To those who want to know what science says about climate change google Scientific American or MIT Technology Review or Technology Review and others one can google. Grist.org for a rebutal of of all the ignorant arguments about why the there is no human caused climate change like the sun is hotter, the earth was hot before and is hot now and all the other non-scientific reasons.

Politics will not change the scientific evidence.

The incandescent light bulb gives off about 95% of its energy in heat and is therefore ineffcient compared to fluorecent bulbs. All this information is easy to look up if one is not willfully ignorant.

Scott Free, Watertown,

Al Gore's professions and those of the IPCC are NOT based on science. Instead they dwell in the realm of unverifiable theory. All the scientists know this as evidenced by all their non-political revelations being preceded by "possible" or "may have this effect". The polar ice records don't support it, sea bed core samples don't support it and tree ring samples don't support it. Additionally, it is debunked by the fact that Venus and Mars have been heating at the same rate as the Earth over the past 50 years. While polution does effect localized climate issues around dense population areas and the general health of those living there, no evidence exists pointing to a global warming trend based on that polution. Anyway, if it was true, why don't we go after the countries whose citizens have to wear breathing masks to go outside. Oh yeah, because they're leftists who are supported by the global warming communists.

Erik, Houston, USA

To the people who are "not convinced that global warming is a result of human pollution of the atmosphere etc.":

Is it really possible that polluting the planet has no negative effect at all? Or is it not more likely that the planetary toilet is beginning to clog up with all the excrement we've flushed into it.

Wake up.

Steve Painter, Taichung,

Can we at least agree that the Earth is becoming warmer, regardless of the causes? Now that this is established...think....is there any real chance that mans burning of fossil fuels has had NO inpact on this? I believe the level of impact is the only real debate, not whether there is any impact or not. I personally have noticed my area of the world with shorter winters (or less coldness in winter anyway), less snow, and hotter summers. From what I understand, the average temperature on Earth is rising, as well. Is it an accident that most of the hottest years on record have been in the past 25 years? Reason says no, biases may say otherwise.

Jim, Pennsauken, NJ

For Chris Long, and the question of warming of the Martian South Pole, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

Richard Stamper, Oxford, UK

"But in many ways it is this process of scrutiny that has allowed the IPCC’s pronouncements to have such an impact. Every piece of evidence it presents publicly, every statement it makes has been assessed rigorously"

And usually found to be misleading, exaggerated or downright false. The IPCC is not a scientific body but a mixed group of climatologists, environmmental activists and bureaucrats interested in only one thing - squeezing as much money as possible out of their respective governments and the general taxpayer for their pet projects. Either Mr Smith is as gullible on this topic as the rest of the mainstream media, hasn't done his homework on the subject or simply doesn't understand the science properly. I suspect it's a mixture of all three.

Allan Draycott, London, UK

Let me get this straight, you say many sceptics have good points to make but its a good thing they've been pushed to the fringes. Excuse me?

And I am still at a loss as to how this documentary has "done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses" this year. Sorry, just don't see it.

Matt, Birmingham, UK

So many people engaged in "attacking the messenger" instead of dealing with the message!

The scientific consensus (which means, "the viewpoint of the guys & gals who actually have a reasonable chance to win a Nobel Prize in their field") has been settled for decades: Yes, Global Warming/Climate Change is happening; and Yes, it is largely due to the burning of fossil-fuels.

Since the inception of the industrial era, carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 35%. Basic atmospheric physics implies that this results in a radiative imbalance, which means that things will, on the average, get hotter.

The details are complicated, but in broad strokes, that's the picture. The issue is, What to do about it? The harsh truth is that the longer we wait, the fewer our options.

Neal J. King, Munich, GERMANY

It's curious that most climate warming sceptics seem to be in America. Also that the scientific consensus that climate warming is taking place is considered 'left wing' and the sceptics are 'right wing'. Why?
The Peace prize is perhaps because future events may trigger wars over water, oil and other resources; also hundreds of millions of refugees.
Another related problem: depletion of oil resources. The oil companies know this better than anyone. The global economy, and agriculture, largely run on oil. Future energy and food scarcity could cause the global economy to collapse, quite apart from climate change. It would be insane not to take precautions - though as some scientists (eg. James Lovelock) have said, it may already be too late.
Consumerism & population growth cannot increase for ever on a planet with finite resources.

