I don't believe in global warming

Reid, Bindner, Ty, and Josh, CR,

obama sucks

gug, hjbjh, hu

if there are places getting warmer and there are places getting colder, there can't be global warming. In my opinion there isn't global warming. It is just the atmosphere moving around and it's getting thicker in places and thinner in others. It is nature and will eventually sort itself out.

Karl Whittaker, York, Great britain

It's too late, we're going to have cap and trade jammed down our throats whether humans are responsible for Climate Change or not. The public demands that something be done, so a new tax system will be delivered. Our voices are being ignored.

ken, Halifax, Canada

"25 million dollars for a design that will sponge 1 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere a year. "

What do you do with it when you have it soaked up? Do we drink enough carbonated beverages to use it all. Will we confiscate private property to store this new toxic waste?

Is there any conclusive data indicating that CO2 levels are abnormal?

I'm not much of a science whiz, but the whole discussion about CO2 levels & global warming seems like discussing perspiration. If I could just stop sweating in the summer sun, my clothes would stay dry. Maybe my clothes would last longer...maybe I'd die of a heat stroke.

Bryan, Bryan, USA/TX

Why is Mars getting warmer if humans cause global warming?

RSV, new england,

The main thrust of this article is that we need to question the "accepted" theory that greenhouse gases are currently the dominant driver of the climate. Not only that, we need to determine how the changes in a dynamic chaotic system such as the entire climate of the planet Earth, affect those drivers. The cosmic ray primary driver theory apparently has some evidence to support it. Evidence that will require modifications to the greenhouse gas primary driver theory, which apparently was incapable of predicting the observed behavior.

Mark H., Poway, CA, USA

>> OK, so lets just say global warming is down to greenhouse gas and we make all the changes we feel necessary to try and holt it and then it turns out we were wrong and global warming is due to the sun. We all might feel a bit silly perhap.

Thats just it. Feeling silly is NOT what is at stake. What is at stake is the billions of dollars given to fight Aids in Africa, support moderate (instead of radical) governments around the world (including the Middle East), and the homeless receiving a free daily meal from a soup line. The generous are able to BE generous because they have extra. If you stifle the ability of a generous entity to produce extra, then the benefactors of that generousity will loose out. So, NO, it's not just having egg in our face that is at risk, but the chance for thousands of children to eat.

Jon D,, Austin, TX

Population Control is NOT the answer. We have an aging population throughout the industrialized world. Who will support all the socialistic notions that Al Gore and his ilk broadcast as the "commonweal".
Thanks for sticking your neck out with this article and the forthcoming book.
Dixie Lee Ray, a former govenor of our state, was blackballed by her fellow democrats for trying to speak some sense on this issue twenty years ago.
Good luck.

Donna Lasater, Walla Walla, WA

I would venture a guess that, for example, Chernobyl had a fairly significant (and wholly man-made) impact as compared to Mount Saint Helen. There are certainly arguments that other factors affect global climate change, but this doesn't change our responsibility to minimize our own impact. If anything, it is by this point clear that the natural environment simply doesn't have the capacity to naturally dispose of all the toxins that we create. Therefore, regardless of other theories of climate change, we should be careful about the waste of all sorts that we do produce (otherwise, that 100% certainty might come much quicker than we desire).

Michael, Mezdra, Bulgaria

I'm weary of all the Global warming rhetoric. The climate is far too complex with too many chaotic factors to model with any realistic results.
Let's embrace the dissenting opinions and let real science replace the dogma that the scaremonger politicians and ratings hungry media are feeding the masses.

Steven Kuret, Elk Grove, Ca

This is amazing, readers become climate experts based on what they see on the news programs.
What they do not see are the hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to study our climate. If there were no news program generated panic there would be no grant money.
You should be very suspicious when politicians make a career out of climate change and still ride in SUVs and fly in private jets.
Their soul is not in the issue.

Lew, Siloam Springs, USA

I'm much more worried about nuclear weapons than this. That would cause a sudden warming of several thousand degrees.

Padre, Chicago, USA/IL

Perhaps global warming is man-made. Perhaps it is a natural phenomenon caused by the sun. I don't know.

But before the West spends trillions and trillions of Euros/dollars trying to fix this so-called problem, has anyone considered what the "normal" temperature of the planet should be? Should the baseline be today's temperature? Or 1975? How about 1600, during the last Little Ice Age, or perhaps 20,000 B.C., during the last big Ice Age?

And just how do we micromanage temperatures planet-wide? We've had the coolest winter I can remember here in Texas for more than 25 years. Should we raise the temps here and cool down Bulgaria, to calm the fears of Petkov (see below)?

David, Austin, Texas

I find it difficult to believe in destabilzing positive feedbacks leading to runaway greenhouse effects simply because it has never happened before in spite of other significant warming periods. The mantra of physics is that everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. If runaway greenhouse can occur, then it must have occurred before. But, it didn't.

Bart, Manassas, Virginia

Regarding those who say "..there is so much to lose by not reacting to global warming - even if turns out not to be true..."

You can make the same arguement about preparing for a pending extraterrestrial alien invasion. After all, they've supposedly been abducting humans for quite a while now - we have so much to lose if we don't arm and prepare ourselves - even if it isn't true.

TM, USA,

But Greg, the number of very serious scientists who disagree is much larger than you are being told! As for "what we are doing to the world" did you know that man accounts for less than 3% of the CO2 released into the atmossphere each year? There is strong evidence that the world is warming after a log cool period but no evidence it is down to us. Look at the claims that supposedly "prove" global warming and you will see that they are actually about proving warming only, not man's part in it. There is a theory, but so far, the observations do not agree with the theory. In other sciences, that would be enough to discard the theory but not in this case...

Tim, London,

The Problem I have with the theory of "If we make the changes necessary to curb CO2 emissions and we were wrong what would the harm be?" is quite simple. The cost would be great. The cost to many NON developing countries would be astronomical. Not only in dollars but also in lifestyle changes. With the heaviest cost being directly laid at the Feat of the USA.

I liken this concept to the following hypothetical;
It is determined that in a car accident it is possible that you die from a head injury even while wearing your seat belt. The federal government determines that you will be MUCH safer if you wear a helmet while driving at all times. It becomes law and now everyone must purchase a helmet for every passenger in their vehicle. Does this save lives? Probably. How many? Probably not many at all. What is the cost? Tremendous! If we are going to be forced to VASTLY change the way we live, I want to be certain that it is for a very good reason.

Chris, Clark, NJ, USA

Tell me why GW is also going on on Mars, We can see the ice caps are melting, SUV's on Mars? I dont think so..........

Carl Rewe, panama city, panama

The view that recent high temperatures are above recent (wihin ca. 10,000 years) records is based on the "hockey stick" graph that has been refuted as being based on improper statistical treatment of past temperature proxies.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

Fred, Birmingham, AL, USA

I apologize for my less literate neighbor from Georgia. He meant to say:

No matter how much evidence is provided that global warming is not caused by man, the believers will not accept it. To them, it is a matter of faith, not fact. The majority of scientists do not believe that global warming is caused by man; they claim they do not know [the precise mechanisms behind large-scal climate change]. Global warming -- and cooling -- are historical facts, and we do not control them. That is what those who believe the advocates of the theory of human influence in global warming truly fear: That we cannot control nor change our climate. Now they want to start an inquisition in order to stop debate. They know they're wrong, or they wouldn't try to stop debate. They smear the opposition by claiming the opposition gets their money from oil companies, but the truth is that most of the opposition are college professors who don't get a dime from anyone but the government.

Kelli, Nashville, TN

Well, I'm not a simpleton, but have never really believed that man is so powerful that he can contol the earth's climate. I recall very well the scare that was instilled in us by those who claimed that we would be experiencing a new Ice Age during the 1970's.

These people are likely the same type of people who decided that we should fear and hate all citizens of Russian and China during the Cold War era rather than the governments of said countries. In a nutshell, the scare tactics are not going to work with me anymore, especially when the message comes from our government or egg-headed liberals who have an outright political agenda and a need to control the purse strings of mankind in order to further their own socialist and globalist persuits.

God is in control, always has been and always will be. I put my trust in Him and Him alone. I may have to live IN this world, but I denfintely do not have to be OF this world.

Crockett, Knoxville, Tennessee

We are just getting out of the little Ice Age that started in the 1300's. The earth has gone through half a dozen cycles like this in its history. In the 1100's these were farming communities in Greenland and a ice free north west passage. I would welcome those sunny days again

Alan, Phoenix, AZ

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Mark Mullen, London,

If the scientists that say Mankind is not responsible for Global Warming but GW is happening - driven essentially by natural forces over which we have no control, then we must still address the practical consequences of that. Given the difficulties of aligning national interests and attitudes perhaps the current charade (I agree it is) is the best way to achieve it within the political, rather than the scientific world.
Howevere if the correct science is that there is no trend of GW that will melt the ice caps and raise sea levels, well that's an entirely different kettle of fish. .................

David Kirkham, Highland, UK

Whether this article is valid science or simply advertising is irrelevant. The theory deserves further investigation.

Certainly as much as the pseudo science in IPCC report that seemed to conclude that "we can't explain everything (for example sea level rise), so we'll blame it on mankind": that isn't science; it isn't theory - it is speculation.

Nigel Calder is reporting a theory; with some experimental work to back it up. It may not be politically correct - at least it is the scientific method.

Barry, Cambridge, UK

I agree with D. Reid. There is a distinct lack of alternate theories to the cause of global warming. The idea that CO2 released by man causes such a massive change on an equally massive world is illogical when you consider that mankind only produces 3% of all CO2.

In addition to the logical flaw in the populist theory of global warming, we need an accurate prediction of where the global climate change trends will lead. The CO2 theory implies that the temperature will continue to climb without end unless mankind stops producing CO2. What happens if this theory is proven false through 10 years or more of global cooling?

The truth is, know one knows. There is no proven scientific theory and persecuting people because they don't agree with your "scientific consensus" is the death knell of objectivity and the same attitude of the people who condemned Galileo.

Hunter, Houston, Texas

A previous correspondent lauds Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".
It is certainly true that the charts included are very clear, unfortunately - as is so often the case with politicians - presentation has superceded veracity.

Similarly the selected scientists quoted may be expected to hold unanimous views; these views were after all the basis of their selection!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England not EU

In the 70's and 80's "global cooling" was the "in'" thing. Many scientists were so sure that we had to "do something now, before it's too late", and some proposed dropping soot on the arctic ice cap to warm it, and thereby warm it, and stop the cooling.

IF the planet now is warming, and IF man is the "culprit", can you imagine where we'd be now, if that had been done?
I'm afraid we would be much more than just "feel[ing] a bit silly", as George from Exeter says.

H Tattrie, Sandy Cove, Canada / NS

Some earlier commentors have mentioned that it doesn't hurt anyone to try to curb emissions. Unfortunately, statements like that show the very ignorance of their argument.

Consider this one fact. In the next 40 years, the earth's population of humans is expected to increase by another 42%. Just to stay at our current levels of carbon, we'd have to kill those people and deny billions of others of heat, food, and electricity.

The bottom line is that the temperature effect from CO2 increases as CO2 levels exponentially increase and man is responsible for only an estimated 2% of the earth's CO2 production.

dave, Claremont, NC, USA

Thank you, Nigel Calder, for not being afraid of the Climate Change Gestapo! Why should "believers" of anthropomorphic causes be afraid of real science discovering solar variations? Keep up the good work! Expose the greatest hoax in the history of civilization!

Dale, Milton, GA

Well stated George, yet there is another important point to discuss. A huge political/envoronmental impact of attempting to make changes to how we use fossil fuels included becoming less reliant on the politically instable middle east. Of course I am talking about alternative fuel reseach and development. This use of our tax dollars and private capitol will help our economies. As I am an american I believe that with a strategic farming practice we could even be exporting E-85 instead of importing oil. Removing the reliance on middle eastern oil is an important by product of this along with taking the cautionary stance as stated above.

Greg, Austin, USA

"Looking through the comments, it strikes me that the majority of people who seem to agree with this article are from America, compaired with those who don't, who appear to hail from the rest of the world."

Perhaps you guys are just SMARTER than us? ;)

Look, I'm all for reducing ALL polution - in a reasonable fashion. And the fact is - if the liberals had allowed us to build all the nuclear power plants that were on the books to build in 1975 - the U.S. would be in compliance with Kyoto NOW. I have not seen enough evidence to make me believe that radical measures that would cripple our economy are necessary. And if they are - how about getting CHINA to agree with taking the same measures? Why is the awful U.S. always, always ... the boogeyman? :)

mark, New Orleans, LA

George, this sounds like Paschal's gamble. In reality it doesn't change hearts or minds. sorry.

I think perhaps science needs an economics lesson. What is the cost to the poor, especially the poor in developing and underdeveloped countries, if we change our current habits? The cost of developing new forms of fuel is not cheap and cost is always (whether from government or corporation) passed on to consumers. The cost of new vehicles to run on these new fuels is not cheap either. Why do we only determine our behavior by science (whether good or bad)? Science, unfortunately is never interested in Justice, but then niether is politics. Yet, we still let them affect our behavior more than anything else.

Evan Abla, Dayton, US

Excellent!
Let us have more articles about the alternative to the current politically correct assumption that mankind is the principal contributor to Global Warming.From all I read, I have grave doubts about that line of thought.
My concern is two fold.
In the first place I see the present concensous as a wonderful and terrifying opportunity for our political masters to increase our taxes.
Secondly and more importantly, is this near arrogance that we can actually, somehow , control the weather.
Save the Planet! As if the Planet would not go on without us!
My concern is that we will fail to address the real problem - not for the Planet, but for us - The climate is changing. ( as it has always done )
The question is- How do we cope, adapt and plan for it.

Frank Ribeiro, Cambridge,

Global warming is just Y2K all over again, It is a source of revenue for those that are in the business of research. Follow the money it always leads to the source of the problem. If you look at the research that is being done with out large budgets and grant money it all says the same thing there is not enough data, look at those that cry wolf and proclaim expertise they are all funded buy big government through grants.. I hate pollution as much as the next guy but why lie about what is real or not just for money..

Dan, Salt Lake City, USA

I will have to diagree with Philip from Germany - Science follows a simple principle - Hypothesis - Experimental Model - then Reproducible end results confirming the hypothesis. The theory of global warming based on human CO2 production alone is completely anecdotal. Just because CO2 levels have increased and their is a supposed rise in temerature across the planent, does not make the two a result of each other. Other than computer models (which are theoretical in and of themselves at best) there is no reproducible evidence behind the CO2 levels, therefore questionable 'science'. We need more true experimentation rather than observational data and conjecture in the 'science' of global warming prior to imposing any tariffs or even worse attempting to reverse the possible natural process of global temperature variation.

Kevin Tulipana, Springfield, USA/MO

Try reading a real science book instead of Wikipedia (any body can put whatever they want in Wikipedia). We are no where near the temperature gains of the Medieval Period. Global warming is more about political agenda's then science. In REAL science you need three elements for it to be considered. A problem, a theory as to why the problem exist, and a TEST to prove the theory. Yet in the global warming area no test is ever produced. Why? Because every test developed ends up disproving the theory of global warming. Every single test produced and intoduced to the public ends by junk scientist ends up getting shredded by a real scientist.
People who believe in nothing fall for everything.

Joe, Sarasota,

what the critics of the above article are not explaining is why while ice may be melting in the Artic, it is increasing in the South. THIS IS A FACT that is widely ignored by the global warming crowd...

Niamh, florence, KY

Clouds have two opposing effects on global temperature. They cool by reducing solar heat gain and warm by reducing night radiation back to space. For most of the planet the cooling effect dominates. However, in polar regions there is much less incident solar energy to be reduced and the warming effect dominates. Thus there is no mystery that extra clouds from cosmic rays, pollution, or contrails will cool lower latitudes while thawing the Arctic and Antarctic. Since there are more pollution and contrail clouds in the Arctic than in the Antartic region the Arctic thould thaw more.

We have seen gross error suported by junk science before in human history. Skin color racism arose from white people's ignorance of disease germs and their effects on city development. Most people believed in it and it conveniently justified slavery, colonialism, and American native people genocide. It took centruies to learn from our DNA that all humans descend from a black Africn woman.

Dr. G. George Reeves, Raleigh, North Carolina

Science isn't about conscience, that's a political term. It may be a theroy from left field, but it's either correct or not. Every boody knew the world was flat, during the Medieval mini-Ice age. They where proven wrong. The climate is more complex than any computer model can match. If those models, plugging in past data, can't acturately predict past weather events. How can we assume it's correct with furture perdictions. Polution or man made greenhouse gasses, are not a good thing, but conscience is not proof.

Kirk, Apopka, FL

The main problem with the view expressed is that there is
absolutely no correlation between the cosmic ray flux
and temperature. The chart reproduced at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42 is really
very telling.

Remember, although a 90% certainty is not a guarantee,
it's where the smart money bets.

William Seager, Peterborough, Canada

Global Warming. Global Cooling. Globaloney. The idea that the sun has an effect on the warming and cooling of the earth has a certain logical appeal doesn't it? If you have a brain, use it!

Let's consider that the remedy to "global warming", read Kyoto Treaty, is the emasculation of thriving capitalist economies, like the USA, while China, India and Russia get a free ride.

And then consider that the high priest of "globaloney", I mean "global warming" is Al Gore. I think he's the same Al Gore who stood in front of the whole nation when accepting the Democratic nomination for VP, and told us the sad, sad story of how he grew up on a farm, and how his beloved sister died of cancer, and how he was going to go after those evil tobacco companies, but he forgot to tell us one thing. It was a tobacco farm!

I'd say beware of politicians and "scientists" (especially 100 of them!) who try to marginalize opposing viewpoints, threaten others with the loss of jobs and/or academic credentials, and use scare tactics to sway public opinion.

And, it's working! Just listen to the "sheeple" who bray "The sky is falling!", with little more to say than, "What if they're right?" That is fear talking. That is what the socialists, communists, Islamists and power hungry Al Gore's of the world want. And I can prove it!

There is an answer to all these issues. It is nuclear power. Clean, safe and plentiful. No CO2 emmissions. If these scientists and politicians wanted to save the earth, they would back nuclear power. Why don't they?

Because it would enhance capitalist economies, not debilitate them. And with all the lefties in the Gore camp, going nuclear wouldn't appeal to his socialist, activist base.

About a decade ago, I once asked a "scientist" who was doing climate modeling for NOAA at Cal-Berkeley if he had accounted for the sunspot cycle or the "heat island effect", and he hadn't heard of either. But then he was really a "scientist", and I really shouldn't question his work. Should I?

Bob, Seattle, USA / Washington

When one posits an idea, such as the gentleman who wrote this article has, and others immediately dismiss, ridicule, and show anger toward him, it shows a general lack of interest in finding the truth and a disdain for anything not on the bandwagon. I think we should reduce pollutants, emissions included, primarily because they are nasty and certainly do more harm than good. Whether humans are causing significant climate change, however, is too hard to say with absolute certainty. If we could see a strong correlation between waxing and waning emission levels and the rate of global temperature change, perhaps we could make a stronger case. But there are so many other factors to consider that arguing a direct causal relationship is arrogant at best. Here's an alternate theory, for what it's worth: there has been relatively little volcanic activity over the past 100 years. Volcanoes tend to block sunlight and cause the earth to cool.

Justin Allan, jelza@jallanstudios.com, St Petersburg

Some guy is seriously quoting the wikipedia as a source that can refute a scientific theory? Just look at the actual scientific data, not at the spin that someone puts on it on Wikipedia by the art of selective editing.

That goes to show how bizarrely political the scientific side of global warming has become.

The article I read in the Sunday Times was extremely interesting and erudite, and it is a great shame that scientific innovation is being stifled on the basis that it is inconvenient to certain self-obsessed green campaigners who are about as interested in everyone else's welfare as Donal Trump is in losers.

freya, London,

I note that none of those who are trying to rubbish the idea that the sun drives climate change more than human produced greenhouse gases have yet tried to answer the question "Why is East Antarctica getting colder?" I look forward to some of them doing so. Thank you very much for the article.

Dane Clouston, Oxford, Great Britain

I was interested to see a couple of CO2 fanatics above trying to pass around the old story that the Medieval Warm Period did not happen. This old chestnut has been disproved at huge expense time and time again in response to their wails. And here they have the gall to quote Wikipedia and Real Climate in support! Everyone knows that Real Climate is paid for by the Greenhouse Industry, and Wikipedia's wisdom depends on who it was who last edited it.

It's good to see the Times striking a blow for Real Science!

