogmatic as to claim the definitive opinion. Or, how any responsible and truthful government can claim a justifiable basis for inventing new "green" taxes. As a non-scientist, I listen to the straight, factual arguments of the sceptics, as against the obviously biased (and obviously funded) presentation and evasive responses of the theory's proponents, and I can work out where the balance of probablities lies. And if the theory of man-made global warming is finally debunked, will our taxes be refunded?

John Short, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

The BBC appear to be running their 'World' channel as a sponsor of the green lobby. You cannot watch it for more than a few minutes without a reference to climate change. Lord Att is clearly running the show!

Mike, Cheltenham,

Why are governments bewitched into believing this fallacy of climate change supported by three thousand scientists who require funding for their ongoing livelihood instead of the twenty thousand scientists who oppose the false science? Could it be another way to further political ends rather than see changes in world industrial supremacy under the guise of carbon footprints? Or another way to make a paper economy for the financial world to trade carbon credits and make money out of an economy self created and self serving? Read the real science and get wise. The sun spots are the cause, not man’s insignificant activity on this immense planet. Carbon dioxide is the food of plants through photosynthesis and plants thrive. God is in control of climate, just as He is all things, not man. Celebrate this Easter that God knows more than man’s science.

Phil Anslow, Brentwood, Essex

Every day the press reports irrelevant anecdotes as evidence of global warming. We are threatened with exaggerated dooms and hear radical proposals that if adopted, will cause terrible hardships and not change the weather at all.

The constant stream of nonsense surrounding this issue has badly damaged the credibility of man-made global warming proponents. If the threat is real, sounding false alarms is no way to persuade rational people to meet it.

Michael Goetz, www.CFACt.eu, Dedham ,

As you describe so effectively, the Global Warming hypothesis is a religion. Its high priests and theologans have issued a report that **IF** global temperatures rise by 4 deg.C **THEN**...... Unfortunately their more recent predictions of present conditions have largely been false. Evidence seems to show that 'global warming' peaked in 1999 and is now on the downslope.

But like good theologians everwhere, you never let a few inconvenient truths get in the way of a good (and profitable) story. I predict that this summer will be yet again the 'warmest summer since records began' even if it snows in July.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

The leader writer appears to accept the politicised IPCC view that current CO2 levels "about 380 parts per million" far exceed the levels obtaining over the last half-million years or so.
Well, maybe, or maybe not.

The historic levels quoted endlessly by IPCC are not, of course, actual measurements of atmospheric CO2. Instead, they are derived from proxy measurements of CO2 embedded in ancient ice-cores, with the questionable assumption that such measurements represent CO2 levels in the atmosphere at the time the ice was deposited as snow.

However, recent library research by Dr E G Beck has uncovered reports of 90,000 direct chemical assays of atmospheric CO2 levels made by distinguished scientists since 1829. These show that, during several periods since 1829, atmospheric CO2 levels have been HIGHER than today.

Dr Beck's paper has just been published in the journal Energy and Environment, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2007.

Ian, Exeter, UK

This piece is spot on. The ceaseless, shrill bullying of the environmentalists has reached an unacceptable level. There is adequate evidence to justify reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide, but the agenda of the 'non-governmental organisations', as we are now supposed to call them, goes way beyond this; it encompasses the wholesale dismantling of existing economic systems and the abandonment of a path of development that offers the only real hope of prosperity for poor countries.

Many of these prophets of doom advocated precisely the same anti-capitalist prescription in the past, but then they justified their position using leftist/socialist reasoning. Having lost that argument, they have now latched onto the environment to promote their cause. They should be on the fringes of political debate, not at its centre.

Rollo, London,

We know the planet is getting warmer compared to 200 years ago. There is a good chance that we are responsibe.

What doesn't help is the IPCC. It's reports incorporate lies and half truths to scare us. It's models do not predict the levels of observed warming over the last two hundred years, they exaggerate by a factor of three. The models use incorrect constants for the effect that CO2 has on ratcheting up the rate. The data is used is selective, they even airbrush inconvenient warm and cold periods from their charts.

There are a lot of hidden agendas behind all this. There is also the obvious one of scaring us into continuing funding for their pseudo-science / quasi-religion.

Peter Dunford, Bournemouth, UK

Does anybody else remember when global cooling was the consensus view?

Change is constant. Extrapolation is inherently flawed.

Alex Webster, Auckland, NZ

Back in the mid 1930's, the government leadership 'fashion' was to believe in Russia, communism and appeasement. The warning bells of the likes of Winston Churchill were ignored. Rather ironic that the latest 'fashion' about Climate Change and Carbon Footprints sounds like a Churchill warning, but is really an exaggerated utopian belief like the communist support those many years ago.

In New Zealand, it is impossible to debate this climate issue. If you question it, you are scoffed at. So, please keep up your doubting opinions to keep things honest. And can anyone tell me why Punch magazine cannot be resurrected to prick the pomposity of our ruling elites ?

Must away to read about Roman and Persia times 2,000 years ago.....I think this fashion thing has been around a while. Meanwhile, the All Blacks winning the Rugby world cup is the vital fashion for NZ in the 2007.

Peter Lyford, Te Puke, New Zealand

Now wouldnt that be an idea harness C02 to provide engery using photosynthesis through a genetically engineered living membrain..

ark, la , usa

Global warming is natural,only politicians have latched on to the utter nonsense spouted,as a means of screwing us for more tax.Wonder where GW is at the masters this year,temps are down by 15 degrees on normal,maybe we are entering a new Ice Age!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Prof. Limeburn, Washington, USA

I wonder if we are in danger of trying to solve tomorrow's problems with today's technology? When I was a child in the 50s I remember the doomsday predictions of mineral resources such as copper being exhausted by 2000. Look at the technological progress man has made in the last 100 years and the rate of accelleration. Is it not likely that man's ingenuity will find solutions? Remember CO2 is not a poison, it is the building block for photosynthesis carried out by more than 50% of the planet's life forms to lock in the power of the sun which creates the food for animals to eat, either directly eating plants or indirectly eating plant-eating animals. So without CO2, there would be no life. Perhaps ways of increasing photosynthesis could reduce CO2 if needed- paint all the concrete green with algae,perhaps!

godfrey j bedford, Dumfries, Scotland