Dave, Wrexham,

I wonder about the scientist that claim man has dramatically changed the world’s climate. I’m sure we have done some damage but why don’t they mention the warm centuries and the cold centuries. Once, when the Vikings landed in Greenland it was warm enough for them to survive. Late it became too cold for them as the climate changed and many left the area but those that stayed suffered the fate of what we now know as an Ice age. We, for number of years now are experiencing a warmer period in the world’s climate. When the scientist write about the current climate change they should remind their readers that it has happened before, time after time. They know it but somehow they want to push only their current mind-set. Shame on them!!!
Just a little history of Greenland and the Vikings: Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. During the worst years, when rains would have been heaviest, the hay crop would barely have been adequate to see the penned animals through the coldest days. Over the decades, the drop in temperature seems to have had an effect on the design of the Greenlanders' houses. Originally conceived as single-roomed structures, like the great hall at Brattahlid, they were divided into smaller spaces for warmth, and then into warrens of interconnected chambers, with the cows kept close by so the owners might benefit from the animals' body heat.

Bert Lasagna, Charlotte, North Carolina USA,

Mr Gores video, is nothing more than a one sided argument, full of panic-inducing regurgitated environmental hype. There is plenthera of opposing scientific evidence proving climate change is a nothing more than part of earths natural cycle, and has nothing to do with human 'pollution', which the governments of the world are only too willing to ignoret in order to fleece yet more 'green-taxes' from the public. The award to Mr Gore and the IPCC, only shows that the Nobel prize panel are also subject to the current need for PC-mania.

Les, Southport, England

I wonder about the scientist that claim man has dramatically changed the world’s climate. I’m sure we have done some damage but why don’t they mention the warm centuries and the cold centuries. Once, when the Vikings landed in Greenland it was warm enough for them to survive. Late it became too cold for them as the climate changed and many left the area but those that stayed suffered the fate of what we now know as an Ice age. We, for number of years now are experiencing a warmer period in the world’s climate. When the scientist write about the current climate change they should remind their readers that it has happened before, time after time. They know it but somehow they want to push only their current mind-set. Shame on them!!!
Just a little history of Greenland and the Vikings: Greenland's climate began to change as well; the summers grew shorter and progressively cooler, limiting the time cattle could be kept outdoors and increasing the need for winter fodder. Check out the rest of the story on some correct History site.

Bert Lasagna, Charlotte, North Carolina USA,

Most of the comments I am reading are narrowly focused on details of the accuracy of Gore's broad and far-reaching predictions. Of course these you could debate these. What many are forgetting, though, is that the right wing of U.S. politics is using the tobacco lobby tactic of creating doubt through the manipulation of the public in their media outlets. What Gore and IPCC HAVE done effectively is to shift mainstream opinion to such a degree that there can be a real scientific debate. A huge achievement!

Scripps scientist, San Diego, California

What on earth has environmental campaigning got to do with peace?????

Jeremy Drake, Norwich,

Gore is not a scientist, he is a politician with a documented financial interest in creating greater alarmism. If he and the Political Left could manage it, they'd create government and taxation interference to the economics of the energy markets, and they'd benefit by wielding enormously increased economical and political power. Gore has been positioned to benefit from that for years. That is Leftist Entrepreneurism at it's worst...economic inefficiency directed by a bureaucracy to benefit a small minority while increasing costs are passed on to a majority! It is not wealth creation, but wealth destruction, with some wealth redistribution thrown in for good measure.

Regarding the science, melting ice proves nothing, nor do these cherry-picked anecdotes of extreme weather/climate. Weather and climate have always demonstrated great natural volatility. Multiple Ice Ages and common sense prove warming isn't man's creation. If Gore debated a true scientist, he'd lose overwhelmingly.

Paul, Long Beach, California

Listing the various distortions, substitutions of wishes for the truth, and lies that filled Al Gore's "An Inconvinient Truth" would require much more room than I have. Suffice it to say, the detailed analysis I read of the film left little doubt in my mind that Al Gore was demonstrating political skills rather than scientific ones.

It's interesting to note two inconvinient truths about the most significant proposed solution to 'global warming', the Kyoto Accords:
1. They were supported by Enron and British Petroleum ("Big Oil is buying scientists to dispute global warming!" Oh?).
2. While ending up slashing the US economy by almost a TRILLION dollars at the end of its stated period, the most optimistic estimate for the effects of Kyoto would be around 0.2° Farenheit temperature increase prevented by 2025.