Dodgy Geezer, Gloucester, UK

Ohh Andrew from Canberra, you quoted Wikipedia! Then this whole article must be wrong if something on Wikipedia contradicted it!! I love how people argue with an article like this by taking one little miniscule part and attacking it. "Forget the rest of the article with the experiments and the sources and the actual scientists with years of experience. I found something in Wikipedia" Give me a break, at least take some time to look at a different point of view than what the entire media is forcing down your throat!

David, Tampa, United States, Florida

Fantastic to see an alternative view. For years I've seen "Doomsday Prophecies" spouted by "leading scientists", everything from asteroid impact to supervolcanoes and various meteorolgical phenomemna, all espoused with the barely concealed "if you give me a million or two to research it..." Scientists, by definition, aren't stupid, and they've learnt how to tap into the big fat government cheques, provided it seems so long as the "research" parallels the current political agenda and can be used to create a whole new tax family, which despite being called "environmental taxes", don't seem to be spent on anything remotely eco-friendly. Anyone aware of any government sponsored environmental project?
I like to parallel the current situation to Chicken Licken- the principal character is the egghead scientist, the fox is the politician and in this version they've teamed up to imprison the gullible public behind bars of their own imagination to slaughter at leisure....

Pete North, manchester,

Isn' it all rather wonderful. You'd have thought that all these guys would have given on all this you show me your models and I'll show you mine To be sure nobody is challenging the simple fact that the models are imprecise. And if they are imprecise then there is a risk that they are wrong and since no body can really guage how wrong imprecise they are then nobody can be say whether the risk is 90% or 80% or even only 50%.

But should we wait for the shoot out at High noon suggested by Dan of Castle Rock of Colorado (don't you just love the archetypical metaphors of the Mid West) If Svensmark is right - Whoopee. But what if he isn't.

Will Calder's (and Dan's) kids thank him for playing russian roulette with their future? A funny way to use the second amendment wouldn't you say?

kit, Shropshire, England

What rot. The naysayers will, of course, stomp around singing with their fingers in their ears while the world dissolves around them rather than raise a finger or cough up a pound to help others, and the rest of us must just get on with it. But the reality is that whether or not there is real climate change, and whether or not humanity is responsible, reducing pollution and dependence on fossil fuels is necessary, NEVERTHELESS. Necessary, and with benefits regardless.

I want to meet these cackling scientists who rampage through the tissue of truth in search of their next research grant. After 9 years in academia, I never met one. These hyperskeptical berks always forget that every scientist could get a far better paid job if they left research. People do it because they love real discovery, not pretend discovery.

Joss, Oxford, UK

Ok, so you want to curb Green house gasses and lump CO2 in that group? What can it hurt? Well lets try taking about 10% of the plants food supply globally. What about that? Everytime Man has decided to try and balance what nature is already taking care of we end up messing it up. Yes let's try to be good to our environment, but tax us and create government agencies to watch us? NO! We already know that all government does is take the money and spend it. Solve nothing. Do it yourself, and be proud of it. Plus, if you look at the ratio of energy delivered by the sun and the fluctuations due to solar flare ups, then it really is amazing that we have a stable temperature at all. Most of our calculators could not come close to estimating sun energy fluctuations. The universe was created with some pretty unique mechanisms to cope with humans, so why do we think we are some smart we can fix it?

Ansley Segraves, Cumming, Georgia

People seem to be of the oppinion that reducing CO2 emmissions is good, event though there might be no correlation between these emmissions and global warming (after all do you know that CO2 'emitted' by cows far exceeds the CO2 produced by cars ?). What some don't take into consideration is the COST of doing so. A few years back DDT was labeled as carcinogenic, mostly by media and politicians. After a while they realized they were wrong: the cost was estimated at approx 50 million human lives lost to diseases transmitted by mosquitos; roughly the same number of people lost their lives in WWII. Can we afford another much costlier mistake just because media and some politicians need to always find something for us to be scared about ?

Oslik Hoops, New York, NY

2500 Scientists said nothing of the sort. The scientists did not write the report it was done by politicians. Do your job please! Report the news and not propaganda!

Robert Scrivner, Omaha, NE

This reminds me of when German Nazi Party passes around “100 Scientists Who Reject Einstein”. Einstein reply: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"

tom, TTown, USA

OK, so lets just say Saddam Hussein was attempting to obtain Yellowcake and we take all the steps we feel necessary to try and holt him and then it turns out we were wrong and he was not. We all might feel a bit silly perhaps. But now lets say that we abandon the accepted intelligence data and decide that we don't know with absolute certainty so theres nothing can be done and we do nothing to change our disarm him, only to find out that Saddam's weapons programs gases are the reason for the Middle East heating up. Surely it is better to do everything we possibly can to curb Saddam if we have the ability to rather than just say that intelligence has been wrong before. The thing which many people seem to be forgetting here is that rogue nations with advanced weapons capability is not just a threat to polar bears and penguins, much rather there are millions of people world-wide who may lose their homes and lives. Isn't it better to look at what we can do to try and stop the evil doers just to be on the safe side?

SJR, Baltimore, USA

As C02 makes up .038% of the atmosphere I did wonder how such a small percentage has supposedly got such a massive control over the climate.
The theory that it is the Sun makes far more sense. It has been changing the climate for billions of years. Are we just witnessing another solar cycle?
I have no doubt man is destroying the planet but I am dubious about the Global Warming theory being the definitive cause. Pollution will kill us before C02.

David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK

Greg in London,
I live in Texas and come from an oil family. I also have frequented the Knightsbridge area in my youth. I spent time in Ealing, Bath and up in Edinburgh. My blood line is from Wales and Norway. You could say I have ties to all sides of the argument. Just remember one thing mate, 100% of the scientists once believed the world was flat. Before the "Satan" that is America existed.

Beau, McKinney, TX, USA, TX

I agree people have contributed to global warming in the past century due primarily to greater demands for fossil fuels.

The world population in 1900 was approximately 1.6 billion and it is now approximately 6.6 billion. Who are we going to kill off first? Where do we begin? Surely we have exceeded the world's capacity for human beings and we're going to have to implement a reduction plan...how?

Brian, Valdosta, GA

Must we really outline and theorize an immediate threat to our lives to realize that smog and pollution are no good. Can't we all feel the choking on our lungs and burning eyes? I am a proponent of living in harmony with our planet to the best of our ability and I don't need Al Gore or the UN to tell me this. Why can't we strive for cleaner living without attaching the Doomsday prophesy of Global Warming to our effort? Something tells me that Going Green means something much different to those who are pushing this agenda than it does to me.
Stop the unhelpful regulation and scare-mongering and keep the debate and discussion alive.

Micah, Dunedin, FL

Apologies for the Guardian link, but recent samples taken from Antartica showing climate over 900,000 years seem to show at a quick glance that, rather than facing unprecedented temperature and CO2 change, the earth has gone through at least three previous and almost identical periods of change in a surprisingly regular cycle of about 125,000 years commencing with a rapid rise, peak about where we are now and then gradual cooling. All without people let alone man made greenhouse gases. Is there not a danger that these climate warriors are flat earthers - we must challenge this political agenda with proper science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,1267004,00.html

Grouchy, London,

Please tell me time in the past 534 million years of geologic history (since the end of the Pre-cambrian Dark Ages) when climate was EVER stable?
There simply is no such thing as a stable climate and for us to expect that the Earth should hold its breath during our brief tenure on this planet is absolutely delusional.

Mark J, Annapolis, MD

Many of these comments state that since we are not sure, we need to work against global warming in order to take the cautious route. Is this a good approach if in so doing you raise the price of oil by a factor of 2? Or 10? Or 100? Anytime you raise the price of oil you are impoverishing people, causing the price of food to rise and, yes, killing people. How many people will die not because of global warming but because of the battle against global warming? If you permanently cripple the economy, we will all suffer -- and it's philosophies could bring on a Great Depression or even a new Dark Age.

Scott, Louisville, Colorado

The evidence that that the Medieval Warm Period was either regional in extent or colder than the present seems to be based on very limited evidence. The authoritative Wegman Report concluded that the criticisms of the s-called hockey stick were all correct. My reading of the evidence is that in teh present state of knowledge we know that it's warmer than it was since 1600, but that's about it.

M Phelps, glamorgan,

I often wonder about the sensationalism (and perhaps fund raising issues) that this topic seems to attract. I am not a scientist but am not terribly stupid when it comes to science. I once saw a documentary on the earth (particularly in this case dinosaurs and what came before them) that claimed the earth was lush and green then went to desert and then became lush and green again which allowed the dinosaurs to flourish. Are these factors (if true) taken into account in the current hysteria surrounding this debate? Many thanks

Darren Hammond, London, UK

Thank God for some level-headedness, at last! Aubrey Manning's 4 hour BBC DV'D wonderful evocation of 'Earth Story' also teaches and informs in none hysterical manner. He has the courage to trust his intuition backed by scientific knowledge. Mr Manning tells us gently that because we have been to the moon and have some knowlede of the solar system we are not in a position to either control or predict the outcome of this ancient world. We are only a temporary blip, powerless and ever so fleeting.

Shaida Van Helfteren, Corwen, Denbighshir

Whatever the cause of the supposed warming trend, limiting emissions is unlikely to be bad for anyone's health.

I first heard of Svensmarks work back in the 90's and was rather dumbfounded that noone really paid attention. The 'greenhouse gas' theory was a political tool at that point though, it was simply the accepted theory among many of the earlier decades.

However, no great alternatives in science have ever been welcomed - so why should this be.

I believe both are likely correct though, the big thing is to determine which one contributes by how much, and what we can do to cope with either one in the best fashion.

Thomas, Copenhagen, Denmark

Just as a point of interest to all who may have read this article and enjoyed it. I urge everyone to read a book called; "Eco-Sanity, A Common Sense Guide to Environmentalism." by scientist authors Bast, Hill and Rue. I was concerned about manmade Global Warming, and had read Al Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance." However, after reading "Eco Sanity" I am much more reserved in my ecological views, as there is so much "junk science" out there. This book looks like a great read, and seems to support alternate reasons of why the earth has warmed. (After 2 weeks of sub-zero temps here in MA, 136 inches of snow in upstate NY, and record snowfall for Alaska, I have my doubts of global warming as is.)
Whatever your political views, take the time to explore both sides of the story. I personally don't want to pay more taxes to try to fix a problem that science has yet to prove (100%)truly exists.

A Friend, Boston, MA

My reading o fthe IPCC report was that they had accounted for sun variation in arriving at their 90% certainty level and presented a very clear graph showing what the temp etc variation would be with only the sun effect factored in and compared this to the calculation with man made gases factored in. The latter fitted the observed changes much more substantially.

You also cite the fact that part of East Antartica appears to be getting colder. Why is this a surprise? Surely one would expect that as the climate destablises ( wether due to sun effects alone or in combination with man made gases) there will be local variation in the impact. If patterns of wind change only marginally this could still produce fairly large unpredictable changes in climate in some localities. This is basic Chaos theory.
Climate change Theory is like any other scientific theory - it has to continue to be tested and improved and ultimately rejected if it does not fit the observed facts. From what I see so far the Theory is standing up well.

Bunc, Ayrshire, Scotland

No matter how much evidence is provided that Global Warming
is not caused by man the believers will not accept it. To them its
a matter of faith not fact. The Majority of scientist do not believe
that global warming is caused by man they claim they don't
know. Global Warming and cooling are historical facts
and we do not control them. That is what the believers in
global warming advocates truely fear is that we cannot control
of change are climate. Now they want to start an inquistion
to stop debate. They know their wrong or the wouldn't try to stop
debate, they smear the opposition by claiming they get there
money form oil companies but the truth is most of the opposition
are college professors who don't get a dime from anyone but the
government.

ROYCE WHITE, MARIETTA, Georgia

Looking through the comments, it strikes me that the majority of people who seem to agree with this article are from America, compaired with those who don't, who appear to hail from the rest of the world.
Honestly a lot of the arguements put forward worry me, I'd say 100 scientists being 90% confident of something was reason enough to sit up and listen. If we do change the way we live to reduce CO2 emission etc, what is the worst that can happen?
How can we blindly expect that what we are doing to this world is not having an effect on it?
Take your heads out of the sand, there is SO much to lose, how can we risk it?

Greg, London, UK

I am not a scientist but I am considerably well qualified in life being over 60.
During my 60 years plus I have learnt to ignore journalists with their circulation driven reporting, experts with their tunnel vision and politicians for their dishonesty. I read articles like this with an open mind and always conclude that most points of view are valid and therefore nothing is as bad as it seems.
A few years ago I read an article giving 5 questions to ask before accepting any point of view, I can't remember the source but I feel they are valid.
1.Who says so?
2.How do they know?
3.What's missing?
4.Did somebody change the subject?
5.Does it make sense?

Peter Garnett, Aldbrough, East Yorks,UK

the warmest day on record for my home town (Charleston, SC) for Feb 10 is 85 F in 1959. If it was 85 F today all of the wacko socialist would point to it as proof of man made global warming.
the planet warms and cools. The most prosperous, most peaceful times on record are during these warm periods. The cool periods bring war, famine and other misfortunes.

William, Charleston, SC

the ban on flurocarbons does not apply to China, India and other such countries. This just like the pesticide bans in the US, they are still used allover the world.

ronton, Sarasota,

Jared, I think the point he was making, was in regard to
the Intimidation tactics used by many activist that have a
paycheck to protect, and the the frustration felt when
bullying and cheap intimidation, are used to silence
valuable disscussion. The comment ("makes me want to buy an SUV") strikes me only as a response to THAT Frustration, not a dissregard for our environment.
Thank You.

Douglas, Seattle, Wa

Global Warming is essentially a cult religion that the West, with its 21st century cultural void, has bought into. Like all religions its fundamental purpose is to control the masses and levy taxes through fear and hope.

As a GeoChemist, I have never found a common, historic link between CO2 and Global Warming as refered to by the media and often wondered why the glaciers that are growing in size are never refered to by our Government.

That we may be warming up as a planet is almost certainly correct but the reasons behind this are wide open for debate, however, there will be no debate, as we have already been fully brainwashed into worshipping the Government propaganda.

Strange how we disbelieve them when it comes to a cause for war but will believe anything they say if it is to do with the welfare of fluffy animals.

Morris, London,

OK, so lets just say global warming is down to greenhouse gas and we make all the changes we feel necessary to try and holt it and then it turns out we were wrong and global warming is due to the sun. We all might feel a bit silly perhaps. But now lets say that we abandon the accepted science and decide that global warming is due to the sun so theres nothing can be done and we do nothing to change our lifestyles, only to find out that greenhouse gases are the reason for the world warming up. Surely it is better to do everything we possibly can to curb climate change if we have the ability to rather than just say that science has been wrong before. The thing which many people seem to be forgetting here is that global warming is not just a threat to polar bears and penguins, much rather there are millions of people world-wide who may lose their homes and lives to rising sea levels. Isn't it better to look at what we can do to try and stop the warming just to be on the safe side?

George, Exeter, UK

Human beings once were at least 90% sure that the world was flat - perhaps these scientists that now say they are 90% sure should take a history lesson. Global warming and cooling have been happening throughout geological history. The arrogance that humans can make more than a minor difference in as complex a system as the atmosphere is stunning.

Global Warming folks - consider this: I have spent time in SE asia recently - there they are talking about Global Cooling. It seems that all the pollution there may be causing a reduction in temperature. Perhaps the environmental cleanup - emissions reductions, etc that have been underway in the US and Europe over the past 40 years may actually be causing the warmup. Less smog allows the sun's energy to warm the planet. Hmmmm.

GTEQ, USA,

Thank you for articulating the argument I have been groping for. The globe has been hotter and cooler without the emissions of man but the bandwagon (and the related funding) has no room for that view.

As for Al Gore and "the charts are clear", we hit the modern problem - everyone believes they can contribute to what should be a scientific debate and that experts have no more weight in that than they do themselves.

Paul, London,

I was on the way to the Greek island of Santorini on 9/11 which (as Thera) exploded volcanically (c. 1630 (ish - much disputed) BC) , said to be 4 times the effect of Krakatoa and whose pall affeected both the weather (and the consequent effects on agriculture) and culture of the Eastern Mediterranean , especially the Minoan/ Cretan for at least 100 years which was devastated by a tsunami on the Northern Coast.

In a wider area it is said to coincide with the end of the Chinese Xia era which was accompanied by huge climatic changes. Tribal myths are also said to have resulted in the alleged 10 plagues visited on Egypt which found their way into the Bible and the tsunami the basis of the parting of the seas.

Dendrochronology of bog oaks in Ireland suggest a contemporary effect on tree growth in Ireland.

The coincidence of events concenated my mind on the contraray effects of Man and Nature on the planet, it's people and biosphere.

Edward Teague, Oldham, UK

For Joost of Hong Kong

Have a try on Google or Yahoo, it brings up quite a lot about Henrik Svensmark.

Bill Glanvill, Horsham, Sussex

The claim in the article that modern global warming is comparable to that of the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD) is false. The current increase of temperature and it rate of increase appear to be much larger than those of the Medieval Warm Period. See the Wikipedia article on the Medieval Warm Period for temperature graphs obtained from the scientific literature.

Andrew stewart, Canberra, Australia

Lets admit Global Warming. Now that wasn't so bad was it? Now lets look at when Global Warming started. One million years ago the N American continent was a solid block of ice with no human living there. The USA was a wall of ice all the way down from the South West to the South East. One million years later I look out my window to see people, grass, flowers, cities, trees, birds, animals, etc. Not a bad result for Global Warming.

PS/And not a single smoker or automobile to be seen during this period.

Kenneth Parady, Grand Rapids, MI

Calder attempts to discredit the "orthodoxy" on the grounds that there has been some sensationalist media reporting of early springs and hot summers.

He fails to mention that East Antarctica is one of a tiny proportion of the earth to have undergone (weak) recent cooling, while the most of the earth (including the West Antarctic Peninsular) has warmed. By contrast, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were, it appears, REGIONAL phenomena centred around the North Atlantic. This is an argument against the solar mechanism for these events, which is far from established.

Science regularly produces left-field hypotheses such as cosmic-rays/clouds regularly, and it's essential that it does. Although water condenses on sulphate in the absence of cosmic rays, it's not absurd to suggest it could have a detectable impact on climate. However, to suggest that this hypothesis undermines a well understood mechanism (absorption of longwave radiation on "greenhouse" gasses) IS absurd.

Colm, Norwich,

Interesting arguments, but this isn't science - not even close. Let's just look at two things the author said here.

First point, maybe minor, but nevertheless telling. If you liken the 90% certainty in the IPCC reports, cross-checked by literally 100s of scientists, to the over-excited pronouncements of some obscure British scientist, one has to question your purpose.

Second issue: if the role of CO2 in the atmosphere was based on arguments like the one behind the artificial cloud work, people would rightly be sceptical - it's only one experiment! The author admits in a round-about manner that we don't actually know what the sun is doing. He then concludes that this unknown effect has to be big. Err, scientific method? The fact is there is no clear correlation between cosmic ray flux and temperature, or for that matter the sun's irradiance. Look at

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42

The Times should more clearly mark this as advertising, since that is what it is.

Philip Brydon, Stuttgart, Germany

A doctor that is not 100% sure that you have meningitis should be run away from very very fast. You should have 100% confidence they know what the disease is. If they offer you 100% survival rate or mortality rate, then you should run away as well. A competent Dr. should be able to diagnose the symptoms and give a prognosis on the outcome. The diagnose should be as close to 100% as possible, the prognosis is an educated guess and should never be 100%. There's always a chance that it won't come true.

skecptic, ny,

Does that mean that an Alpine chalet isn't such a poor investment after all?

India Wiltshire, London, UK

As a scientist, I agree fully. I have been telling people for many years that anthropogenic global warming is a pseudo scientific concept. The idea that carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming simply does not fit the facts. The evidence in favour of the idea is non-existent.
It is a tragedy that politicians and others have seized upon this global warming nonsense . They are doing far more harm than good.

Peter Warlow, Brentwood, UK

I commend TimesOnline for this story. All we simple readers ask is to be provided with the facts. No spin, no political propaganda (from any side), no intentional omissions. Just straight reporting. If this story is true it will serve your readers well. If it is nonsense then the facts will bear that out. TimesOnline has once again shown that it will publish articles other media outlets are too afraid to publish.

D. Reid, Jersey,

We need more articles like this one. Yes, some of us remember, the greenhouse effect, and the global cooling. Just what is it that periodically appears in the water we drink or the air that we breathe that gets us to thinking that Man could ever affect global change? We can foul our waters,air and land to deadly proportions, we have evidence of that. But to fall for these hoaky ideas that we can actually affect global change....give me a break!

Marijane Lanwehr, Lady Lake, U.S., Florida

Nigel Calder has a book to sell - enough said really
but I will continue..

For a writer of 'serious' science books for the layperson - this is a very unbalanced article.

The sun is indeed a great driver of climate - but layering
solar output on top of increasing greenhouse gases - is certainly a dangerous scenario - and NC make no mention of this effect.

Judging by this article - his book is not likely to be anymore balanced - avoid.

purohit, London,

This news needs to hit the mainstream......BEFORE the politicians TAX the hell out of us to further thier reactionary agendas.

Tom, Fort Worth, TX USA

I appreciate your efforts to polemisize, very distracting indeed. But its obvious you haven't seen Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth".
The charts showed are so clear, and the unanimity shown by all scientists regarding the subject so great, that your anecdotes pale.
Watch it and see for yourself if what is happening now bears any resemblance to past trends. It doesn't - and it's off the charts!
When you have to move to higher ground because the coastal city you lived in is under water, you will remember why scientific ortodoxy is the safe - yet more boring - bet.

mark, london, uk

The efforts of the global warming believers to enforce their opinion is reminiscent of Yosif Stalin's requirement that all biologists must accept Lysenko's theories as true.

Global warming does present a hard-to-resist opportunity to enforce extremist "green" political initiatives, such as limiting industrial and technological development, and moving economic sovereignty to a supranational body. All for the irreproachable goal of "saving mankind and the planet".

Frederic L., New York, U.S.

Once you understand that the claims being made by the global warming crowd, are really efforts at increasing their research subsidies (govermental and otherwise) you will understand their behavior. 20 years ago, the concern was a new ice age, now it's global warming. It appears some "scientists" will say whatever is needed to get increased funding.

It's not about knowledge to most of them. It's about money. What a surprise....

Roger , Arlington, Tx

As a dedicated internet and wikipedia junk the first thing that I did after reading this article was searching wikipedia for "Svensmark" - maybe a coinsidence, maybe not but surprise surprise, no article found !

Joost, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

We must be careful of falling into the argument that "moderating influences" are "not happening". Early on in my undergraduate education in environmental sciences significant time was spent studying the various key elemental cycles - amongst which was the carbon cycle. One of the fundamental mis-understandings is that these cycles and the equilibrium they seek often operate over spans of time that may easily exceed the lifespan of a human being --- and therein I believe lies one of the major factors we are dealing with in laypersons -- they cannot accept that there are many things in nature wherein the human lifespan (let alone humans themselves) is negligible.

Mark, San Diego, CA

Water vapor accounts for 97% of global warming, according to MIT Prof. Lindzen. That means that the Kyoto gases account for only 3% of global warming.

CO2 accounts for 30% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, according to the Kyoto high priests, so all CO2 contributes 0.9% to global warming.

Man-made CO2 is only 3% of all CO2, according to the Kyoto high priests, so 3% of 0.9% is 0.027%. That's the man-made CO2 contribution to all global warming-0.027%.

And CO2 is the biggest part of the Kyoto greenhouse gases (which exclude water vapor from their calculations). So that means that man contributes less than 3% of all non-water vapor gases, which account for only 3% of all global warming (according to theories), or 0.09%.

In other words, global warming is 99.91% natural...using the Kyoto figures.

Greg Green, Lake Forest, California, USA

I dare say without mankind there is still a 90% chance of global warming. If I were so kind, I would estimate there is only an 80% chance of global warming without mankind. It would seem then that plants and wild animals play a greater role than mankind in the eminent destruction of earth.

Mother Earth, Milkyway,

The tide is finally turning against the global warming enthusiasts because real science is winning out over elitist environmentalism. The global warming faithful won't go quietly but, as with Gallileo, the truth will prevail against the dogmatists who wallow in the trough of political funding for "science."

Mike Nelson, Santa Paula,

The "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" bullying is just so damn old anymore. It's no more scientific than Karl Marx. Politicians are deciding which scientists are correct. What periods of 20th century Russian and German history does that sound like? Science has never been led by an insistent, state-sponsored status quo. More commonly, that's the chief obstacle. Since when have real scientists concerned themselves with 'consensus' or 'deniers?'

Derek, San Diego, California

i think that you are missing the point if you only analyse the impact of "greenhouse gases" in the context of global warming. man made effluent of any description, including gases, is a key global issue given the negative impact that it is has on the environment. it affects those people who have to work in or live near the facilities that generate this pollution most directly but over the longer term it will affect us all if we continue to poison the land, water and air around us. lets not allow the lobbies to manage the issue on a single point basis, we need an holistic approach to the issue of global pollution, not just to the issue of global warming.

brett, dubai,

Hmm! Funny that all the first 10 comments are from "relieved" Americans... 3 of them Texans. I really hope that, for the three Florida residents at least, Svensmark is right. The fact is that "right" answer is somewhere in the middle and as usual both parties are overstating their cases, lambasting the opposition. With luck the sun will be calming as anthropogenic factors turn up the heat here on earth. If the two factors act in synergy then we're history. Rob (on the beach in FL) states: "It is amazing to me that they cannot explain the midevil (sic) period where the earth was about 2 - 3 degrees warmer that we are now!!!" Some efforts have been made to explain it, Rob, with the occurence of massive wildfires consuming most of central Siberia's forests at that time and the subsequent release of CO2. The "missing" CO2 released since the industrial revolution, unaccounted for, is believed to be locked up in these forests as they have regrown. It's all too complex for Fox News coverage.

Paul Tout, Trieste, Italy

This is not to seem to detract from the work of Mr. Svensmark, but it was in about 1972 that I first heard the idea that cosmic rays seed clouds on earth--- from one of my professors of meteorology at San Jose State University in San Jose, California, USA. His interest was in the effect on the weather, of course.

So the concept has been around for quite a while.

Mike O'Connor, Shelton, WA, USA

As usual, those who accept global warming as absolute truth refuse to look at new research or new theories. Mr. Calder has proposed a new examination of a controversial subject, is there anything wrong with an open minded examination of it.

The author has given new evidence, so what do the global warming fanatics do? They attack him personally despite making some salient points.

It seems to me that if the THEORY of global warming is as airtight as is claimed, then what is wrong with looking at potentially inconvenient evidence? If global warming is true, then any new evidence presented will only reconfirm it. I believe that is called the scientific method.

In 1610 Galileo said that the earth revolved around the sun. For that radical notion, the powers-that-be put him on trial for heresy and he was eventually forced to recant even though he was later proven to be correct.

Brian, Pittsburgh, PA

The final question says it all: Science is based on fact, not consensus of opinion. Just yesterday, Branson and Gore advanced a challenge and a prize of 25 million dollars for a design that will sponge 1 billion tons of anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere a year. The contest is based on consensus pseudo science (not real science) because it declares that anthropogenic CO2 IS the cause of climate change. We face many more such ill-conceived and poorly-based proposals all because science is discarded in favor of emotionalism and public opinion.

Derek, Aberdeen, Washington State, US

As a scientist, I found this article truly excellent. Finall we can exclude the politicians from the debate.

Dr, John Dempsey, Scottsdale, AZ. USA

Let's have shoot out and compare Svensmark’s predictions with the anthrogenic crowd's predictions in five, ten, fifteen, etc years and compare then to the actual results. This is the ways science should be done not by voting! Physics isn't democratic!

Dan, Castle Rock, CO USA

I am sooo glad to see this article in a larger media outlet. I had the idea a few weeks ago when the UN report came out, that I wondered if anyone had bothered to check the sun's ray's recently in our outer orbit, to see if perhaps variations in THAT was responsible for warming. Well as I did some research, armed with Google, I was shocked to find out what I did.

I found out that scientists haven't the foggiest idea yet how the sun affects our climate- a concept called "solar forcing". Not only that, some scientists actually make fun of the notion that the sun has anything at all to do with our climate. I'm no rocket scientist, but that seems extremely retarded to me. If we don't know about the sun's role yet, how can the UN or anyone else declare with any certainty that humans are the major cause of warming? We've all been scammed.

sylvia, Athens, GA, USA

Adding more energy to the system (global warming) does not mean an even rise of a few degrees worldwide. It means the existing system is disrupted and must seek a new equilibrium. The weather conveyor belts in the ocean and atmosphere are moving and some areas are getting colder and drier while the majority get hotter and wetter. It is a well established fact that things are changing, only the cause is up for debate.

People who try to explain it away are like the doctors and scientists in the 50s who claimed that smoking was healthy or people 100 years ago who claimed that heroin was the next miracle health tonic. Most people feel what they want to believe and only then do they look for justifications.

Vic, Las Vegas, USA

Academic orthodoxy stifles research in many fields. Combine that with political orthodoxy and any one who strays from the fold is made a pariah.

There are good reasons, other than Global Warming, to cut our use of gasoline. But what are you going to do about the village fires in India which produce vast amounts of greenhouse gasses and can't be replaced by ethanol?


I wish the politicians would stay out of this and allow science to take its course. Most of them have no more understanding of the underlying science than my cats (and the cats are better looking than most of them); the pols are just jumping on the bandwagon.

Ira Solomon, Lowell, USA/MA

Why are the Polar caps melting on Mars They have no population or industry.

j, apache Junction, USA/A

Amen, Amen

John Q. Adams, Hackensack, USA New Jersey

BT - on anything so severe as meningitis (or global warming) I'd get a second opinion. Even if the doctor were 100% certain.

And when a doctor (or a certain group of climate scientists) claims to be 90% certain of something when the information they're working from is at best incomplete and at worst intentionally inaccurate, one ought be very frightened of that doctor.

JEM, Foster City, California, USA

It has always been of interest when opposing ideas are debunked when they don't fall into the camp of the "political correct". Science is harmed when there are those in public positions, particularly in the arena of education that chose to isolate, terminate and/or stop any comment or argument that goes contrary to a mantra supporting a politically based opinion. It should concern everyone when there is a push to regulate individual activity, impose massive taxes to establish a bureaucracy to "stop" a "problem" that can not even be shown to exist let alone having anyone really know what steps would actually change that which is said to be happening. The goal of those seeking to "stop global warming" is ,if anything, a modern day effort at totalitarianism. I'm also amazed that the politician (those who have virtually NO credentials in any arena but propaganda, spin, half-truths, and are never held accountable for their errors and who produce nothing but regulations and taxes) is given any credibility let alone allowed to impose massive programs based on nonsense.

R. Hale, Minot, ND

"And yet, today [Mt St Helens] is as lush and reborn as ever. Man's impact is temporary."

You obviously have not visited (or even seen pictures of) Mt. St. Helens recently.

Buck, SF, CA, USA

As I taught my science students for years there are 4 major events which control temperature changes on Earth; The energy output of the sun, the Earth's wobble on it's axis, changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit and the precessional tilt of Earth's axis. I don't care how many cans you recycle or windmills you build it won't change those factors one damn bit. Oh yeah- those changes are measurable and we know the time frame. They have been recorded for millions of years in our geology and fossil records.

S.D. Bennett, West Chester, PA USA

There is a "Petition on Global Warming" (see Internet) addressed to our government that states the following: "...human activities have nothing to do do with any warming or cooling...". This petition has so far been signed by over 19,000 independent scientists, with the list growing daily. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sponsored by the UN (!) consists mainly of government-paid private enterprise rejects, who in 1975 proclaimed catastrophic global cooling (see Newsweek of April 28, 1975).
MarcJeric, Ph.D, Engineering, 1968

Marc Jeric, Las Vegas, NV 89117, Nevada, USA

Whether there is global warming or not, I would say the real problem is the ever-increasing global population. Wthen I was born it was 2 billion, today it is 6.6 billion. More than trebled in 70 years! Whether the world gets hotter or colder, the call upon global resources will soon bring about a crisis. However after learned conversation with my Christian friends, I understand we should not worry overmuch because God has at His disposal many remedies for overpopulation - pestilence, dought, famine and war. I always felt that we had some rsponsibility for what happens but the the theologians perhaps have the right answer. We need do nothing!

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

You don't get it people - the world left is predicting global warming so they can pretend to fight it so they can claim they solved it when global cooling is found. It's genius!

Of course the only environment they want to change is the business environment - so by the time cooling starts, we'll be automotons...

Evrviglnt, Irvine, CA

In apprentice school (for pipe fitters) we had to learn the difference between ratdiant heat (what comes from an infrared heat lamp) and convective heat (warm air that curls throught a room after touching a hot steam radiator). If the greenhouse gas theory of global warming is true, how come the atmostpheric termperatues registered by satellites haven't gone up? (Trapped hot air is what makes the differnce between a comfortable living room and what we have outdoors tonight in Boston.) Surface temperatures have gone up on Earth, but the same goes for Mars, where the ice caps are (per NASA) melting. Radiant (i.e. solar) heat makes sense for Mars and for surface teperatures on Earth. Radiant heat goes through air without heating it much, but really goes to work when it hits a solid. Is gloal warming somehow immune from the basic physics that rule the rest of our lives and everything we can touch or see?

John C., Boston, Massachusetts, USA

The current global warming mindset is like two cavemen 'discovering' that thunderstorms had become more intense since they invented the spear.

I am still waiting for an answer to why the climate has changed hundreds of times in the past, yet somehow this particular change cannot be natural.

It smells like a simple shakedown to me. I'm hiding my wallet.

Steve, Savannah, GA - USA

Nobody -- really, nobody -- disagrees with the basic principle behind the "greenhouse effect": carbon dioxide absorbs and re-radiates infrared radiation that would otherwise be radiated to space. So how could we NOT have man-made global warming? Actually there are several ways in principle: slightly increased temperature could cause more evaporation, leading to more cloudiness, which would stabilize the temperature (because clouds have high albedo). Or the CO2 could be absorbed into the oceans rather rapidly. Or plants could absorb the extra CO2. Etc. Well, we're trying the experminent on a planetary scale, and guess what: those moderating influences are not happening, or at least not nearly fast enough. Since nobody disputes that CO2 absorbs/re-radiates energy, what is the dispute about? Pointing to one particular area of the planet and saying "ha, THAT spot isn't warming" is a canard.

Phil Price, Berkeley, California, USA

The article poses a valid, scientifically based, point of view that receives only minimal media coverage. Though the actions of many governments, until the very recently, suggest it was widely accepted in policy making circles.

What the argument fails to recognise are the asymmetric costs of action or inaction. Given the conclusion that there is a 90% probability that the human population's actions are the underlying cause of climate change. When the costs are so great, it seems reasonable to undertake a course of action that poses substantial but not unsurmountable costs to mitigate the situation- and hope we are proven wrong. While the final impact of climate change cannot be known for certain, even if there is a 30% chance of a substantial negative result, surely it would be worth the cost of taking precautionary measures. One might consider an analogous situation where a repairable structural fault created a 90% chance that one's home would collapse, would you pay for repairs?

Simon L, Cambridge, UK

I'm glad that someone has the balls to write a very well conceived article stating that carbon emissions might not be the cause of this "supposed" global warming. I am tired of people like Al Gore politicizing something of which they have absolutely no education on. They seek out and find a couple of "experts" that offer some data that conveniently fits their agenda, and all of the sudden they are all the world-leading experts about it. Fact is, their scientific research is extremely flawed--but most people don't know this because they are uneducated about it. I'm tired of these politicians feeding on the ignorant followers to believe blindly what the politicians say. It's ignorant for people to so blindly believe what they say. We all should be asking questions. In fact, that is part of any sound scientific research. Scientfically, if you think A leads to B, then your research hypothesis should be "A does NOT cause B". If this fails, then you know you might be right. Think!!

j. a. kelamis, oklahoma city, oklahoma

If global warming is real, then why has the freeze line for citrus in Florida moved so far south in the last two decades? And if we can affect the weather by accident, then why can't we affect it ob purpose, like make it rain when we want it to?

Greg Green, Eustis, Fl

Good olde thermometers used by people on the actual ground measure temperatures better than satellites hundreds of miles up. And the unfortunate fact is that these readings have been going up and up and up for many years now. Stop trying to put silly doubts in our minds. Face the facts. Global warming is real, and a good chunk of the recent rise is due to humans. Get a basic meteorology class, and learn how the atmosphere works.

Joe , Omaha , NE USA

Let me get this straight.

In a time when there was no industrial pollution, industrial pollution was not a major driver of global climate.

That is really what the major point of this article is saying.

Variations in the solar output historically have driven climate change. It still has a relatively equal force. But now there is a new element, one that overwhelmes the variation in sun output. So RELATIVELY to other factors, the sun has gone from being the major driver, to a minor one.

Why is it so hard for the author to think through this simple equation?

BjornL, Atlantis,

Global warming is today's inquistion. How dare we challenge what the grand wizards of handwringing have proclaimed to be the truth. Let us not give pause to their emotions, with opposing facts. Warming may be an event of nature? Poppycock! They have proclaimed warming's cause. They know what is good for the masses, for they are the learned. We are constantly reminded that entertainers know what is best for us; they are so much smarter. It takes intellect to be a pretender, ahhh, I mean an actor. Enough with the challenges or off with your head!

Ed, Flowery Branch, USA/Georgia

One of the scientists who found this out suggested that it was because of the hole in the ozone. It doesn't insulate the area as well.

See here:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20711F63E5B0C748EDDAE0894DE404482

Ben, Forest Grove, OR

Thank-you for the breath of fresh air in the coverage of climate issues. Politics has no place in this research. We need to let the scientific process work.

Also, I hope that some day you can enlighten people as to the personal sacrifice and abuse Svensmark and others have endured in adhering to scientific method rather than participating in the stampede to a new dogma.

Mike, Houston, TX

In the 1970s many of the same people now trying to panic people with the cry of "Global warming disaster....blah, blah, blah....." were trying to scare us with the coming of an ice age. They were certain of it. Every generation science becomes convinced of something that turns out later to be untrue. But they are certain. And the alwyas have the "eveidence" to prove it. Nothing new in any of this. Our lack of humility in relation to the natural world is amazing....and tiresome. Can't these "brilliant scientists" come up with anything new?

Warren Walter, Arlington, TX

It is really something to watch the Global Warming crowd in action with all the zeal of an evangelist. The fact that no other theory is even allowed to be discussed is highly dangerous and the opposite of the real definition of science. Therefore, it ought to be categorized as an earth religion unto itself.

Richard Fabuloso, Miami, FL, USA

Finally! Lets hear it for the Non-Global warming group! It is amazing to me that they cannot explain the midevil period where the earth was about 2 - 3 degrees warmer that we are now!!! As impressive as you all think we humans are..we still do not have any control over our atomosphere!

Rob, Daytona Beach, FL

It hardly seems likely that 0.6F can be measured with any reliability given the time period in question and the sheer accuracy of measuring devices from the early 1900s.

Scientists should deal only w/ "facts" or theories based on "facts". Politicians should not act on conclusions that are not scientifically rational and provable.

Jeff, Austin, Texas/USA

Global warming is a natural cycle. The governments would love for you to believe it is manmade, so that you will be further controlled to sort your trash and recycle it, so the recycling businesses can profit off your free labor and time. Wakeup sheeple! It's about turning you into an animal they can control further, and leaders love animals, because they follow blindly without question. Keep it up sheeple, the leaders love you.

Alan, Cape Coral, Florida

The magnetic polar inversion we are now experiencing would account for an eastward shift of the Antarctic ice cap. It would also explain why more solar radiation is reaching the surface of our planet. Regardless, global CO2 emissions are most certainly affecting Earth's weather patterns and termperatures. WHY is this such a difficult concept for you people to grasp? Stop niggling, it just makes you look silly.

ahansen, california, USA

If scientists couldn't prove the speeding truck you analogized even existed and caused a threat, then there would be little motivation to take action.

Your logic is flawed. There isn't proof that climate changes are man made. And if climate change does exist, why not naturally. If seasons can exist on the planet, then why not global seasons when the entire earth warms and cools?

The mentality that man is more powerful than nature is one grounded in human arrogance.

When Mount Saint Helen exploded in the early 1980s, the surrounding areas were laid waste. A greater ecological event than any created by man. And yet, today the area is as lush and reborn as ever. Man's impact is temporary.

Roger Dornbierer, Dunellen, USA

From the church in ancient dark ages to political correctness today, different forms of irrationality have obstructed a genuine pursuit of truth. Thank you for your courage in fighting for science itself.

Shabana Insaf, Springfield, USA/MO

Finally, some common sense on the whole notion of man made global warming. I'm happy to live life not having to worry about some catastrophy or another.

Glenn, coarsegold, Ca, USA

The point is that nobody knows what will happen, but the climate is changing. Warmer, colder, nobody can say for sure, but it is changing, and the most obvious cause is human's recent increase in Carbon emmissions. How will that affect the climate? We have no model to predict it, no historical evidence. Burning fossil fuels must have an effect on our environment. How could it not? Denial of climate change is not conducive to improving our energy policies. Even if global warming is not happening, we should seriously consider our changing energy demand, and the impact of India and China.