In the end, this global warming scare is just Act 4 from the people who compared supplying cheap and abundant energy to "giving an idiot child a machinegun."

Keith Moore, Sherwood, Oregon

Agreed, the matter has become a fashionable political subject.
Agreed, it IS something else becoming strumentalised in favour of a politician against another.
But I'm convinced that there's more than that. I hate to see people become aware of something important just because it is shown on TV or part of someone's propaganda; seeing other people reject that something just because their 'adversary' said it is far more frustrating.
Intelligent people analyse things objectively, they don't just dismiss them as 'unreliable' telling from the source of that information; especially on such a crucial matter as the only place where we can live. And where our children will live someday.

Massimiliano Gonfalini, Milan, Italy

"The behaviour & tactics of Gore and his extreme left-wing allies is redolent of the same type of people who personally insult, ridicule, howl down, threaten, and conduct vicious campaigns against any person or groups of persons who dare to disagree with their highly political approach "

Note that the "critic" of Gore is doing precisely what he screams Gore does.

Kenneth Sandale, Stuart, Florida, U.S.A.

I agree with L Stewart. No one dares to disagree with the establishment view, for fear of what could happen to career prospects or funding. Look at the attack, highly personal and insulting, on Lomborg by the Danish Academy. Sceptics are left muttering "Il Muove" in dark corners while smiling on the outside. And how does the Peace prize fit with a documentary on global warming???
James Toronto Canada

James, Toronto, Canada

It is so nice when liberals put out a headline saying they have silenced their critics. Why don't the scientist and al put their money where their mouth is and start funding all this change instead of flying around the world in G5 Gulf streams and being driven around in Limo's. What a total hypocrite. Al is an elitist egomanic who is still a sore loser and he wants to take the power instead of getting it through the elected process. I can't wait till everyone is driving around in low powered, ultra expensive cars that put out water vapor. The price of gas will plumet and I will get me a bigger V8 gas guzzler to pull my boats and atv's. This isn't about global warming, don't be stupid folks. It is about a shift in the balance of power, a redistribution of wealth, raising your taxes and taking your freedoms. I bet next it will be the discharge of firearms is the number one cause of global warming. ALL global warming alarmist need to start walking, live in a cave and eat grass.

Nichols, aberdeen, USA

So Smith devotes 1000 words to repeat the oft-used expression "the debate is over". If so, what of the Alarmists big win? If the debate is over, where is YOUR overwhelming public support it created for a solution? I request that the debate be held again so us "deniers" can note the overwhelming evidence we missed the first time around! Indulge our dim-wittedness. Please?

To our full attention & open-minds, review for us: 1) the 11 errors in Gore's movie identified by a court of law 2) Antartica's thickening ice 3) the 1940 to 1975 temperature DECREASE during vast CO2 emitting 4) the 1865 to 1940 temperature INCREASES during low CO2 emiting 5) a Little Ice Age & it's logical warming since 1865 6) Medieval Warm Period vs. CO2 7) many previous Ice Ages & later warming & CO2 8) annual global CO2 levels per the EPA 9) human archeological remains UNDER today's lesser glaciers 10) Viking farms in Greenland 11) Water vapor as 96% of GHG 12) Past global cooling fears. We're listening!!

Paul, Long Beach, California

The Northwest Passage is rapidly becoming a reality. Such a drastic change can only be the result of climate change due to human activity as Gore correctly explains. One only needs to open their eyes to reality to see. By some of the comments we can see the ostrich will always remain skeptical as long as his head is buried in the sand.

luluford, Aptos, California

All good science has to face skepticism. Theories are always evolving. Politicians are the antithesis of science. Beware the motives.

Steve Quicksall, Sacramento, CA

In this debate on global climate change, I am amazed that non-believers continue to ignore facts. The ice caps are melting, average temperatures are increasing, seasons are changing, sea levels are rising, etc. The way in which humans are impacting global climate change is too complex to detail in a quick post like this, but if you take the time to look at good science (i.e. not studies funded by energy companies or groups with ties to energy companies) you can learn more. Basically, the type and amount of greenhouse gases emitted by man through fossil fuels and farm animals, coupled with the decreasing forest land (trees clean the air of CO2 gases) due to man "developing" once forested land (for farming and development) are enough to tip the balance and cause the planet to heat up much faster than it otherwise would.