Charles Mitchell, Littleton, CO

With respect to the various views and writers here, and in particular to those who advocate immediate action, perhaps you do not know that 31 years ago, it was an equal 90% certainty in the view of various climate experts that the world was facing an imminent Ice Age and that food need to be immediately stockpiled to prevent world-wide famine from the ensuing loss of growing season.

For the record, I do not work for any energy company of any kind, oil or otherwise. I am, however, old enough to recall being warned of the coming Ice Age when I was in elementary school.

Lane, Stamford, CT

Dear friends, if a doctor tells you there is a %90 chance your child has meningitis, would you wait for %100 certainty, or would you take the treatment. Please come back down to Earth.

BT, Sydney, AUSTRALIA

I'd be a lot more convinced of man-made CO2 causing global warming if the people backing that theory weren't running around calling skeptics "holocaust deniers" for daring to say differently.

As far as cherry picking data goes, Al Gore has that covered.

Dean, New York City, USA

And the North Magnetic field is weakening and shifting toward the South Pole. This is a significant factor that seems to elude most discussions relative to the theory of global warming.
One must remember, this has happened before over the history of Earth.

Ray, Sacramento, USA/CA

Population Control is long overdue. 3rd world (sic) countries where religion and tradition vie with commen sense is the problem. The church wants souls.... governments want taxpayers... and they all blame it on the commen sense and educated west who have practiced BIRTH CONTROL for 30 years. Condems and sterilization for the masses!!!!

Albert E., Princeton, U.S.

Thank you Lawrence from Oslo. I was unaware that carbon emissions are bad for the enviroment. And, here I thought that CO2 was essential for the survival of plants and trees through the process of photosynthesis. My bad. Lets just be glad the plants are not in control, they would certainly try to curtail that nasty pollutant oxygen.

Ellis, Norwood, USA

Our galaxy is in the basic form of a disc. Our sun moves through the outer edges of this disc with a motion that is similar to a sine wave(curve). At the current time the sun is in the outer fringe of the galaxy disc. As the sun leaves the disc there could be a dramatic change in the amount of cosmc radiation that reaches our planet and sun. I understand that this sine wave has a period of 100 million years.

Perhaps a qualified astro physicist could give a more scientific evaluation of what effect such an occurence would have on our solar system.

Bill Webb, Ogden, Utah, USA

I find it difficult to accept all the doomsday predictions about global warming. It is still difficult for me to comprehend how chlorinated compounds get up to the ozone layer when their molecular weight is so great. Perhaps I am just ignorant, however, I do hold advanced degrees in chemistry and physics. From what I do understand, there is ample evidence of cyclic warming, but feel it just part of the course of the sun and nature.

wcw, Amelia Island, FL

Amen! This truly shows the arrogance of man to think that they can control nature. I am not a scientist by any means but common sense just led me to think that maybe the sun had something to do with this so called " global warming" and not man. At least there is hope for common sense.

A Redondo, Miami, Usa/Fl

How refreshing to see an actual experiment in this debate, rather than modeling temperature as a religious curve-fit of the co2 levels.

I'm taking bets that the co2 lobby will attack this "heresy" by assailing his character. Since he doesn't bow to the conventional orthodoxy, he must be an oil company stooge.

There are good reasons to reduce the use of petroleum (less pollution, more efficiency, no money to crazed fundamentalist Islamofascists), but the poor modeling advocated by the IPCC isn't one of them.

John, Seattle, WA, US

I think when all is said and done we will see that man's contribution to the global climate is smaller than minute. Kudos for having intestinal fortitude to actually stand up and say what you have. Kudos to you.

Sims, Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

A very interesting article. I have never been convinced that carbon gases were the only factor in global warming. If there have been ice ages in the past there must be factors other that effect our climate. It is very difficult to believe that a complex system like our atmosphere will remain constant year after year, decade after decade and so on. Yes greenhouse gases will have an impact but how great compared with that of the sun? Politics is working in the single theory mode that we frequently see the most recent being that the bird flu outbreak was due to wild birds.

Colin Jones, Birmingham,

When the Romans invaded Britain they had a ten thousand acre vineyard in East Anglia with a large winery. At the same time, despite the much warmer temperatures of the Little Climatic Optimum, archeologists at a small island at Pevensey Bay have found that the sea was two feet lower than today.

The warmth continued through 1000 AD, and farming was possible in Greenland, By 1500 it was much colder and by the eighteenth century the river Thames froze every winter and large Ice Fairs were held on it.

By the late nineteen-forties grapes could only be grown on Englands south coast trained on south facing walls. Now more vineyards are possible.

Conclusion? Climate is cyclical. There was another Climatic Optimum centered on 5000 BC. And a large scale volcanic eruption could bring about another "Year without a summer."

L. B. Binniel, Thunder Bay ON, Canada

Science driven by blind faith is troubling. No direct evidence of global warming being caused by man has bee able to withstand significant scientific scrutiny, so politicians and wealthy folks who thrive on government mandated change keep dumping in dollars hoping their sacred cow is real. Having studied chemistry and physics, with the attending mathematics requirement, I argue there exists insufficient data and experience to make the claims the climatologist are making.
Climate change has become a religion, and now the "mankind is evil and must be controlled" crowd are going nuts jumping up and down screaming "Amen" like a bunch of freaked out evangelical pastors with a captive audience. Science is not a religion....so when it's adherents begin to display blind faith and zeal in defense of their newfound god, I become the environmental equivalent of an agnostic....show me and then I will believe.

Chris, Sacramento,, CA / USA

This is the closest thing yet to an actual, proven, theory on G.W. The rest have been mostly hypothetical and/or what if, treated by the elites as fact. How many of the key claims on G.W. have had "citation required" next to them? In one instance they claimed that only 1% of the CO2 came from volcanoes and that man produced 5% (next to that claim was "citation required"). 1%, who do they think they are kidding? Anyway no experiment with a 0.03% (as found in air) concentration of CO2 has ever shown it it have any effect whatsoever. We have all had humidity (water vapor) make us feel hotter; and, they ignore, or discount, it altogether. Clouds cool things off. If something causes increased formation then - bingo -.

Ed, Ellenton, FL

While I care about the planet as much as anyone, I've been disinclined to believe what's being said about "global warming," simply because of the level of rhetoric coming from politicians and businesspeople (Gore, Branson) with everything to gain by the hysteria.
That people should compare scientists like Svensmark with "Holocaust deniers" ought to have us raising serious questions about our scientific methodologies at least. It echoes Gertrude's words in "Hamlet": They "doth protest too much, methinks."

Ben, Virginia,

global warming alarmists are not people, they are sheeple, and also major league douchebags. It is good to know I am smarter than some (upper second) Cambridge mathematician who is educated beyond his intelligence. People are not exhausting resources.
https://dully.wordpress.com/

Dullly, denver, colorado

At least I'm not the only one thinking that way.Great
piece.

Dick Moulton, Northfiield N.H., U.S.

When you have so many trees in the world converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, and so much CO2 being dissolved into the oceans of the world, it is hard to believe that it can have such a terrible effect on the world. And isn't it the theory that greenhouse gases actually reflect the sun's light away from the earth? So, shouldn't the earth be getting cooler?

I agree with your theory that it has something to do with the sun, it would seem only right that a giant nuclear fireball in the sky would have such an effect on our planet, since it controls so many variables in our solar system already.

And I must also say that I am interested in Mars's climate change too. If there is such a similarity between our two planets' warmings, then shouldn't our scientists be looking for the consistent variable?

However, we cannot give up on cleaning up our act. Oil, while being a wonder, is vile stuff; both for the eco system, and for the sanity of mankind. It doesn't hurt to do the right thing really.

Kier, St. Lawrence, UK

In the early 1970s the British media were reporting as 'fact' that oil would run out by the early 1980s. That turned out to be false. The current media hysteria is similarly irrational and is driven by political correctness, by an unscientific ideology which assumes that 'humans are sinful, nature is innocent, and everything is man's fault; there could not possibly be non-human causes for global warming'.

We need to depoliticize the debate, acknowledge the various possible causes of global warming and look at the whole thing in a rational manner.

Michael O'Connor, London,

I remembered reading an article in Time magazine when i was younger that declared we were at the beginning of a "New Ice Age"! What year was this you say? Well would you believe 1974? Now the politicians are involved and of course they are always truthful no matter what votes they lose. If you would like to read the story be my guest.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Gary, Huntington, WV

Relative to the last ice age 10000 years ago, the earth has warmed 10 degrees celsius, the oceans have risen 200 feet, the mastodons and sabretooth are extinct, cities are underwater in the Meditteranean, and thousands of cubic miles of ice has melted. Al Gore's great*40 grandfather probably predicted the global warming disaster that's already occured since 8000 BC. What's a few more inches ? Bring it on.

mike, Bozeman, MT, USA

What I am really surprised is the temperature data for a planet they want us to believe. I know how I measure my organism fever. But I do not know from the reading the cause for a fever! So, such a huge organism like the Earth is, do not tell me you are measuring "the fever" to 0.6 ! They are joking! Night and day at the same time, winter on one side , summer on the other, mixing temp. of water and land and air? Or only air. What stations are in the game? The same back 1000 years? Nobody tells on this magic or witchcraft...

Tomaz, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Please forward to ellen goodman at the Boston Globe. She equates those who question that humans are the root of global warming with Holocaust deniers. The scientific method has been corrupted by the Politcal Left over the past 30 years in the USA in order to accomodate their socialist worldview.

John, Glastonbury, CT

But the first question is . . .what is the nonsense of saying "out of control"? To the best of my knowledge, the climate has never been under human control. Further, we know that the Roman and Medeivel Warm Periods were a good deal warmer than today. So why the panic? During those warm periods, humans waxed quite well. At 0.6 +/- 0.2 degrees C over a century, it is not akin to a "speeding truck", but rather a vehicle barely moving. Hardly a reason to panic, I should say. What we do know is that it is when it gets a fair amount cooler is when humans hurt . . . from famine and disease brought on by malnutrition. At this stage, I, for one, am not willing to suffer another equivalent of a Great Depression just because some headline seeking "scientists" are looking for lots more research money.

Laurence M. Sheehan, Phoenix, , USA / Arizona

First of all- we DID something about acid rain, over the objections on many of the same deniers that we hear from above. I am not a climate scientist, but if I was, I would love to tap into that conspiracy that you-all know so much about.

I do know, however, that if you are living below a landslide that you should move out of the way before you get buried. I also know that sometimes small (almost trivial) cracks appear in the road as a landslide starts to move. If you don’t properly recognize those cracks – oops!- you get buried. If, on the other hand you do recognize them, THEN, you may (or may not!) have a chance to stop or slow the movement of the slide. Let's be rational about possible danger to all of us. Probable danger, in the view of folks who know what they are talking about.

M. Carey, Lafayette, CA, USA

Don't believe the hype!! This is another form of deception to rally the political agenda of world economic equality and nothing more. The establishment has gotten behind idea and anyone who disagree's is now a cook. Unproven with much doubt still out there in the scientific community. The sheeple are jumping on the bandwagon.....this is nothing more then unlimited exposure to a particular view to sway the unwashed masses.....propaganda...propaganda...propaganda....!

RT, Dirtyville, Kansas

One has to appreciate that scientists are no more trustworthy or honest than the average person. They have mortgages to pay, kids to send to college, dance lessons, soccer equipment and on an on. Getting ahead means getting grants and getting published. Contrary to most outside views, mavericks do not do well in science. Add to this the basic predisposition of most scientists to believe that man is poisoning the earth and you have the perfect storm. I have no doubt that scientists skew their research to increase their chances of funding. I have been one for 2+ decades and get to see it every grant cycle. This issue is extremely important and both sides should get a full vetting. Unfortunately, I think people cannot separate their compassion for improving the world, which is a good trait, from their intellect.

Joe, Rochester, USA

to 'mike',

Your simple ice cube experiment is misleading. The problem isn't with sea ice, it's what happens when the large areas of land-based ice melt. Fill your glass, balance a ruler across the top, then pop a few ice cubes on it.

shedlord, Lytham St Annes,

Good on yer Nige.

I am cheered to see a writer of your status write such things. I have been in the wilderness for a long time; but who am I?

Now the battle for reason is being joined.

And, besides everything else, the cost of adaptation to climate change is going to be less than any necessarily unsuccessful attempt to control climate.

Remember Canute!

Robert Wood, Ottawa, Canada

I fuel my house with coal and leave my freezer open, just in case.

BILL BRASKI, USA, USA

Errm, sorry Ian but that is gold-plated hogwash. You'd like a proper explanation of why Antartica is cooling, but nevertheless you want everybody to behave as though the sky is falling in? When it's obviously not? Empiricism dear fellow, should lead you to conclude that carbon dioxide, which is totally harmless and is created in vast quantities each day through photosynthesis, is likely NOT the cause of any global warming, if in fact such warming is even happening.

Martin Hague, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

I am an American and I can tell you there is no room in the States for any other idea. Global Warming is the new religion and to suggest anything other than" Man caused it " is heresy. There is no room for thoughts or scientific evidence to the contrary. To those who suggest "Global Warming" is like a truck barreling toward you, embrace Nuclear Energy, turn your themostat to 60 degrees F, turn your back on airconditioning, driving and other luxuries because all change starts at home. Buy a Hybrid, drive less, eat less, donate more, plant a tree for every member of your household and quit carping. Sheesh. All change starts with ourselves, not talking, talking, talking, and complaining about others. By the way, you want something to worry about? Just wait until the large population groups in the world start to afford and buy cars.

robert, seattle, us

As irrefutable as the role CO2 plays in climate change, I wonder, are the Martians and Plutonians taking our example here on earth and releasing inordinate amounts of CO2 into their atmospheres also? "Climate Change: An Inconvenient Truth", coming to a planet near you.

Thomas, Pine City, USA

Politics corrupts everything, including science. The science today is not the science I remember learning when I was in college and grad school where sceptics were encouraged to challenge the accepted theories of the day. Scientists and meteorologists who disagree with the current green house gasses dogma now lose their funding and get their reputations torn to shreads.

Man made global warming is a ploy that government and social reformers can now use to engineer society, withold freedom , and collect more taxes by scaring the populace into compliance. The media can now take extreme weather all across the globe and put the global warming spin on it to make people forget that the world has experienced temperature extremes in the past. There are individuals and political entities out there poised to make lots of money on all these draconian actions our govenments, the UN, etc. wish to impose. Whenever government and the media get this desperate, hold on to your pocket-books.

Rhoda Fort, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

Climate change has become the new "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Children are frightened because their world is ending. Ordinary people feel fear and anxiety about what is going to happen. Scientists who have other theories are shunned, not published and threatened with dismissal. Talk about a witch hunt. We should be making positive changes for the environment, and they are happening. To be so arrogant as to think we can control the weather is a little much. We need calm thinking and ideas from all scientists, not just the ones that agree with the present popular theory. And in the end these are just theories and theories have a knack of being incorrect. Let's take a deep breath and proceed cautiously while making positive changes and quit scarring everybody.

Corine, Lethbridge, Canada

Is a scientist, then, someone who, on seeing an out of control truck rushing towards him, does not take to his heels until after he knows for certain whether its brakes work or not? There are some situations where even a low risk outcome is so bad that taking prudent action to avert it makes perfect sense.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

BOULDERDASH!
Using Mr. Kemmish's logic, we should outlaw automobiles and ban driving because it is a given that many thousands will die as a result of automobile accidents.

Many "prudent" actions could be embraced to do similar things that actually make not "perfect sense," but are NONSENSE! They make NO sense whatsoever.

Claims of global warming, until scientifically proven, remains junk science.

Edmund Schneider, Venice, Florida U.S.A.

Matt from the Bronx has finally figured it out! His theory also explains why the sea level is rising north of the equator while it subsides south of it.

Tony, Topanga, CA

The commenter that said the BBC article implied that temperatures are higher now than in the past 800,000 years badly misunderstood the article. What it did say was that CO2 concentrations have risen at a faster rate than ever evidenced before by the ice core samples. It also said that the proxy measurements for temperature and increasing levels of CO2 tend move together. It is not known which, if either, causes the other.

The article did not claim that arctic temperatures where higher than at any point in the past 800 years. We have rather good historical records that indicate that temperatures where significantly higher than present less than 1000 years ago.

I suspect that we may already be in a cooling cycle. If this trend proves true and is perceived by the general public, will they be willing to trust the worlds leading scientists ever again?

jeff, Houston, TX

Does man have an impact on climate. Quite likely. Yet the entire Solar system is showing hard signs of planetary warming, not just planet Earth. The Martian ice caps are melting, signs of recent water flow are evident and increasing wisps of clouds are forming; Jupiter is forming a second red spot, the Jovian equivalent to a hurricane. Titan shows increasing polar methane clouds due to warming and Uranus is displaying unusual equatorial weather activity. If Al Gore and his legions of enviro-minions are right, then we on Earth must be solely to blame for the warming of not only our beloved Earth, but the entire Solar system as well!

Jeff T., Pittsburgh, PA, USA/Pennsylvania

Anyone remember the "acid rain" scare 15 or so years ago? It reminds me a lot of the "global warming" scare of today. Back then, everyday there were news articles and reports on acid rain destroying the earth and that we were all doomed. Now I'm sure acid rain may have caused some destruction but we are still alive and well today...and I haven't heard a report on it in years.

My point is this. 10-20 years from now this will all be ancient history, at least the warming part. The next big scare will be "global cooling" and I'm sure they'll figure out a way to attribute that to man as well. This is not to say we shouldn't be good stewards of this planet, we should very well, but it's being overblown and politicized and science is being thrown out the window. The scariest part of all is that science is being thrown out by the scientists themselves. They should be ashamed.

Sean Allen, North Carolina, USA

Please do not inconvenience us with fact or empirical evidence. Global Warming is the new AIDS and much more interesting than Darfur! We grow tired of old celeb-causes and need a new one! Hoo-Ray for us! We are concerned! We are special! We'll maker a new ribbon...this time a blue one to symbolize clean air! Joy!!!

BTW, the UK should take a page from the American media outlets and refuse to print any articles that state global warming may not be caused by people!

Vin, Long Island, NY / USA

Considering such a large percentage of the world's population lives in much closer to the North Pole than the South Pole, might that explain the fact that there's less ice at the North Pole than Antartica now?

Matt, Bronx, NY

If everything were as clear-cut as some of the 'experts' would have us believe, then WHY is the earth not a constant temp (except perhaps for mts and such?) There is such NATURAL variety here!
There are SO MANY controlling factors, that relying on just one (carbon emissions) seems more than simplistic.
Regarding that truck, what if it ran out of gas? Or hit a large rock? Or Jackie Chan managed to get in it and hit the brake? Or Superman came to the rescue? (Some of those may seem silly, but so does-to me, relying SOLEY on carbon emissions!)
The other thing that just GALLS me no end is the INSISTANCE that NOTHING ELSE could possibly be of real importance. Strangly weird.

Justa Thought, Evansville, USA/IN

Why is it that the Martian polar ice caps are receding by 10 ft, excuse me, 3 meters per year? Surely, it is not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for the ice cap itself is frozen carbon dioxide. And aside from a few clandestine Martians tuning into our pitiful inanities down here on earth, no fossil fuels are being burned to produce additional CO2. Yet Martian climate is warming, coincidentally, at the same time as the Earth's. If two unrelated beings are influenced similarly, there must be a causality external to both, i.e., in this case, the sun or other cosmic events.

George Niznik, Ventura, CA, USA

Reading the book "State of Fear" by Michael Chreighton gives a realistic view of what is happening. It should be required reading by every high scool student.

Bob Sharpe, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

The big problem is we are moving toward LAWS against anyone who has another theory. That's making science a political thing, forget research when that happens.

JGS, LaCoste, Tx

The earth has gone through cycles throughout time and gone in and out of different ice ages long before man roamed the earth. These cycle were not attributed to green house gases thousands of years ago and it is rediculous to think that that the small presence of man can interupt the extremely advanced cycle of the earth. The thought of global warming by C02 emissions is like thinking that a couple people peeing in the ocean is going to interupt the oceans creatures way of life! This is rediculous.

JB Bennett, Houston, TX

Ian: "There are some situations where even a low risk outcome is so bad that taking prudent action to avert it makes perfect sense."

Here's a thought: What if, even IF the earth temps rise 6 C, the outcome isn't so bad? Everyone just assumes that the whole world will end, I only agree to the point that it WILL change just as it always has. Not only that, but could you think of any scenarios where it would be positive? Putin did! A lot of assumptions out there, but I still think we'd adapt . . . that's just me. Good luck!

Jon, Los Angeles, USA

Interesting hypothesis. Whether accurate or not, surely a great danger lies in attributing blame solely to the sun, and regarding progressive and increasing man -made environmental degradation as a minor or even irrelevant issue. I'd rather have people stirred into action to reduce pollution (which is not good, whether it causes global warming or not), than adopting the attitude that whatever we do is irrelevant. But beyond that, I'd bet on 90% odds over 10% ones anyday.

Nick, Wilmslow, Cheshire

I don't know about this global warming phenomenom. I leave that to the scientists. I will say I find it hard to believe that even the brightest boffins can predict the weather 100 years in the future when they can't reliably predict what it will be next week.

Also, after reading his comment I must say that Tim McCormack's assertion that the BBC is neutral is certainly false. I watch the BBC regularly and read BBC OnLine frequently. They are quite predictably partisan. He's right though when he says they are reliable. They are reliably anti-American and reliably anti-Israeli.

In closing, this Yank sends best wishes to our steadfast British allies and the best newspaper in the world - The Times.

Paul E., Dayton, Ohio USA

CO2 is a pollutant unless you're a tree. Cutting CO2 emissions in the name of preventing global warming is patently typical human speciesism.

Seriously folks, CO2 is 0.033% of the atmosphere. To predict massive climate shifts based on that tiny bit is ridiculous. Water vapor is much more prominent as a source of any greenhouse effect. No one's been able to model water vapor accurately enough to predict even the weather we've already had. Yet, somehow I'm required to stand and deliver because of some grad student's computer model?

Ruffin, Fredericksburg, Virginia, US

Nigel Calders' reference to Svensmark’s hypothesis about cloud formation should strike a chord in everyone's memories of school science. Much the same principle applies to Wilson's Cloud Chamber once used by most school science departments to illustrate radiation. Such formative experiences of early science lend much empathy to Calder's points.

William Carter, Eastbourne,

There is another aspect to this which is also beginning to see the light of day.
This is that there is zero prospect of cuts being made in global carbon emissions that are big enough to bring a halt to global warming, if indeed it is man made.
The cuts required would bring the economy to a halt.
In addition, any cuts we make in the west are likely to be swamped by new emissions from elsewhere.
For example, apparently China recently added in one year more electricity generating capacity (mostly coal fired) than the whole of existing British capacity. So even if we stopped using electricity altogether, China has just more than taken up the slack.
There is definitely something going on with the climate - but the power of mankind to influence it is far from clear.

Charles, Bath, BANES

I’m very concerned that Cameron and his loony green environmentalist buddies will tax the British public and halt our economic growth out of all proportion compared to the rest of the world - just to set some sort of pathetic ‘example’ to everybody that the British are prepared to lead the world in misery and suffering for this new religion called climate change. Meanwhile, China, India, the US and others go on their merry way, producing wealth and prosperity for their citizens - and even if the world does get as hot as it was a few centuries ago, at least they’ll be able to afford the air-conditioning units necessary.

sean dunne, grimsby,

The thing missing in all these arguments is logic. Most comments are illogical. We have a problem with syllogism with an excluded middle. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Where is the B=C? Freon is not same thing as carbon dioxide. A mistake a scientist made in 1958 is not the same as 2,000 scientist working on a subject over 20 years.

There is also issue of multiple causation. Nobody is claiming that man is causing 100% of anything. There are multiple factors, some positive and some negative.

The issues is that man is part of the equation and is pushing the atmosphere into uncharted territory. This is based on verified, tested concrete evidence. The big question is how high the sea levels will rise in a given period.

Dan, Arnold, Maryand

It does seem quite "blindingly obvious" to me according to my own observations, that the sun is burning noticeably much brighter now than a few years ago, the sun is now incredibly bright and warm even in the depths of a UK winter, it is as bright now in winter as you would expect in late spring and early summer when the sun is much higher in the sky
it really is that obvious, why hasn't anyone else noticed?

richard dale, horsham, UK

I do not fully understand the science of the question and believe that most "experts" do not either. In school I studied history and economics. I cannot give a citation but do remember reading about French economic interests bemoaning the influx of high quality English wine. Tarrifs were discussed. The climate changed and grapes were no longer a viable crop in England.

We like to think we are the center of the universe. If there is a problem... We will fix it. How much easier the fix will be if we can point to the source and control it. If we are not the source then we have to face the reality that we may not control our own destiny. A scary thought!!!

Steven Miles, Castro Valley, CA, US

I get a kick out of those that think they can somehow control Mother Nature. The bureaucrats haven't figured out how to tax a forest fire or the volcanoes of the world just yet. So without conclusive evidence beyond select federally funded studies and excessive hyperbole, they target the largest resource know to them; the unsuspecting yet controllable masses, in the largest cash grab in modern history, under the guise of protectionism. Follow the money.

Jadi Falqua, SoCal, USA

During the are of the dinosaurs the carbon dioxide was 8 times higher than today, yet the earth's flora and fauna never did better. So, I don't understand why they would even try to hang global warming on CO2. Of all gasses methane is the more likely gas, but they want more wetlands and it was determined during the 1990s that half of all the worlds methane is generated by wetlands.

Frank Aaron, Satellite Beach, FL

As irrefutable as the role CO2 plays in climate change, I wonder, are the Martians and Plutonians taking our example here on earth and releasing inordinate amounts of CO2 into their atmospheres also? "Climate Change: An Inconvenient Truth", coming to a planet near you.

Thomas, Pine City, USA

Nice to read this rarely published contrary opinion of the global warming phenomenum. Thankyou.

I believe Mr. Kemmish's response reveals what the climate change movement really is about, a shell game to buttress other arguments for changes to consumption habits that may have merit of their own but are not sufficiently scarely to change behaviour. Further, from what I understand, there is little to no actual evidence that warming of the levels predicted will on balance be harmful to the planet. There is only a lot of doomsday conjecture. Here in Canada, there is good reason to believe it will be very helpful in what is largely an uninhabitable environment.

In summary, I believe global warming to be a positive development, though I fear it may turn out to be untrue or lasting.

Kerry Kaminski, Calgary, Canada

This article does cherry-picking of data and does not present the whole picture. I don't know where he gets some of his "data". Antartica is losing ice. Another thing he seems to "miss" is that Antartica has gained ice in previous global warming phases. It surely seems this former editor has a political agenda.

James, Fort Collins, Colorado

No, CO2 made by people is the problem. I know. Al Gore said so. He invented the internet.

Kever, Lynchburg,

I live in Bulgaria. Today on feb 11 was 24 celcius. The whole winter has been like this. Whoever says this is a fluke or just something that happens once in a while is simply lying. I say in 10 more years we wont be able to recognise the Earth as this continues.
Fine, lets say this is due to the Sun. But is it temporary? How long will it last? 1 year? 2? 10? Even small change will affect our ability to grow enough food to feed 6.5 billion people. I dont see ANYBODY talking about this problem that will soon be facing us. All I see is lies and more lies.
No, there is no global warming. Ok, it is warming but the Sun is casing it. Yes there is global warming but it is NOT man made. Stop with the lies and begin thinking of way to figure how we will be growing enough food.

Petkov, Varna, Bulgaria

The ozone hole was cause by chloroflurocarbons. THey are no longer produced worldwide. If you read any of the new literature the hole is shrinking considerably every decade.

Aaron, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Nigel, the New (sic) Scientist needs you. The present editor would never publish anything like this. It is now a travesty of objective science.

As the world has not warmed since 1998, everyone should be asking these three questions of those that believe in dangerous man-made global warming (AKA "climate change"):

1 What explanation do they have for the lack of warming in the face of a steady increase in CO2?

2 With the benefit of hindsight, are they now able to tell us why the climate models failed to predict it?

3 How many more years of no warming are needed to persuade them that their predictions of climate catastrophe need a critical review?

If they can't /won't provide credible answers, demand that they investigate alternative explanations like this one.

Bryan Leyland, Auckland, New Zealand

jI will stand with the One Source that has never and will never fail.
Please go to Genesis 8; 22. the promise of the Eternal Soverign God to Noah. "There shall be seedtime and harvest as long as the earth remains."

O. Warner, Windom, Mn.

You fail to understand to global warming does not mean that the entire earth heats up. It does have that effect- on average- but it polarizes regions as well. It makes weather more drastic. Do some more reading, and less blind conjecturing.

d. White, greensboro, NC

I'm far from an expert in this field. The only thing I truly believe is that the source of global warming is open. I'm not even convinced that the earth is warming up, but that could just speak to my ignorance on this topic. It seems to me that climate changes are constant and have been for most of my life. And I'm pretty well convincened that climate change didn't start with my birth.

Dave, Independence, USA

I get a kick out of those that think they can somehow control Mother Nature. The bureaucrats haven't figured out how to tax a forest fire or the volcanoes of the world just yet. So without conclusive evidence beyond select federally funded studies and excessive hyperbole, they target the largest resource known to them; the unsuspecting yet controllable masses, in the largest cash grab in modern history, under the guise of protectionism. Follow the money

Jadi Falqua, SoCal, USA

There is a lot of confusion in terms, people assume climate change means global warming -- it doesn't.

People also assume that climate change, if it's happening, must have one cause -- it doesn't.

Mr. Calder, I wonder how much emphasis your book will put on this one cause over all others; should we not, if we are going to talk of climate change at all, talk of many causes and not one, or do you think the sun is the primary cause over all others?

Ry Rivard, Morgantown, West Virginua, U.S.

In the 1950's, when I was in grade school, these hand wringing hyperventalating guys were saying the same thing. They tried to scare us little kids by showing huge chunks of ice falling into the sea. It was all our fault. The world was going to end by the 1980"s. The shear stupidity of anyone who can promote such a thing is beyond my imagination. They claim the lowlands will be flooded, well, you do this for yourself. Take a glass of ice cubes, over fill it with water and set it aside. When the ice melts, the water level goes down,- not up, it goes down. Theses guys all come from the druide religion, which is tree huging fearmongers. They think if people are scared they can be controlled. I find no solice in haveing to buy a government permit to buy a box of matches! They should be made illegal, just like the nazi party in Germany, Illegal! There is no proof of what they say-just like darwinism, not a shred of proof-nothing. And why should we believe them? Whatever happened to common sense?

mike, occupied, U S A

When I heard that the scientists had determined with 90% certainty that most of global warming was man made, I immediately asked myself what it means to be "90% certain." I was a little disappointed (though not surprised) that none of the journalists covering the story were prompted to ask the same question.

This is the first commentary I've read that tackles that issue, and I say bravo, Nigel Calder! As I suspected, being 90% certain means the participants were strongly predisposed to believe in man made global warming (big surprise, there) but knew they didn't have it all sewn up.

I'm sick of politics driven science. People complain about the Catholic Church's role in the Galileo affair, but that pales in scope compared to the way radical liberals squelch any scientific discoveries that disagree with their political agendas.

Judith Muehlbauer, Brainerd, MN

This whole scenario was played out on the Twilight Zone years ago, only the culprit was a change in the orbit of the earth. The impending torching of the earth turned out to be only a deluded dream. In fictional actuality, the earth was moving away from the sun into a terminal deep freeze. Or it may have been the other way around.

The pseudoscience of global warming is more than a deluded dream. It is a money-makin' venture for a lot of ne'er do well environmentalists and otherwise underemployed former science majors. Is there someone I can call to get on that gravy train?

Kurt, Longview, Texas

This still doesn't address some of the most powerful and convincing data: The East Antarctic ice cores that date back 800,000 show that today's warming and CO2 levels are unprecedented. "Unprecedented" means that nowhere in this 3.2 kilometer-long core of ice do we see today's temperatures and CO2 levels, even with the natural sun cycles, etc. And lo and behold, the spike occurs right around the beginning of the industrial era.

Read the BBC article for yourself. They're a pretty neutral and reliable source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm

Tim McCormack, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is one of the building blocks of Life.

Much evidence (including IPCC's) suggest that warming causes greenhouse gases, not the other way around. GHG's lag the warming. Sunspot cycles, on the other hand, precede global temp changes.

The latest info from NASA satellites in close solar orbit is that we are entering another sunspot minimum period, similar to the Maunder Minimum of the Little Ice Age. The next 22+ years will be coooler as a result. That cooling has already started as temps this winter plunged to unexpected lows and stayed there.

Historical analysis shows that solar irradiation controls climate change. That is a kind of experiment. The solar models work on historical data. The GHG models do not.

Mike D., Lebanon, Oregon, USA

1. An Australian friend confirms that on Xmas Day temps at the beach fell to 60F with a brisk breeze from the Antarctic.

2. 'Impact of greenhouse gases'? If Nigel Calder is correct they might help prevent a second ice-age, so encourage the gas-guzzlers, please, everyone!

3. Congratulations to Mr Calder and please send him my comments.

Sonya Porter, Woking, UK

Anyone interested in reading about global climate trends should check out NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) webpage: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/. I recommend you watch the animation halfway down the page. It's incredible.

Paul Jenkins, stoke-on-trent, uk

Environmentalists with a 'Paycheck Agenda' seem to think
that people who dont subscribe to 'Runanway Manmade Global Warming' are environmental terrorists. We need to control emisions to protect our environment from toxins,
regardless to climate change, as the effects on health care
are demonstratably real in many (but not all) cases.

Douglas, Seattle, Wa

Yes, the strength of solar influences is confusing. Some solar researchers in the US (e.g., Judith Lean) aren't as sold on the cosmic ray hypothesis as Nigel, for technical reasons I can't well articulate.

One reason for Antarctic cooling is the ozone hole (caused by chemicals containing chlorine), which allows cooling (ozone is a greenhouse gas). If the ozone hole explains much of Antarctic cooling - a research question - is there a greenhouse contradiction?

I agree with Nigel about chilling effects on your budding career if you don't stick to the orthodoxy; journalistic orthodoxy is chilling as well, socially as well as career-wise.

Let's see if some science journalist will tackle Nigel's implicit challenge with an open mind. That said, there's little question that greenhouse emissions are a part, likely the largest one, in warming of the recent decades -- but if solar is also a substantial part, then policy implications are different, re timing and severity of actions.

Tom, Washington, DC, USA

Contrary to Mr. Kemmish's view, a scientist is one who uses the scientific method to understand natural phenomena and not distorted analogies such as his. The scientific method goes beyond reporting observations. It includes developing a hypothesis to explain the observations and then testing that hypothesis. For example, the American global warning "scientists" predicted that last year's hurricane season would be the worst in recorded history. Instead, it was one of the mildest. The test failed to support the hypothesis. Why is Occam's razor ignored in dealing with issues such as this? What is our largest source of thermal energy? - The Sun. Does its output of energy vary over time? - Yes. Do these variations in some way correlate to the variations in climate? Economic utility - what about political futility? What true scientist (especially if funding does not come from government or politically-motivated sources) would want scientific policy determined by public opinion polling?

ICS, Garland, US

Finally!

Sam, College Park, USA

Low consumption lifestyle??? So we should all live like old ladies saving newspapers and tin cans? NO THANKS

What happens when the old lady socialists win? Every bit of conservation enforced upon the taxpayer is recycled and fed to the wards of the welfare state because they vote for the socialists / democrats / liberals. The wards in turn reproduce like bunnies yielding more consumption.

How about we live like rampant capitalists and have much more fun whilst doing a MUCH MUCH MUCH better job of conserving resources. Unrestrained Capitalism is THE most potent form of conservation every devised. Letting those that reproduce have responsibility for those they make IS the answer.

phxfreddy, phoenix, arizona usa

Climate change has definately become a political rallying cry. There is credible information that global warming is not a man-made issue, such as this report, but like some of the research quoted, it will get very little funding and very little support. I have a cousin who has a fellowship at MIT and he told me that students there are pressured to find the certain results that favor man-made climate change because it then leads to big funding dollars to continue to do research. So we get more scewed research on top of scewed research to produce predetermined results because climate change has become politicized to the point that you risk your job and career if you find and publish evidence that shows man has such an insignifacant effect, that much of the billions spent on research, is wasted.

I am a conservation minded person by heart, but all of the overhype about man's effects, makes me want to go out and buy an SUV.

Jared Murphy, Albuquerque, USA/ NM

Is a scientist, then, someone who, on seeing an out of control truck rushing towards him, does not take to his heels until after he knows for certain whether its brakes work or not?

FALLACY!
STRAWMAN!

He is disputing that it is a out of controll truck! not what to do about geting out of the way!

As an (upper second) Cambridge mathematician (BWAAAAAAA) (PTTTHTHTHTH!)
I about choked on my coffee

As a Cracker from flyover country...

Jf, Spring Hill, KS

This is balderdash.

Thomas Fielding, Black Dog,

The voice of reason. Although many people will not want to hear it.

I have spent the best part of a month researching global warming for an essay. If anyone bothers to research the subject deeply, they will find it is not nearly so clear cut as is presented by political parties and the media.

I am not advocating that we do nothing. But please put your ? hat on, and stop accepting everything you read!

Tony, London, UK

Neil's presentation of climate change is compelling, especially within the context of historic climate change patterns. However, let us hope that the ground swell of change in attitudes to the reduction of carbon emissions and polutants, which we all know to be bad for the environment, does not waver in light of such evidence.

Lawrence, Oslo, Norway

Is a scientist, then, someone who, on seeing an out of control truck rushing towards him, does not take to his heels until after he knows for certain whether its brakes work or not? There are some situations where even a low risk outcome is so bad that taking prudent action to avert it makes perfect sense.

As an (upper second) Cambridge mathematician, I don't have any particular problem with the proposition that pumping lots of extra energy into a complex system will result in a period of unstable behaviour as it hunts for a new stable mode. I would LIKE a proper model for why East Antarctica is cooling right now, but I don't feel that it's a necessary precondition for adopting a prudent, low consumption, lifestyle. Whether the economic utility of a such lifestyle is that it delays warming, or that it allows more humans to live before resources are ultimately exhausted or just that it lets me feel good - it's still economic utility!

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

We must not discount the planets ability at radical simpatico adaptation; however we should not second guess a far more superior system which has survived for eons in hostile space environments. The part we play may be minuscule in comparison, but misguided in the extreme.

Philip Clarkson, Naxxar, Malta

Actually, Gore should have gotten the IgNoble Prize (for stupid unscientific pronouncements), instead of the the Nobel Prize. Alfred Nobel would be horrified at how his bequest has been perverted.

The AGW gravy-and-grant train is about to be derailed. Edited resumes will flood the science market.

Brian H, Vancouver, BC Canada

Striving for perfection to provide survival and long term balanced coexistence....our planet provides 3,8 billion years of recorded information.
Which one of you Intellectuals can stand up and claim insight into the workings of this biological genius we call earth.
Stop the war on Nature regardless.

Quentin, Cape Town, South Africa

Shame that these two didn't get a Noble Prize.

Scott, Menlo, USA

So, even though temperatures haven't risen since 1998, that CO2 follows climate change, that over 31,000 scientists have disagreed with the popular conclusion and that the solar cycle is the main factor in all of this, people still want to cling to the fantasy-land of carbon taxes fixing everthing!

matthew, Newcastle, UK

After a fairly mild winter, summer's blazing desert heat was a month late, this year, just arriving now, instead of the customary mid-May.

David W. Anderson, Fallon NV 89406, USA

Do we know how temperatures vary on the moon? It presumbly experiences the same variations of warming due to solar fluctuations as does the Earth. But no complcating effects of man-made pollutants. No atmosphere, of cousre, but still might give an interestine comparison. Anyone know?

Jon Kirby, Coventry, UK

In response to Jade
We cannot "reduce emissions and adopt a better lifestyle." Not realistic, and a dangerous attitude - people in Africa could benefit from having modern ammenities like carbon based electricity(wind and solar are not enough) .Lives are in the balance. I bet YOU have a fridge.

Michael Foober, Boston, USA

And just to underline this, 2008 the missing solar cycle 24 seems to be having an immediate impact on Northern Hemisphere global temps. USA, China, Middle East - coldest winters for many years and coolest spiring and early summer in the UK. Coldest Australian 'summer' - just a hiccup!

Jon Wharton, Sheffield,

The moment a theory becomes orthodoxy you can be sure it is wrong. I grew up in a world where we would run out of oil in 1973,then 1976 then 1981 and we have more oil now than then. Climate change is the latest in a long run of scare stories -remember the millions to die from SARS or Mad Cow disease

Ian Comley, Horsham, United Kingdom

Unfortunately this is a simplified look at how climate works. Of course there is solar forcing and that has predominated in the past, but we have pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we have driven the system into situation closer to 55 million years ago when rapid heating occurred (PETM)

J Banton, Cambridge,

Great article. The whole debate will be forgotten in 5 years once the media has milked it for all its worth.