My problem with the naysayers is that burning fossil fuels causes pollution - no debate on this. So, why is moving toward alternative energies a bad thing?

David, Los Angeles, California

'Silencing' opposition to the latest politically correct fad is becoming a feature of our society, and it is aided and abetted by the press. Lewis Smith should be embarrassed by what he has written. Down with wicked old 'skeptics'! Send for the Thought Police and have them taken away! How dare they argue!

Unfortunately the alleged science is less clear than Mr Smith imagines. Study of climate is in its infancy. The world is ancient. It is a changing one, and has always been. Absolutely no proof exists that whatever trivial changes are taking place are due to human activity. In the middle ages the Thames froze over and people could skate on it. It doesn't happen any longer, but what does that prove? All those wood fires caused the world to warm up a bit? We aren't causing it, we cannot stop it, and it doesn't matter anyway. What is so bad about global warming?

It used to be that reporters (real ones, not sycophants) prided themselves on their skepticism. Now they decry it in others.

Nigel Eddis, New York,

Before we all run out and change all our lightbulbs .....Consider!

Compact fluorescents cost about $15 while incandescent bulbs cost about 50 cents.

Consider:
Compared to regular bulbs CF bulbs,
1) contain 10 to 20 times the amount of glass
2) are coated inside with rare earth minerals
3) are ballasted with lots of copper wire
4) contain 3 to 7 gr of mercury

all this material must be mined, processed, transported, reprocessed, and disposed of.

All this takes energy.

Remember from you physics I class?
It takes a certain amount of fuel to produce a certain amount of energy to do a certain amount of work. Can't change that!!!

Leonard, Wyoming, USA

While this or that number or interpretation may on occasion be questioned, or even dated, or maybe wrong, the essential truth is that the great bulk of the correct science supports most of the general conclusions most of the time. There are all kinds of people who wish it was not so for a variety of reasons. Al Gore touched that basic fact when he called it an "inconvenient truth". Those who challenge this are adopting the same tactics as the tobacco companies a decade or two ago - if we can just create the impression there is a debate; if we can just cast enough doubt to make people wonder if the general conclusions are correct -we can win. The anti-evolutionists do this as well. Nit-pick here and there, try to suggest there is some kind of respectable alternative "science", and so on. It did not work for big tobacco. It is not, by and large, working for Creationists. It will not, ultimately, work for the junk science of non-Global warming either. Buty they will try...

John, Kitchener, Canada

While scepticism is generally a good thing, if you are standing on the tracks and nearly all credible experts on the subject of trains and tracks tell you a locomotive is coming at you very quickly, you might want to consider some alternative to just standing there. Unfortunately, too many, such as President Bush, think science is something that can and should be bent to fit their ideologies, facts be damned. What about left wing ideologues-they are not the ones denying that train on the tracks and what the credible experts are saying.

Ray Karesky, Tempe, AZ

Reading the above eloquently worded but twisted logic comments makes me realize that there's plenty of kooks in England just as in the US. Keep trying to make your points to those fewer and fewer who will listen.

R. Kirlin, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Rich Kirlin, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Please explain why 1+1=2 ...

(100.000.000 lightbulbs a 15W instead of 60W ...)

Peter Snyder, London,

Many years ago, a group of scientist also proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that bumble bee's cannot fly. In the 1950's they also proved the Earth was headed into an ice age. Now they also say the temperature on Mar's has increased at the same rate as Earth for the last 100 years. Anything can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but to silence the critics it takes, political clout.

Dana, Lake Havasu City, USA Arizona

Some of these comments come from persons who clearly have buried their heads in the sand, global warming is here, the climate has changed, and I’m not 'tree hugging lefty' reefs are dying we got tornados where we shouldn’t have I went home to Johnstone in Scotland to visit my mum and i was wearing a T shirt in October there was bees buzzing about where we should've had rain and freezing cold sleet! Time to wake up!