D Smith, London,

i think global warming is really bad because lots of the glaciers are melting.

jhfh, Dallas,TX,

i'm slightly sat on the fence about this because yes the climate is going up but if you look at every single graph the temperature will go up and come back downso considering this the temperature will go back down but it may result in a very bad ice age because of the hight of the temperature.

Alex Gocher, Honiton, England

Mean temperature on our planet continues to drop at 0.7C/year, a mean drop of 14C would constitute an 'ice age'.

The other planets in our system will also be following the same trends, governed by our Suns' activities.

But, lets forget science,listen to the barmy brigade on 'global warming'lol

Steve Aynsley, Blyth, Northumberland

You cannot put a tax on the planets natural cycle being the cause of global warming!

John Robinson, Atherton Manchester, UK

CO2 hysteria is a cover-up for chemical polution - dioxins etc - that have a lethal effect on all life. The chemical industries must be overjoyed by the global warming smokesceen. Of course there is a link, but chemical polution is the far more serious danger. Reflect that human society can cope with temps -10c to 40c

michawel clarke, cambridege, uk

I have been trying to publish my work (quietly beneath our feet) for some years now without success. They call it science!

Roy Masters, Fakenham, UK

I agree totally with Troy. The key thing is - Svensmark's theory is better than the CO2 theory. But that is no excuse to pollute our planet.

If humans really want to survive until the next great supernova event, or a gamma ray burst, or comet, meteoroid, or supervolcano event, then we must learn to live in harmony with our ecosystem.

Unless we do so, we will run out of resources, like many other plague species, and die off.

J Clarkson, Camborne, Cornwall

According to Cara
"Oil companies have set up and funded countless think tanks and PR agencies (which often have scientific sounding name to make them sound like legitimate research institutions)"
The first and foremost ilegitamate research institution is the IPPC. They do not do research, they do not modify their 'findings' based on current research, and they are a body of poiticians - not scientists.

Joe Scott, Yates, USA

In the end, I feel it will boil down to simply man's choice of living with a monetary based system as opposed to a system based on need. When profit takes presidence over need, which it does (look at our current housing market), then resources are extracted as fast as possible and population grows as fast as possible. If this were not true, then why the fast pace of life. If mans mind set was that of need as opposed to greed, then resource harvest and population growth would be of a complete different nature. I do realize man could never accomplish this way of thinking, but you should at least realize that there are better approaches to dominating a planet and understanding how a planet provides for its inhabitants. (By the way, I'm not a communist) Clean air and water sure is nice, what is it worth from a monetary perspective?

Dan Warden, Crescent City, California

These arguments are all irrelevant. It angers me so much when people argue about whether global warming is real or not , because it shouldn't matter one way or the other. Even if by polluting we don't raise Earth's temerature, that shouldn't just be a free pass to pollute. No matter what the consequences of polluting may be, we shouldn't pollute simply for the fact that we have only the Earth to live on and nowhere else. The Earth provides us with everything to live, resources to build, food to eat,and it is the birthplace of all men. We should only treat the Earth in the same way it has treated us, with respect. If the planet doesn't get hotter because of our pollution, then great, but we still shouldn't trash it. If we take this approach, then it won't matter whether or not global warming exists because we will already be acting responsibly with our planet, which as of now is the only one our species owns.

Troy, Orlando, Florida

"Oil companies have set up and funded countless think tanks and PR agencies (which often have scientific sounding name to make them sound like legitimate research institutions) which have paid thousands of people money to deny man made climate change. For years the White House censored climate change research, and persecuted scientists who dared speak out about the dangers of manmade climate."
Cara...compare what individuals actually receive. Al Gore gets $700,000 dollars each time he presents his one-sided presentation. "Countless think tanks"? A bit of hyperbole don't you think?

John Bryant, Anchorage, Alaska

To Cara in York, your ignorance of American politics is surpassed only by your ignorance of science.

85% of the climate grant money awarded during the George Bush presidency has gone to universities and scientists who believed that the current, albeit slight, warm up is being caused by antropogenic activities.

There have been some, NASA "scientist" James Hanson to name one, who have said that President Bush has limited his views from being published. Mr. Hanson has been heard more than any other "scientist" in America due to the meida coverage of his views.

Yes, we are a carbon energy driven society. We do need to find other energy sources, nuclear for one. But to point the blame for all the issues just to us in America is foolish.

I read where Prince Charles has called me ignorant. I am part of the solution, where Charles behaves like our last president. You remember Bill Clinton.

William Vanderbrink, La Porte, USA/Texas

It is a complete nonsense that scientists who dissent from the man made climate change theory ‘are greeted with impediments to their research careers’. In fact the very contrary is true – publishing any material that challenges this hypothesis is the quickest way to make a fast buck in science. Following an IPPC report last year ExxonMobil offered £10,000 to any scientist who would publish anything hinting that the findings of the report were wrong. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the past few decades, climate change denial has developed into a multi-million dollar PR industry. Oil companies have set up and funded countless think tanks and PR agencies (which often have scientific sounding name to make them sound like legitimate research institutions) which have paid thousands of people money to deny man made climate change. For years the White House censored climate change research, and persecuted scientists who dared speak out about the dangers of manmade climate.

Cara, York, UK

why not have the benefit of the doubt and reduce emissions, whilst also adopting a better lifestyle?

Jade Pilling, london,

First of all I apologize for my english, but I hope you understand me.
Second I want to say hello to the reader.
During 1971, when i was a student in Arcetri,a seminar on the increasing of solar UV was held and the claimed cause was the Concorde airplane. In the same period Arcetri's team had measurements on the White Mount and no growth was measured.
When some year later they realized that Concord was not a concurrent for american's air companies, the focus was moved on other sources.
During the TV political shows nobody accept to put on the table how data are collected, and any discussion is based on false information.
Here in Italy something similar happened with ne Nuclear Centrals, to avoid their building or to favorite the conversion (TO CARBON!!!) of the existing ones. Now some politic that was contra say to be pro, but is clear that there are other interests in.
I wonder how someone can be so stupid to put himself over the Nature.

Cesare Licheri, Pistoia, Italy

Al Gore will always be known for two inventions: The internet and global warming.

Dewey Longuski, Mason, Michigan/ USA

I am reading the book "The Chilling Stars" and have always wondered what caused climate change in previous centuries.
This book is clearly attempting to answer these questions.

We are led to believe by our political masters that global warming is a new and man made phenomina. We shall no doubt be taxed to support their argument but this won't alter the fact that it has occurred in previous centuries when it could not possibly have been man made.

We should be asking why our governments are not looking for other reasons besides the CO2 argument. The answer may be all too obvious.

Noel Dobson, York, N.Yorkshire GB

I heard somewhere about measurements carried out by space probes or satellites; these observations state that in the atmosphere of some planet, whose heat is held by greenhouse effect (Venus, Jupiter, Uranus...), rising of lowering of temperature are recorded in coincidence with the ones recorded on the Heart. This effect is measured (non guessed) over data collected during a period of time, and it seems a fact; that looks as to be a final strike against the theory of man-made global warming.
Moreover, volcanoes emits in short times carbon dioxide amounts that overcome the quantity from human activities. And carbon dioxide is not the only or the strongest greenhouse gas; methane and water vapour are by far more important, and they are very little (say, not at all) under human control.
But there is one (and a strong one) reason to hide this all: fear of global warming is a powerful support to research for energy saving technologies, and to get over fossil fuels.

Michelangelo Coca, Muro Lucano (PZ), Italy

People do not work if they are not scared.
I like the theory of non-man-made Heart warming; I think that's a more scientifically correct position. But I will not tell anyone.

Michelangelo Coca, Muro Lucano (PZ), Italy

I think the point of this article is to express that our understanding of climate change and the factors that affect this are still open for much examination. By insisting on a concesus that the effects of Greehouse gases, in particular anthropogenic GHG's, are causing global warming/ climate change, then this is preventing true scientific practice in looking at other aspects that may have an affect to gain a better understanding!!

IF the truth is that anthropgenic GHG's play only a small part incliamte change and that reducing our emissions will have little effect, surely the vast sums of money spent on this would have been better spent funding further reseacrh for better understanding of the Earth's climate, also for looking at ways of off-setting the effects of global warming on our society.

Either way "Freedom of Speech" should not be quelled especially within the scientific community, the 'whackiest' ideas often result in the biggest leaps forward in understanding.

Liam, Northampton, UK

In reading a "Earth's Climate: Past and Future" by William F. Ruddiman (2001, but a new version is upcoming), a useful and scientific text, I find a no contradiction between global warming caused primarily by CO2 emissions and an enlarging East Antarctic ice sheet. Ruddiman states that, "Today, this frigid ice sheet is starved for snow, and the somewhat warmer temperatures of a 2xCO2 world might supply more snow for faster and thicker annual accumulations of ice" (p. 434).

If there's one thing I've learned from reading this entire text, along with numerous online and print articles, it is that Earth's climate is a hugely complex system, and it cannot be accurately thought of as a system with only a few consistent controls. When the words "global warming" are used, it implies that the temperature increases all over the world. But there are multitudes of other effects, as well as cooling in regions, and the argument can never be reduced to the idea that warming always means melting.

Pat Kujawa, Butte, Montana, USA

May I refer to Mr Kemmish of Biggleswade? I agree with him that a low consumption lifestyle is precisely what is needed. I suspect Mr Calder would not deny it. As I read Mr Calder he is not propounding a profligate lifestyle.

Indeed as Mr. Kemmish so rightly infers, most systems are more sensitive to initial inputs, and more chaotic than most suppose. Is it not the case though, that Mr Calder is proposing being scientifically sure of your ground before investing vast resources to a project? And is it not equally true that our erstwhile and current western profligacy is exactly what all our politicians are encouraging: every pronouncement they make when not on the subject of "global warming", is one based on assumptions of - and the desire for - continued economic expansion.

It seems to me to be a simple lie, that you can have that AND cut emissions.

Bob Valentine Trueman, Llanfair Caereinion, Powys

Brilliant scientists are usually egocentrical. Egocentrism can lead to a lot of hasty decsions, like promoting C02 based Global Warming as proven. I have detected for about the last 15 years a shifting scehdule of seasons, however the seasons length and temperatures have not been changing dramatically or at all. If Global Warming is just part of Earth's natural cycle, who is to say this is not a way for the Earth to produce more oxygen to combat " high C02 levels." If the Earth has been around for billions of years and has endured cosmic meteorite blasts and other disasters that produce much hig her pollution, than it is just silly to pretend that in the two hundred or so years we have been industrialized, we are able to have a global impact that not even the universe could match for billions of years.

Todd, La P, America

Calder is seemingly one of the few ethical men of science left in the self imposed pit of despair academia has dug for itself in the hypothesis of CO2 driven global warming. And The Times deserves at least a mention in dispatches.

Fortunately the general lay public in Britain can smell spin and propaganda a mile off. Even the BBC has at last woken up to the fact that ordinary sane people are increasingly demanding intelligent debate, even if most of our formerly hallowed and respected institutions editors and broadcasters seem bent on trying their utmost to stifle it. Understandable from politicians, after all they created the IPCC, but why is there such mania for censorship?

What do they fear, one may ask.

Dick Jaworski, Rye, East Sussex

The world is getting a lot lot warmer. The climate is changing, seasons etc & we are in solar minimum at the moment? Just wait until 2010-2012 when the solar flares next get going in solar maximum! I just love all the sceptism amidst all the evidence around us. Even simpletons can see that worldwide, the climate is weird at the moment. It will get worse though & I just hope your sceptism will help you get through it he he!

Sylvie LG Pollard, Luton, UK

I think the scientific evidence for these alternative theories mentioned in the article is no greater than the small amount of evidence that supports the current 'greenhouse gas' theory.
What I find most worrying, is that current global warming campaigns have distracted from current conservation in practice.

At present, conservation measures are severely lacking. What's the point of preventing climate change to save our future environments when we arepractically unable to save our environment in the current climate? (during a walk through a local nature reserve I was surprised to find the most common flower species was oil seed rape!).

In the carboniferous period (300mya), CO2 levels were at 70% of the atmosphere and plant and animal life flourished. Rather than pretend we know a lot more about climate change than we do (politicians, scientists and journalists (including Nigel Calder) are all guilty of this), surely we should invest more in the conservation science that works?

Ben, Oxford, UK

I always enjoy reading articles by authors trying to plug their new books, because they refuse to cite their sources and leave so many questions hanging, that the reader just has to go out and buy their book to get the answers to the aforementioned questions. If Nigel Calder were a serious scientist, all his citations would be listed, so one could check his reasoning.

Aidan Luce, Norwich, UK

In my veiw, global warming is a myth, i cant say for sertain but i have strong belife that it is. I am getting taught in my geography class how 2 stop climate change and how terrible it is but they have given me any good evidence to prove the thery of global warming, so i am not convinced. i an only 13 years of age but i believe i am intited 2 my veiw. read 'state of fear' by Michael crichton its all about the myth of global warming.

holly, london, uk

I have yet to see any research on the difference in efficiency in o2 production between managed and unmanaged forests. If you understand the process of o2 production in daylight ,( chlorophl action) vs the release of co2 in nightime respiration of plants, it would seem obvious that a young healthy stand will produce more o2 and loose less co2 than and old decadent forest ith a mass of dead and dying vegetation. Yet I don't see any reference to the opportunity of changing and improving the cycle by improved management of our forests. Since anthropogenic co2 is a small percentage of the totoal co2 in biological cycles, doen't it make sense to improve the way the ecosystems utilize that cycle?

Robert , Port Townsend, Jefferson/ WA

Candice from Wildwood US, I think your statement speaks volumes about your ability to distinguish between hype and reality.

John, Plano, Texas USA

Wait I know how to fix man made global warming... all americans need to give up there individual rights and install a socialist goverment.

Why didn't al gore just say that.

Man made global warming is a political issue not sience.
solutions for global warming.
1. Raise taxes
2. Controll the Free market.
3. Pass laws that take water and property rights and transfer to goverment.
4. discredit political enimies as "flat-earth minded idiots"
5. convice people they are being the good guys for striping the constituion and bill of rights.
6. gather all power into a centeral goverment.

Hmm man made grobal warming cost our freedom and individual rights. Yes i think condidering the time frame involved in change that i would like 100% on wheather or not it was real. Don't you?

Jon L, Pine City, MN

what i have to say is well then why is all the all the ice melting and what about the polar bears???? you think there dyeing for no reason at all ,well have you thought that the world is worming up and there homes are melting how would you feel if i took the ground out from under your feet and made you swim until you died because you couldn't rest at all??? have you noticed that over memorial day the haze was almost at a RED because of all the cars going through. today was an absaulutely beautiful day but we dont get many of those.....

candice, wildwood, United States

The issue of cooling over the East Antarctic ice sheet (rather than East Antarctica) which extends into the centre of the continent does apparently have an explanation. Which is that the circumpolar winds (the polar vortex) have strengthened over the past 30 years (why is not well understood, but it might be due to stratospheric cooling thanks to the reduced ozone over the South Pole).
The stronger winds prevent warm air from reaching the interior. However, the Antarctic Peninsula is definitely warming, and even though the cooling over the East Antarctic ice sheet means more snow and thicker ice, the edges of the continent are melting with increasing speed. The Larsen B ice shelf collapse underlines this. We don't know what the future holds exactly down at the bottom of the world, (or anywhere else) but if the ozone recovers, expectations are that the cooling trend will also "recover", and warming will return.
Nigel, please explain...

Fred, Auckland, New Zealand

As a non-climate scientist who has recently taken a keen interest in the debate, what strikes me most is the cyclic nature of climate. We need to determine just how much of what we see is due to natural cyclic variation and how much is man-made. And very few climate scientists seem to be looking at the effect of natural cycles.

peter ruthven, melbourne, australia

There is absoutely NO SCIENTIFIC evidence to support the idiotic notion that mankind can influence the Earth's climate. For sure, there is much "Opinion", generally couched in "If'" , "It is possible", and "If that should occur" rhetoric . And since there is no Lesser Spotted Fleabag for the former tree huggers to save, they have all jumped on this new Global Warming bandwagon and act as though there was something mankind could do to fix it. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" did indeed contain some inconvenient truths. One of them, the fact that global warming PRECEEDS increased levels of carbon based particurates seems to have escaped his notice. Science is done by scientists, not tree huggers, not political hacks, and is never, ever, based on opinion. Science is based upon ideas which after global peer study may or may not result in a generally accepted theory. And right now, the sad truth is that those who want to conduct REAL science don't get funded. And that is a very sad truth.

Jim, Norwich,

Peak oil anyone? No trees left to take up the Co2, all the climate change skeptics said it was OK to cut them down. Air pollution anyone? Can't breathe but that's got nothing to do with climate change! Want some water in thum thar hills? None left, the glaciers have all melted and snow doesn't fall anymore. Any species left? Nup, not even homo sapiens! Whatever you want to call it - global warming, climate change or just simply air pollution. It is anthropogenic effects on the planet! We can change it! But only if there's money in it! (sic)!!!!

Lish, Melbourne, Australia

When the evidence is all around us, why do we keep denying?
As long as I can remember, 38 degrees C scared us like hell(i'm from Romania) and we had few victims through years claimed by heat; this year we have 43C(today was 41 I guess) and over 20 victims in 2 weeks. And another
thing: we have have now 2 weeks of 40+, without any wind or rain. As far as I know(i'm 30 years old), this never happened here. So, should I believe that global warming is a bluff, as you say, or should trust my senses?
I know that panic it' not good, but in the end, denial is a far worse enemy than panic.
Panic may cause reaction, but denial .........

adi popescu, bucharest, romania

Isn't there a confusion between the use of the terms of climate change and global warming. If we are talking about global warming then the model for East Antartica creates room for doubt but if we are talking about climate change then East Antartic's cooling is more eveidence for climate change so define your terms.
As for all the issues surrounding climate change, maybe we should define it as abnormal climate change because the climate has always varied, all the arguements for and against boil down to one thing and I can only use an analogy to make this point:
Imagine you went to your doctor and he said that after the tests he's done he was 70% sure you had cancer but because he wasn't 100% sure he wasn't going to do anything until he was. You would think he was crazy.
So it's our choice; are we going to wait for the 100% or do something that in the long run benefits us all?

Nicky, Girona, Spain

I do not disagree with the main point of your thesis that it is up to individuals on the watch tower to be warry of scientific hubris. But, I do have a few qualms to points you use to make this claim. Science requires statistical consistency. Just because you can site a few specific examples that differ from the general trend does not mean the general trend is wrong.

As research funding and resources are limited, it is best to focus that research on the general trends while allocating additional funds to fringe theories in the proportion that divergent cases are evident.

If the Sun has this much direct control over the climate then we do not have any control over such things at the current moment in time. But, if greenhouse gases do have an effect, then we do have some control over at least one factor involved. Thus, it is good that we should continue to focus on what we can control in greater proportion than those things completely out of our control.

Christopher Lyman, Rochester, USA / New York

The only thing that controls the climate in this world, is the God who created the world. Going on tangents to "save the world" is a silly notion indeed. People are always looking for a cause. If the government and all these celebrities would dedicate the same amount of time and money to ending hunger and stop using children in their commercials about "saving the Polar Bears sea ice" this world would be a better place. Even the children's movie "Happy Feet" was politically charged and aimed at the under 12 audience. The poor penguins that the humans are killing off due to global warming. Complete rubbish.

Robin Argyle, Durant, USA/Oklahoma

Lets understand what is motivating the vast expense of scientic study, climate change groups, 1000's of bureaucrats in office, an ex vice president pilgramage to the world and a ultimate message of "catastrophy". The main reason is simply - money, control of the deminishing oil and natural resources and fear of what will happen, namely wars. Climate change is to control by fear the masses.
I have no problem with a govermentally policy and dictate for recycling, environmental awarness and saving energy but i refuse to allow scaremongering tactics and blame mentally to direct my thoughts.

steve jackson, london, england

The thing is, it certainly isn't going to harm the planet to cut down on greenhouse emissions and find alternatives to fossil fuels. In the meantime we can work out just how much harm they are doing. But if we stop the current trend to watch our emissions until we are 100% sure about the cause of global warming (which, let's face it, isn't going to happen - there will always be dissenters to every theory), then find out that we are responsible, it will definitely be too late to do anything.

Kate, London, UK

why should we believe what the government are saying?
they did not themselves at first believe that climate change was happening. I am just annoyed how they think and others think that switching off some plug switches will stop the climate change. Maybe i am wrong but putting taxes on flights to apparently stop humans destroying the earth will become an advantage for the upper classes. Where has equality gone?
I would also like to say this article will help with my project on climate change.
I think other explanations should be looked into more detail, researched and put forward.

Mahnaz, hall green, england

We had scientists with the ABC TV in Australia trying to ban a BBC TV documentary presenting a point of view differing from the human self flagellating perspective - they definately belong to the "flat earth brigade". I wonder how those fools that blame Homo sapiens for their perceived "ills of the earth" would explain the rising sea levels that isolated Australia's off-shore islands that were part of the mainland 6000 years ago, well before the technological age?

Brian Bush, Stoneville, WA, Australia

If one pretends that co2 augments temperature one should no only base oneselves on observation but, I should think, on some experiments also?
So, I ask what experiments have been done to confirm that co2 augments temperature? And how can this be extrapolated and been in agreement with the global warming measured?
A search on the internet did not give me any answers.

naudts, brussels, belgium

What is needed is a Bill Gates of the sciences. Someone with the tax dollars, to invest time and research, with enough clout to counter the AGW insanity.

Excellent article, from the always cogent and clear thinking Calder.

Craig Hawkins, Solihull, England

Thank you for at least bringing some balance to the argument.

David, Cmbridge, UK

Thank you Nigel Calder for reintroducing some scientific, objective based data into the Great Goreaphobia climate hysteria. Former vice-president Gore has a history for the dramatic and patronization of non-politicals. His subjectiveness is the rule of his analysis which is quite understandable when you view his background. Politics, journalism and law. Which are usually disassociated from scientific disciplines and logical, objective analysis. I smell politics and major monies at work in the root of Gore's fluff. With the U.S. media so obviously liberal as to not even hint at the possibilty that any disagreement within the scientific community could possibly exist. Why who would possibly suggest credibilty issues loom large with Gore's postulate? I can only hope that enough counter supporting evidence is introduced before Gore has cost the American public trillions due to his scam.

J.M.Willey, Bridgeville,

Thank you Nigel, for being a beacon on truth on this issue. Prior to this year, I had a general belief that AGW was an issue that man had to deal with. Ironically, it was only after seeing Al Gore’s movie, in which the facts as presented did just not make sense, that I spent some time researching what was really going on. With the power of the Internet to let all sides express their viewpoints, it did not take me long to realize that AGW was likely going to be the biggest red herring in human history!!!! It ceases to amaze me how society has blindly jumped on the AGW bandwagon.

I guess time will be the arbiter of truth. As you point out, temperatures have NOT been increasing as of late, and given the latest NOAA solar forecast, are likely to remain steady or even decline over the next few years. Eventually the general public can’t fail to to notice this and it will be quite enjoyable waving to those who powered the AGW bandwagon, as they stand in line looking for work!!!

Mark, Toronto, Canada

Yet another pointless message thread :>

Cheers, Mr. Calder, I identify with this article.

Phil, New York City, New York, United States of America

The experiment that "hints we are wrong on climate change" was a laboratory study on how ions may influence the formation of tiny aerosol particles. The results are miles away from being evidence that greenhouse gases have a much smaller effect on climate than previously thought. The formation of cloud droplets was not investigated, and they are not likely to be strongly affected by the formation of the tiny aerosol particles. Extrapolation of these lab results to the global atmosphere is another issue. Compared to this single lab experiment, there are mountains of evidence from many different kinds of measurements and analyses that confirm the important role that greenhouse gases play in the global climate.
If we were to burn all available fossil fuels, the world would look very different, with sea level rise possibly tens of metres higher than they are today. Close to a billion people live in coastal areas that would be affected by such a sea level rise.

Darrel, Toronto, Canada

A useful chart

one part per hundred= 1.000 = 1%
one part per million = 0.0001 = 0.0001%

One part per million is the annual increase in CO2 which may or may not be mostly due to man's AGW contribution.

If the CO2 increase of 150 parts permillion over the last 150 years (.015%) has caused a .5 deg. increase, we have time.

no worries.

ventana, new york,

are we really the cause of the earth warming up? are we really the trying to stop it? this situation has only arised recently and the govement are suporting new ideas to help. however is it really posible that our earth might die if people are doing thier bit then why still is global warming an major issue

layla, hull,

Everyone seems to forget that all of the coal, oil and gas that we are burning was at one time CO2 in the atmosphere. Prehistoric plants converted that CO2 in to starch and oxygen. They died and were buried, after millions of years becoming these hydrocarbon deposits. So in reality by using these deposits all we are doing is returning the CO2 back into the atmosphere to start the cycle again. Let's quit worrying about CO2 ( A naturally occurring substance ) and get back to fixing the real pollution problems we seem to have forgotten in all of this global warming hoopla.

Matthew Bergin, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Am i right in thinking that 0.4% of global warming is due to humanity or is it a different figure. Will someone please help as i have been having a big argument with my family about it and we want it settled!

christopher, chard,somerset, england

2 questions from a person in the 'developing' world:

1. Which countries have the bulk of the coal, oil and other carbon-based fuel resources - the 'developing' or the 'developed'?
2. Which countries have the (renewable) energy technologies - wind, nuclear, etc - that will have to replace carbon fuels as the developing world's only other options for energy?

It's hard to see the science when it's buried under so much politics!

Prashant, Mumbai, INDIA

Finally some sense. It makes no scientific sense that man and his miniscule amount of CO2 and miniscule amount of Watts of power being added to the system affect the climate as we have seen. Especially when the data do not match for greenhouse gas and CO2 concentrations and the temperature curves, but lo-and-behold, the Suns irradiance and activity graphs match VERY WELL with the climate changes throuhout history. To paraphrase james Carville -- ITS THE SUN, STUPID. Many many scientists are skeptical of the whole greenhouse gas crap but it has become Politcally Incorrect to talk against it. Even when there is no real scientific data to support it. The only "data" is data generated in virtual worlds that are programmed to follow various models with the biases of the creators. But they cannot point to any real world data that supports their models. Again, the earth may be getting warmer, but man's contribution to that is minimal if existant at all. ITS THE SUN, STUPID.

Chad, S Jordan, UTA USA

Good gawd you Limies are just as ignorant as most Americans! Two thirds of the red-herring-laden misinformed opinions on this list strike me as coming from the ilk that considers the lunar landings to be faked and "The Flintstones" to be a documentary!

Here's a sampling of the specious arguments so far: 1) local examples of cooling disprove a global trend of warming; 2) increases in minority gases in the atmosphere can't amount to anything, because, well, they're a minority; 3) global warming must be a crock b/c 25 years ago people were talking about global cooling; 4) fossil-fuel combustion must be benign and/or inconsequential b/c it amounts to the same thing as us breathing and volcanoes erupting; 5) the sharply rising CO2 levels over the past 100 years [fact] are the RESULT of warming [which, curiously, seems not to have begun until at most 50 y.a.], not the CAUSE... blah, blah, blah Yeah, 6.6 billion humans and their cars, factories, cows, etc. have NO EFFECT whatsoever!

Brad, Georgia, USA

"GW - what are we going to do about it?" Neither taxes nor carbon credits will make any difference to carbon levels. But, fossil fuels are a finite resource, so we are going to have to use other sources of fuel. The stumbling block to innovation in this area is the immense research costs involved, and the lack of interested parties. Democracy fails us on this point, because it promotes government actions that can be implemented during the term in power. We need a new parliamentary instrument, to bind future governments to adhere to an agreed set of principles. Our job is to suggest those principles to our governments, and get them started on innovations that will improve the world. My own favourites: No internal combustion engines on our roads. No carbon-based power generation. No artificial packaging materials. No air freighted foodstuffs that could be grown in the destination country. By 2050, no argument. OK, they can pay for cosmic rays research as well. Just out of curiosity.

Gareth, Chester, England

I feel like we are in the days of Galileo and the Church of humanity is in session. Don't tell them that they might be wrong and the Earth may be round. They might just have to put you to death.

It is a shame that more governments and politicians are not forcing more of these questions to be answered. Most are only interested in short term personal politics.

Pool into the facts that we are over due or in the process or a pole change and the earths own magnetic fields. Which is the single most protective field from the sun and its effects. We humans are in for a ride.

The single thing that concerns me the most is how us humans like to jump from one big quick fix to the next. Historically we end up with things that we only later find out cause worse problems. We do like trauma and drama though. It seems that is the great engine that keeps us going.

Kurt H., East Quogue, NY

It is inconceivable to me that life on earth has no (or little) influence on climate. It is a well known fact that the composition of our atmosphere was created by life. Plankton and plants generate oxygen which makes one fifth of our atmosphere. We have now crreated engines more powerful than men to spill into the atomsphere tons of a different gas. It is inconceivable to me that it has no or little effect.

benzi, Wyckoff, USA

Apparently all the planets in our system are warming up?

How did the SUV's do this?

It is great this article still gets attention!

An encore perhaps?

Wes Parsons, Winnipeg, Canada

Sadly, the whole environmentalist movement is going to get hurt pretty bad for "pushing" this lie for so long. Should have just admitted we were wrong right away.

I'm an enviromentalist. I believed in antropogenic global warming for a long time. But, once I fully researched both sides of the argument, I was ready to puke.

Cheated for so many years.

So much money and effort wasted on a useless cause.

Its a pitty. We probably could have made a real impact had we worked on important issues, instead of using all those resources on a lie.

The longer we push this global warming lie, the worse the consequences for the green movement will be.

Who is going to believe us after this??????

Mike, Calgary,

Certainly there is Global Warming! Do humans contribute to the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere? You betcha. Are we solely to blame for it? No. But we definitely must see that we are contributors, not solely of CO2 emissions, but of a plethora of environmental contaminants. The right-wing agenda of driving big rigs, laying waste to all of nature and using everything for a buck, is alive and well. These people want us to forget that we have work to do. They want to shirk all responsibility solely because we are not the only reason for the troubles ailing our planet. Like Ian Morill here wrote, we need to address a myriad of different environmental issues; and get VERY serious about them all!
The right-wingers are dead wrong about the issue, it can't be ignored.
The left-wingers are dead wrong about the issue, correcting only human CO2 emissions is not the final answer.
We need to address forest depletion, freshwater depletion, animal extinction and the like.

Hanson, halifax,

The biggest blunder is that the Green lobby and the media have allowed us to be painted into a corner on Environmental issues.Are we really so one dimensional that we can only focus on one issue at a time.I remember when all the talk was of Acid Rain then it was the Rainforests and then the Ozone Layer.Now it's Global Warming/Climate Change caused by CO2.Firstly CO2 isn't the only Greenhouse gas, there's Methane and Nitrous Oxide, do we really want to be pumping that into our atmosphere.Secondly it's not just about Global Warming.There's dying coral reefs,soil erosion, deforestation,collapsing fish stocks, river pollution,over population, Global Dimming, mass species extinction, biodiversity, drug resistant disease, increased mental health problems/stress, increased violent crime. All these things and more are definately man made .They are all Environmental issues that urgently need addressing.Meaning we need to drastically change our lifestyles.Lets not get bogged down with CO2.

Ian Morill, Huddersfield, England

The level of ignorance here is astonishing. A tiny fraction of you have any scientific background, or have done any real researchc. Instead you choose to believe what you want to be the case. You ignore the finding of te UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, which unlike most of the climate change deniers has no vested interest in the results of their work. Why would anyone want to invent a theory that would lead us to sacrifice many of the luxuries we have come to enjoy?

We are not 100% sure climate change is manmade. But cutting emissions to combat it is, at least, an eminently sensible insurance policy to take out on the advice of the most respected scientists in the field. We are fabulously wealthy - it makes sense to invest a small amount of this wealth in averting a potentially catastrophic future which will cause enormous suffering to all humanity.

Alex, Oxford,

Personally, I would be much happier if global warming was entirely due to man-made CO2, as it would be within our control and we could do something about it. I find the idea that the 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonne exploding thermonuclear fusion ball that we orbit around may be getting hotter a little alarming. (Hell, if I was neurotic, I would worry about it!)

However, the recent thermal history of the planet does rather suggest that things do get uncomfortably hotter and uncomfortably colder all by themselves with uncomfortable frequency, so there's probably a bit of both going on right now. Still, at least it's getting warmer on this run and not colder...

Larry Kirk, Perth, Australia

Science has and will always be about falsities rather than proofs. We can only come to specific theory once all other possibililities have been exhuasted, and even then, as history as shown repeatedly, this thoery is not fact and must be subject to change, both in the literature and our minds.
I find it both appalling and arrogant that a large number of climate scientists claim #1. That they KNOW man-made GHG's are causing climate change and #2. That they can predict what that will result in 10,20,50 years in the future. Both are fundamentally scientific blunders.
We can't even accurately predict the weather 2 weeks from now. It is obvious that multiple factors contribute to climate. I predict Time will dispell ALL climate change models cased on a single y axis variable as we come to understand the true complexity of the situation.
"Belief in one false priciple is the beginning of all un-wisdom"

D.Darryl Hudson, Guelph, Canada

I will bin the suv , I will recycle loo roll , i will not drink more than 14 units a week but please i need my 2 weeks sunny holiday,

liz, coldtown, colder ireland

I was a sort of 'default believer' in the manmade climate change theory until I saw this article and the TV programme. So, being a scientist, I did some net based research, rather than listening to politicians and half baked journalism. Turns out that there are numerous websites that go into a lot of detail about the few large remaining uncertainties in the models and theories. The good ones are quite technical, but fairly straightforward to understand if you have a background in science, mathematics and predictive modelling. Try it for yourselves, you may be enlightened.

I wont say what my conclusions were, but on the balance of probabilities, and based what I know about greed and human nature, I certainly won't be buying a house on the coast any time soon.

Doug Hunt, Leatherhead,

My understanding is that the burning of fossil fuels constitutes only 5% of the total CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year, with 37% coming from humans and animals breathing out!

So what odds will anyone give me that in 50 years time when we've been driven halfway back to the stone age, the lunatics running the asylum say to us 'sorry - we now understand that it's the fact you exist at all that is the cause of the problem, so we're going to put the names of every person on earth in a hat, hold a lottery, and unfortunately 40% of you are going to have to hold your breath - forever'

Every single person needs to understand that this is more likely than them conceding they are wrong on the CO2 issue because their stance is not based on rationality. Environmentalism is just the latest way of convincing you to give up the power over your own life that is rightly yours and giving that power to politicians.

Perry Offer, London, London

From this alternative research, it is pretty obvious from the close correlation and time lag between global warming and the following CO2 increase, that it is not CO2 causing global warming but the converse. Also the tiny percentage of CO2 directly attributable to human activities is so small as to be insignificant. So now with this 'new' evidence, why are politicians still saying we must cut emissions? The latest Tory idea of taxing air travel is crazy and completely out of sync with these findings.
It would be refreshing to see the Blair government actually fund more research into these alternative and seemingly more convincing hypotheses.

Robert P Beales, Worcester, UK

CO2 makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere, and is a vital constituent of photosynthesis, upon which all life depends. It seems to me rather unlikely that either halving or doubling this very low level can be the cause of the current global warming.
Big, well funded science has its corporate views, just as does industry or politics,and they are equally likely to be just as silly.
Big Bang cosmology is another example of this sort,but nevertheless is believed by a majority of intelligent practitioners to be a good approximation of reality.
The red faces of the future may not be due to excessive sun worship.

Peter Willey, Chepstow, U.K.

Anyone with a brain knows that is used to get really cold in winter. Before that it didn't get so cold, now it dids't get so cold again. You would call that weather fluctuations, or perhaps temperture differences.
Just because so many tons of smoke goes into the atmosfere doesn't mean to say that it has never been that way before.
Just like those fumes do, and always have done for millions of years, lets see some of those lofty head come back down to earth, where they belong.

Leslie Martin, Dorset, U.K.

After doing a bit of digging I find that the Hadley Centre which has been responsible for most of the research linking CO2 emissions with global warming used by the IPCC was indeed set up by Mrs Thatcher in support of a long running campaign of her own, at a time when she had been cutting budgets in all other fields. I had believed the greenhouse effect was real. Perhaps it is, but all I can say now is that what we have been told about it is the product of a political spin machine masquerading as science.

Charles Francis, Cambridge, UK

Whether global warming is manmade or not, the undisputed fact is we are using a finite source fuel which will not exist for future generations unless we take the right actions now.

Stephen Page, Nottingham, UK

after watching c 4 docu last night i believe that its all a big con ,just to fuel a multi million £ industry and give the so called politicians something to spend tax payers money on.Also to stiffle growth in Africa. God help us if Gorden Brown gets to be P M he will take back into the dark ages...

rob, cardiff, uk

I greatly appreciate the inciteful views of Mr. Calder (and friends) and his willingness to work not for money, not for fame, but for pure science. I suspect that he has brought his views to the public at great personal and professional expense. We should not be so quick to dismiss anyone's views and the data that their research generates. Instead, the information should always be adapted into our current thinking and be used to guide us towards a future of greater understanding, rather than a future of intolerance and blissful closed-mindedness. I don't know if I agree with Mr. Calder's views at this time, but I am CERTAIN that I do not blindly disagree. I simply do not have enough information from the little bit of internet gossip to form a full opinion in the matter. However, I greatly respect the man and his team of fellow scientists for their hard work and efforts in this important endeavor. Thank you.

Harro Penk, Poughkeepsie, USA/NY

I worked in the oil industry for 20 years as a "Chief Engineer on supply vessels" and watched as millions of "btu" were burnt off from from oil platforms. Why can't these assets be used to fuel the homes in Africa that are starving for fuel to cook on and such. I worked offshore in most of the countries on the West African coast from the Ivory Coast to Namibia.They all complain off lack of fuel when they have all the fuel they need to cook etc off of there own coasts. It is only their own governments that are robbing them of the assets they have as it seems they don't bother to implement these schemes.
If their own governments were not so interested in their own profits and cared about their own peoples needs then things would be a lot better.

Brian M Cooper, Sheernes, Kent

I can't believe how gullible the general public is regarding information given by Governments, and the supporting evidence given by scientists with Government grants. regarding the case of global warming.
The real reason for this propaganda of man made Co2 emmissions being responsible for global warming is political and economic power. Africa for instance has an abundance of fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas, but are being prevented from using them and are being encouraged to use solar power instead.
It's ironic that one of the poorest nations should be asked to use the most expensive form of energy, so why doesn't the West use this? The western politicians fear a shift in power from developing countries so they make up propaganda such as this global warming and weapons of mass destruction and oh yes we should be very afraid of this man that lives in a cave that terrorises the world.
Ask yourself this question, when was the last time any government informed you of anything beneficial.

John Rimmer, Oxford, England

Caleb and Michael of Australia, it's all very well being sceptical of experienced scientists from many different fields of climatology, but as Caleb points out climate change is a reality, if we accept the scientists advice then at least we stand a chance of survival; ignore them as you imply without providing an alternative course holds no hope for the future.
You in Australia should be more aware of the effects of drought than us Europeans.

Frank, Barnsley , S Yorks

I'm getting used to this, biased scientists telling us what they want us to hear when they really have very little evidence to study.
This one is not as ridiculous as the one about billions of years and evolution creating somehow the world as we know it.

The fact is that we are not critical enough. We don't test stuff but simply believe what we are told.

Caleb, Geelong, Australia

Time and again people confuse climate change (which is not disputed) with 'man made' climate change (which is uncertain).

Michael, Sydney, Australia

It's very interesting that most people seem to lean heavily toward one side or the other in the climate change argument instead of recognizing that for millions of years there have been periods of extreme heating and cooling that is still going on which caused oceans to rise to much higher levels than where they are now and conversely covered a large portion of the earth with ice. Obviously these eras of fluctuating temperature were not caused by man and had to have some other source such as long solar variations or cosmic ray bombardment. On the other hand, we are brutally polluting our earth with chemicals, heavy metals, radioactivity, coal burning, etc., etc. and just, generally, with the overpopulation of man at the expense of everything else. It seems from the many studies done on green house gases, the tremendous growth in the concentration of certain ones is contributing to the heating of the earth that was already going on. As some other people have said, it really is in the best interest of everyone and everything to clean up our act, especially if we hope to have a future on this planet.

Jane Flatt, Salem, Oregon

How do you explain the smog blankets, yes the climate is very complex but the temurature has rised quite a bit in the last 50 years, and what is new , fossil fuel technologyls, and it is starting to catch up to us. Climate change is completly caused by man, theres to much evidence to prove it wrong.

olivia, missisauga,

To Nigel,

You say sea-levels have increased in the Southern Ocean because Antarctica is melting. Well, only one small part of Antarctica is melting, the rest is getting colder, as the article points out, and the amount of overall ice in Antarctica is also increasing.

gabe, minneapolis,

Jim Lloyd said
"To all the doubters. Imagine if the security services announce that they have carried out extensive surveillance by thousands of their operatives and are 90% sure that extremists intend to cause an explosion in your town on Saturday, so for everyones safety please stay away. All rational people will be sensible enough to heed this advice"

Actually, closer analogy is some group of scientists saying that they have studied brain chemistry of extremists and from this brain study, they are 90% sure that these extremists will cause an explosion in your town on saturday.
Basically, these scientists are predicting the future with only small, partial understanding of all factors involved in the climate system. That is the key word, "system". Not one factor determines the outcome, in this case being the temperature of the world. There are counter-balancing factors involved that is not fully understood.