Bob MacMillan, Kallangur, Australia/Queensland

I am still not convinced that Global Warming is the result of mankind polluting the atmosphere with its industrial pollution, et al. I am more inclined to believe that this is a natural cycle in the earths evolution and such warming has taken place numerous times over thousands of years, unfortunately we were not around on these occassions to measure or confirm such events, I believe that certain individuals and agencies take a advantage of this environmental change to suit there own purpose.Their was more pollutants exposed to the atmosphere during the period of the Industrial Revolution than there is now, regardless of the emergence of the Asian Nations as a manufacturing body or the number of gasoline driven automobiles. Measuring temperatures over such a short period of time does not support a trend of continuous warming, it would take a signficantly longer period than what has been measured now to be able to confirm that such a warming trend will eventually destroy the Earth.

Robert S. Smith, Repentigny, QC, Canada

Everyone is so afraid of big business having to put forth a few guide lines and spend a few dollars that it is better to them to ignore real scientists who are giving us time to make changes. Republicans with their dying breath will say they are right. They are just as radical and cause just as much trouble as the Radical Islamic Clerics who demand the world bow to their way of thinking or die. They will be swept away in another Katrina while they are planning another war on some small country.

Louis, Kinta, OK USA

The Nobel Peace Prize is much the same as an Oscar, or the Order of the Soviet Union medal.

Paul Francis, Brisbane, Australia

We are living in the land of digital light bulbs, a herald to outer space. It's unfortunate that many new global warming technologies are causing war. It makes one think that a peace prize ought to be awarded to a peace-creating design and technology. I would also vote for an award to a peaceful structure. Can not peace prizes (as in the current Nobel peace prize) be awarded retrospectively, or in Honorarium?

The global warming problem the U.S. has sponsored calls carbon dioxide to BLAME, and ethanol to the solution. These are solns for MARS, not Earth. From the land of Edison, the old-fashioned light bulb, and the usual combustibles, for example, "the natural gas" lamp, are yet acceptable. If carbon dioxide, and the regular ol' filament are so dangerous, we should not be driving, as there would hardly be a instrument panel functioning, or combustion processes occurring. A cessation of breathing and wi-less/drunken driving seem to have become the most recommended solutions.

Shih-Ming Laura Yeh, South Orange, NJ 07079

I await proof of Mr Gore's claims. At the moment the best that appears to be forthcoming is a vague "concensus" of scientists with various agendas and professional obligations.

I can only assume that should, as is very much possible, that the claims of specifically man made global warming is proven inaccurate, Mr Gore will return this "prize"

James, Stourbridge,

Perhaps they should have given the Nobel Prize to Peter Jackson for his Lord of the Rings film, which contained nearly as much fantasy/fiction as does Gore's film.

I find it interesting that, as an elementary school student, I was taught that the world was entering another ice age. Now my children are being taught that we are warming. I'm willing to bet that my granchildren will be taught that we are cooling.

Temperatures appear to be warming, but contrary to this headline, science has not silenced the skeptics. Follow the money, and always question the motives of people who stand to benefit (government grants to scientists; monopolies on alternative energy to business).

There is no consensus that the warming is caused by human activity, nor that warming will cause catastrophes, nor that drastically curtailing human activity will have any effect...other than bankrupting wealthy economies and keeping third world nations in poverty, that is.

Mark A., Folsom, California

Like most people, I do not deal directly in primary research of the atmosphere or of global warming. As a consumer of information and of science, I am left to choose my position based on the reported evidence. The scientific method requires us to weigh the evidence to determine to what degree it supports the hypothesis. The supporting evidence is overwhelming, and the consensus within the scientific community is even more overwhelming. I must choose to listen to the major scientific bodies whose research bears directly on the issue rather than the individuals who independently oppose. There are afterall doctors out there who are against medical care and scientists who have argued that cigarettes are not unhealthy. Their arguements should be heard, but in the end, we must choose who to believe for now, and it is our moral obligation to ensure we are being good stewards of this creation we have been given. B Frost, Westfield, Indiana, USA

B Frost, Westfield, USA / Indiana

Congratulations to Mr. Gore and the IPCC for a great job in creating awareness on the environment.

However, the Nobel Peace Prize will always stand discredited because it was not awarded to the one great human being who deserved it the most – MAHATMA GANDHI of India.

S, USA,

no surprise that Mark from the place with the largest carbon footprint in the world is a sceptic

andrew, london,

I will remain a sceptic as long as climate change is championed only by large Stalinist governmental planning agencies and those who think that allowing the developing world to have the same modernity as us is a bad thing.

The figures simply don't support the IPCC's assertion that the world is hotting up at an increasing rate. Their own figures show that global warming stopped at the end of the 1990s. Have a look at the University of Norwich's Climate Change database if you haven't already.

mark mcfarland, dubai, uae

Silenced means that no-one speaks against or questions. Sorry I still do. The court ruled that his truth was in 'error'/error or was it 'truth'? Why is it we can only predict the weather 5 days in advance but climate with such precision decades in advance. So climate is not weather you may say, then why is the example of freak weather used to 'prove' climate change. Isn't that a circular argument? Obviously your article "Comment: how science silenced the sceptics" must also be false as it hasn't silenced the skeptics as oops, there is one here!

Alan, Luton,

Is that really true, "How science silenced the sceptics", or should it be "How political activists and their compliant scientists silenced the sceptics"? The behaviour & tactics of Gore and his extreme left-wing allies is redolent of the same type of people who personally insult, ridicule, howl down, threaten, and conduct vicious campaigns against any person or groups of persons who dare to disagree with their highly political approach to a variety of topics including race, intelligence, capital & corporal punishment, and so much else
subject to politically correct prescriptions.
Winning a Nobel 'Peace' Prize merely confirms this.

L Stewart, Spalding, England

Does this mean he'll stop being driven in an SUV and give up one of his houses?

Juanita, Littlerock , USA

it was 'errors' the judge said NOT errors!

Note the inverted commas.

You chaps even read the judgement? I have.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

Mike Donald, aberdeen, Scotland

In response to Dr Cox, true scientists sometimes silence critics by providing such compelling evidence that what was once a theory is now accepted as fact. That happened with evolution, and now climate change. The politicisation of climate change is unfortunate but preferable to doing nothing.
To Mr Harrison, the "why should I do anything?" attitute is a big part of the problem. Britain should lead by example, and that means all of us. Al Gore's claims have now been supported both by mainstream science and in a court of law. What will be enough for you to believe we have a problem?

Richard Milne, Edinburgh,

Until someone explains to me what is causing the ice caps on Mars to melt, and why this is not related to to the Earth's global warming, I will remain a sceptic.

Chris Long, Thirsk, England

"Each time the IPCC sits down to consider the solidity of hundreds of pieces of research its conclusions are subjected to bot scientific and political scrutiny before they can be published."

This is the key point here. All data is subject to scientific AND POLITICAL scrutiny. The scientists who walked out were frustrated because the conclusions to their research were corrupted by politicians to further their own careers. The IPCC is an Inter Governmental panel remember. It is fundamentally political. Whilst there is a greta deal of good science supporting the argument of anthropogenic warming, there is also a significant amount of sound research that is either non-conclusive or opposing this argument. It is not bad science just because it doesn't agree yet the IPCC appears to be filtering the data to fit their ideologies. Credibility zero. Shame on the Nobel committee.

Dr Green, Cambridge, UK

Sedgwick Harrison wonders what difference an individual's actions might make, which sadly goes to show how little we think and act as a community these days. Perhaps a nation of outsiders cannot make a difference, but individual actions in a nation of insiders will.

As one individual cancer cell is to the body, so one foot-dragging sceptic is to the world.

Richard Faith, Bath, England

People around the world risking their lives for peace have been sidelined in favor of a political charlatan who did nothing to prevent global warming when he was in office. Granted, Al Gore signed the Kyoto Treaty on behalf of the US but failed to present it to an unwilling Congress. One of the many window dressing achievements of the Clinton administration. Maybe he will donate his piece of the loot to an orgaization like War Child, so the prize money itself at least helps the victims of war.

Marcel Oonincx, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

wasn't he also one of the first people to campaign about climate chage 10s of years ago?

shane, bedford, england

Winning the award shows how far the environmental movement has come in winning the *political* argument, not the scientific one. True scientists don't try to silence their critics.

The key point, which even Smith appears to have brushed up against, is that modern "climate science" has become so politicized as to now be essentially valueless. Its predictions and strident assertions as worthy of note by intelligent folk as those of the local soothsayer.

Dr Tony Cox, Las Vegas, Nevada

Please explain how we in the UK, buy changing a few light bulbs or getting a Toyota prius are going top make the slightest bit of difference to Global Warming if it exists. Also the last I heard, Al Gore was a left wing politician not a scientist.

Sedgwick Harrison, London,