Ben, Austin,

To Jim Lloyd of Liverpool,

I have never read a more stupid analogy. If you really think that man can control the world`s climate, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Since the UK produces just 0.08% of total CO2 emissions (only 4% is manmade and the UK produces just 2% of that), then cutting all of that would not make a ha`porth of difference. The climate is the most complex, non-linear, chaotic system known to man. By definition, it cannot be predicted. Don`t try to stifle proper scientific analysis and debate on this most complex of subjects. We should encourage investment in the development of new fuels and sensible forms of power generation to assuage our thirst for energy. Just don`t expect or force us to waste money on useless projects like wind power, a most inefficient and intermittent form of supply. Solar energy is pretty useless at night as well!

Meanwhile, we must accept that climate is always changing naturally and adapt accordingly.

Rowland Pantling, Colchester, Essex

Nigel,
Everyone knows that sea-ice has increased in the Southern Ocean because of the melting of Antarctica. And talking of new scientific theories, 90% of the world seems to think that the earth is round. I feel very privileged being in the other 10%, getting ready to storm through with a new idea.

Nick, Narromine , Australia

To all the doubters. Imagine if the security services announce that they have carried out extensive surveillance by thousands of their operatives and are 90% sure that extremists intend to cause an explosion in your town on Saturday, so for everyones safety please stay away. All rational people will be sensible enough to heed this advice, but there will be deniers who think they know better and accuse the security people of acting out of political malice or scare mongering in order to ceate work for themselves.
The damage from climate change will be unimaginally greater than anything terrorists can do, but it can be kept within bounds if we all take a few simple cautionary measures.

Jim Lloyd, Liverpool,

Paul -

"We people" may or may not be mad, but the proposed "solutions" to anthropogenic global warming are certainly madness. The harnessing of commercial sources of energy is one of the primary characteristics of modern society, with resulting improvements in health and living conditions pushing life spans to nearly double those of the pre-industrial world. The idea that we can use renewal sources of energy to replace oil, coal, and nuclear power is absurd.

Also, I would suggest if the major problem facing mankind is that of global warming, then to embark on a series of efforts known in advance to be futile while damaging society's ability to respond to future challenges is absurd. The reality is that the issue of anthropogenic global warming has nothing to do with science and everything to do with socialist political agendas. Karl Marx would be proud!

Jim, Lexington, USA

I don't understand what all the arguing is about! Who cares what the actual cause of global warming really is? The important thing is that we humans get to work on cleaning up our environmental pollution which will benefit us all! If people believing humans caused the greenhouse gas problem gets us all to work on cleaning the environment, isn't that all that matters?

Bonita Poulin, Quadeville, Ontario

...if people assumed that science was devoid of politics before, this debate on global warming will shake that belief. If one understands that the causes of global warming can never be truly known, and that they will always be open to debate, then who is right or wrong ceases to matter in this case. Given this, the decisions that goverments make about global warming can only be based on the fact that if we do nothing and global warming scientists are right then we would all look a bit stupid when we are up to our knees in Thames water. While we may sacrifice some aspects of our lifestyles and modern living to try and avoid this scenario, the chances are, if global warming theories do turn out to be wrong, the result will still be good; we will all live in a better, more sustainable and less polluted world and where people are less selfish and the scientists more politically aware - which can only be a good thing.

Dr Glenn Smith, London, England

Why should we pay attention to Nigel Calder, a journalist? Why should we pay attention to the comments here by those who present a single "problem" for AGW and imagine that it is a refutation? The level of discussion here is astonishing. Far better to go to www.realclimate.com where you will find real scientists discussing these and other issues at a level far above the grade school level of Calder's article. Elitest? You betcha. Science is elitist. Those who are better at describing nature are the winners.

Ironically, Calder enlists the example of Galileo, who saw the truth about the structure of the solar system at a time when there were objections far more serious than any raised against AGW. He saw clearly where the preponderance of evidence lay. Those who imagined that the lack of observed parallax was a problem would have to wait 200 years to come around. We are in the same position now: Calder is like the Church authorities. Except that we cannot afford to wait.

LA Coleman, Little Rock, Arkansas/USA

I think everyone is in agreement that climate change is happening now. The only point of contention is what action to take. Either sit back and do absolutely nothing and wait for the wheat producing regions to turn into dust bowls or take the advice of the majority of independent climate scientists and cut back on fossil burning fuels.
Option one will suit the defeatists whereas option two at least gives humanity some hope.

Bil Linford, Cambridge,

If you believe man is causing global warming, you will believe anything; if you believe man can stop global warming, you will believe anything; if you believe the world is running out of resources, you will believe anything; if you believe the .28% man contributes to greenhouse gases outweighs the 99.72% that is contributed by natural causes, you will believe anything.

And since you will believe anything, the best solution is to ask Santa Claus to fix global warming this Christmas. That's a much better solution than ruining the global economy over what is nothing more than a fabrication of Al Gore's imagination.

Kevin, Kinston, NC USA

Well it seems if we read the comments that the people who favour climate change will not be willing to let go very easily their intellectual dictatorship...
What a bunch of great scientists they make if they cannot even consider another theory without insulting people!

Thierry, Los Angeles, USA

Why are some people so hostile to any comment that may threaten their view of global warming? I think people should live a greener lifestyle anyway, as we cannot go on consuming resources the way we are, but don't attack others for their views, there is a right to free speech after all.

amanda, manchester, england

you people are mad ...

we have devastated ecological systems world wide that sustain life on earth

the sad thing is people actually believe that there is scientific controversy on the reality of anthropogenic warming !!

Paul, Kyogle, Australia

The comments provided here are, in most cases, as informative as the article. Thanks to all contributors providing verifiable corroraboration for the substance of the article. It gives credibility to the thesis --- something that Al Gore's speech fails to do for his thesis. Al Gore recently came to our city to speak about global warming. I have no political party allegiance. I wanted to hear his proof for the causative link between observed changes to the environment and man-made green house gases. I was so disappointed to hear MOSTLY a politician on a soap box. I left with one certainty, -- if the future of the world is dependent on a career politician convincing the rest of us of his version of "scientific certainties", we are all doomed.

MK Denton, Meridian, Idaho

To David Bright. To use the wording "Cuckoo Science" regarding a theory contradicting your one, suggest to me that somebody can not use real scientific arguments. I have put quite a lot of effort to find viable scientific theories on how the increase of the percentage of CO2 in air of some 0,01 % may result in a increase of several degrees. What I have found are statistical relations based on a selective set of data and measurement period plus a vast number of more or less wild ideas on dynamic effect.

So David Bright or somebody else. GIve me some links to real scientific proofs for the theory that mankind is the main cause of the current climate change.

Sven Hanssen, Stockholm , Sweden

It is a sad reflection on some members of the present 'scientific' community involved in research into the causes of climate change that they need to threaten the funding and the academic advancement of scientists prepared to publish evidence which is contrary to the politically acceptable belief that greenhouse gases are the main cause of the 20th century warm period. There is sufficient concrete evidence from historical, geomorphological, marine , biological and atmospheric physics sources to show that climate change cannot simply result from greenhouse gases. To deny such factual evidence an equal place in the debate on climate change, to marginalise it, or ignore it, only serves to discredit the present pronouncements of the 'alarmist' green lobby. The selective dismissal of data, which may not allow the attainment of preconceived conclusions, is not an option if truth and accuracy are to be the most important outcomes from the use of mathematical models and computer simulations.

Robert Forrest, Mauchline, Scotland

There are more indications that global warming is not mainly to blame on human activity. Examination of annual rings of very old trees has shown that the earth was a lot warmer around 1200 than it is now. Also the eruption/explosion of the Krakatoa in 1883 has influenced weather and temperatures on a global scale far into the 20th century. These are only two indications that I know of.
It seems that the protagonists of the global warming theory only want to hear the things that suit them. An inconvenient truth perhaps?

Gerda van den Berg, Voorschoten, The Netherlands

"No God is greater than truth"

Joshua Walker, Hope, R.I., U.S.

Seems to me that there are plenty enough reasons to live a "greener" lifestyle whether or not mankind is responsible for climate change.

mike orman, penzance, UK

I look forward to reading "The Chilling Stars"--powerful and arresting information for anyone who farms in northern latitudes.

The idea that man's activity is bound to plunge the planet into a crises of Biblical proportions--warming, cooling, or oozing--amounts to ideological preaching about man's alleged moral "depravity". Green "scientists" don't much care about facts and evidence; what do care about fervently is grasping political power to impose their goals on everyone else. That's why they screach about "consensus".

The notion that man's production of C02 could somehow overwhelm the titanic forces of astronomy and climate has always seemed preposterous. Anthropological C02 comprises roughly 5% of atmospheric C02, which in turn makes up roughly 2% of total greenhouse gases that absorb heat radiated off the earth toward the heavens. Water vapor or cloud cover comprises about 98% of total greenhouse atmospheric gases! A 1% increase in cloudiness offsets a doubling of man's C02!

Mark A Humphrey, Great Falls, USA/Montana

Actually, I've never heard Al Gore claim to invent the Internet. He claimed to have coined the term "information superhighway". He was referring to his early recognition that the Internet would become a form of vital economic infrastructure, similar to our interstate highways, and perhaps deserved further public support of the kind that created it in the first place. I know this to be true because I actually read an article he wrote on this topic, long before the Internet's promise was widely recognized. In other words, he was ahead of the curve. While the media does inappropriately hype recent events that consistent with the climate change hypothesis, I consider Nigel Calder's extrapolation from a few contrary observations to be a clear example of the very "bad science" he decries. He concludes that global warming "makes no sense" because of regional cooling in Antartica? I'm all for testing scientific orthodoxy, but that is patently absurd at best, and irresponsible at worst.

Martin, Seattle, Washington

Why do we put so much into what Al Gore says? Didn't he claim to have invented the internet a few short years ago? Just putting that out there for people to chew on...

Katie, Cincinnati, United States

You couldn't be more right!

In Winnipeg Canada I saw on the net that the world just experienced it's warmest ever year, while on the same day we heard in the local media, something that was more than obvious, Winnipeg is having it's coldest winter in 10 years!

Not to mention summers have been cooler here for the last 20 years in decline from a record year of heat in 1980!

Wes Parsons, winnipeg, canada mb

No evidence that mankind is not the primary reason for long-term warming that might be occurring? Unfortunately, this site limits comments to a 1,000 characters. So how to use those 1,000 characters? Best to just say there are MANY excellent Web sites filled with facts confirming mankind flatters itself by proclaiming it has the ability to make such massive changes even if everyone wanted to do so. Ecology "Mankind is Evil" Web sites are almost always carefully edited facts but mostly emotional rhetoric. Government funding of studies are available only to those who agree to predetermined findings. Anyone employed in the sciences signs their career death warrant if they put their name on anything that isn't in lock step with, say, Al Gore's "factual" movie. I'm amazed so many are brave enough to "come out of the closet" and write and speak the complete facts and data of GW. They must feel like those in the Middle Ages who were executed for declaring the earth is round.

Gary Yantis, Shawnee, Kansas

I have already sent one comment on this article. Why is it not included in your list?? Did my own castigation of the Times for uncritically publishing such material hit a nerve??
I again suggest that the Times Science Editor looks at the link from www.realclimate.org to a highly critical analysis of Svensmark's gross over-estimate of the potential climatic effects of cosmic rays. This analysis mentions original work on this very subject by John Tyndall in 1859, which strangely also resulted in what we would now describe as 'spin' in the London press on similar lines.
The scientists who manage the RealClimate website refer to this kind of stuff as 'Cuckoo Science'. The Sunday Times was ill-advised to foist such material on gullible readers. Perhaps they accepted Calder as an authority - however, the strident tone of his article suggests he is more a journalist than a scientist.

David Bright, Maidenhead, UK

I'm a bit behind on the news. What happened to the scientists who were warning us about Global Cooling in 1972 and even tried to get the members of the United Nations to join together in a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar program to coat the poles with black soot to increase earth's temperature? They sure had my attention and they had all the "facts" down pat. If it hadn't been for the Vietnam War and the first Gas Crisis, they'd have caught on. But there were too many other sexier things to protest and march against. Global Cooling was boooring. Facts like Mars warming faster than the earth don't get mentioned. That the temperature of the sun varies as does the axis rotation of the earth and both track with earth's temperature! Global Cooling is already being explained away as really Global Warming in disguise. It's the fault of man no matter what to the religion of ecology. It is a religion just like communism was a religion. Mindless emotion always wins.

Gary Yantis, Shawnee, KS

Why is the ice melting more in the north than the south? Probably because most of Antarctica is ice on land, not on the ocean. Where is the proof that rising temperatures cause more CO2? Some data from the past indicates that CO2 lags temperature rises. Why do we mix agendas? Yes, let us control emissions that cause pollutants, but let us not destroy real climate science by continuing to evade natural causes of our recent global warming. Humans are always trying to make themselves more important than Nature.

fred cuhl, Pasadena, USA

Most people on this site dismissing the fact that global warming is real do not bring up any scientific evidence. Yes, I know, millions of dollars are spent to promote and expand the current theroy of global warming. This is because a lot of people in this world, are stubborn, one sided, and corrupt. However there are many people who think global warming is fake and they will search day and night to find one person with some evidence supporting their opinion. So lets forget about politics. Industry, cars etc create CO2 emmisions. When CO2 increases, so does the temperature, and when the temperature increases, bad things like rising sea levels, melting polar ice caps and droughts happen. Im not some eco-radical "destory the modern world to save the earth" person, but I do believe that polutants were creating are harming the earth and will soon be deadly. We can help prevent this. Why is ice in the north melting more than in the south? Maybe because most industry is north of the equator.

Justin, Bedminster, NJ

It's pretty obvious to me that the IPCC Feb 2007 report is a lot of hot air, fueled by the billions of dollars of research funds that go to the scientists and activist groups behind the report writers.
The arrogance of saying man is causing climate change is only exceeded by the stupidity of saying we can - and must - do something to stop it. This whole hoax just goes to show how money makes the world go around..

max anacker, maienfeld, switzerland

The author of this piece is ignoring some important points.
Global warming does not just affect air temperatures but also ocean temperatures which have a huge influence on climate and weather patterns and this is why there is more and more flooding in some areas, drought in others and global weather patterns are changing - like those unexpected frosts. This is also the reason why migratory birds are showing up earlier and later because they rely on weather patterns for their cues and since the weather patterns are changing they too have had to change their behaviour.
Scientists have been studying ice core samples for decades, dating back 600 thousand years, measuring gas levels and calculating temperatures at the time the ice was formed, and yet any of the warming and ice age periods during this time do not even compare with the data collected from samples of ice formed in the last 100 years. The premise in this article just does not stand up when all of the facts are mentioned.

Sarah, wa, aus

How about the much less geo-centric notion that we (humans) neither cause nor can change everything things as large as Global Climate Change. More important is the cyclical nature of these changes and how misinformed the politico's have made the masses. The fact is that there are things on the planet that can't be controlled, intentionally misleading the people about the nature of the planet is a crime. Man becomes lulled into a false sense of empowerment, deciding against the taking of individual steps to prepare for whatever drastic changes may be coming. Global warming as a science is a sham.

Jay, Honolulu, HI

Changes in solar output are taken into account by climate models, as J. Patrick mentioned above. The author of the article mentions the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period, but doesn't mention that the current temperature departures are well outside the natural range seen in those periods.

Climate models (which also take solar variation into account) can reconstruct past climate quite accurately, up until the 20th century, when suddenly the climate models don't reproduce the observed warming trend. Add increased greenhouse gases into the same climate models and they suddenly accurately reconstruct the warming for the 20th century.

Bryan, Amsterdam,

There is an experiment i have heard about, if the CO2 rises in the atmosphere, the trees should grow bigger (immediately) because it is easier for them to absorb the co2. I had also heard that trees beside a forest just burnt will grow faster. if you doubt lets see if we can rule it out with this experiment, do something like this:

set up a glass house outside put some sprout seeds in stockings with sand/soil inside on the floor (with some irrigation). then buy CO2 gas bottles and fill the house with water, then put the co2 into the building, the pressure forcing the water out so you have 100% co2.
and set up another glass house with normal air. with the same arrangement inside (perhaps give them a dip identical to the other arrangement too!).
so the plants will be receiving identical light (through glass) at identical times.

Charlie, Mackay, Australia

It seems either solution require a 'leap of faith', however the point is if the earth is warming up (may be good or bad) what are you going to do about it? Finger pointing doesn't get the job done. We have proven in the past that everytime man tries to resolve or fix a thing of nature we end up screwing it up. Let's study this problem until we can come up with solution that is better then just 'very likely' to succeed.

Rich Nocis, Solvang, CA

I applaude the above post, for setting things straight. While, yes I am glad whenever I see someone challenging the popular theory instead of silently goign along with it, I am equally glad to see someone reminding us of just why popular theories are popular in the first place: because they tend to be right.

Hunter Shea, Green Bay,

Global warming has become a highly charged, emotional issue with political impact. If you are willing to move beyond this, the story is what changes. In "Climate Chaos? Don't believe it," Christopher Monckton (Sunday Telegraph, 5/11/2006) disputes the 'facts' of this impending apocalypse and accuses the UN and its scientists of distorting the truth. He actually provides 40 pages of real analysis showing how the data are being manipulated to guide public opinion and how distorted assumptions are used to foster acceptance. Search for his article (it will come up) and read, read, read. The link to his data analysis is included. The only possible conclusion: We are being duped!

SAM, St. Paul, MN/USA

This article assumes that sciences seeks proof. This is an error. Proof is limited to analytic systems such as mathematics but not for synthetic systems like the universe. We live inside the box we can never prove what the box looks like we can only use our senses to formulate ever increasing consistent theories of what the box might look like. Thus, science only seeks consistency. looking for a smoking gun for climate change like a virus for polio might also be an error. Climate change might be multi-factorial like heart disease. Just becasue genetics plays a big role in heart disease doesn't mean we should discount eating habits. There is data to suggest that rising CO2 levels corresponds with historical periods of cooling. Just because C02 levels isn't the only possible reason for climate change doesn't mean we should ignore these facts. Prudence demands that we error on the side of caution in matters with possible consequences as dire as these.

Christopher, Rochester, New York, USA

It is great to see brave people challenging the fadish orthodoxy that is climate change. The question is not if the earth is getting colder or warmer, the question is what is the cause. To the worn out social democrats, it is capitalism of course. The venerable enemy the state cannot slay. Nice to hear that some in science seek the truth and not some neo-marxist explanation. All hail air conditioning, v8 engines and the industrial age. Long llive the freedom of the individual to choose what is right for him and not to be burdened by the capriciousness of the crowd!

steve, covington, USA LA

Until we begin finding the facts of any "scientific study" we are destined to repeat the failures of our past... QUESTION AUTHORITY... especially the ones you BELIEVE. Five, nor a million, believers does not not make any thing, idea or concept right, or correct.. .It is just a mob, with nothing but control on their collective mind. And that is how dictators are created. Statistics are like a-holes... Try reading Angels Don't Play This HAARP... find out!

beone, Lazymind, USA

2500 Independent scientists from many countries across many disciplines over six years carried out millions of readings, thousands of experiments and ran hundreds of different computer climate models into the effects of reflective aerosols (both volcanic and anthropogenic), the aerosol indirect effect, black carbon soot, albedo change due to changing snow and ice patterns, land use changes, and -- yes indeed -- changes in solar output, as well as many others and came to the conclusion that climate change is of our doing. This decision was based on the objective analysis of all the data and not on some preconceived ideological prejudice, which seems to be the basis of many of these postings.
But all this counts for nought because one man does one botched experiment - he used ultra violet instead of cosmic rays - is clueless about metorology - cloudy skies do not make for colder conditions. A lot of people are clutching at straws blowing in the wind rather than accepting the obvious.

James Patrick, Prestwich,

Everything that is a human construct is subject to human failings. That said, we are experiencing global climate change, and yes they can (and do) know roughly what the climate looked like thousands of years ago (general knowledge from every article I've read and the documentaries make it very clear as well). The 90% "very likely" rating from the Panel on Climate Change was (as I heard in a speech from RFK, Jr.) debated for nearly a week because many were in favor of the 99% rating. So to imply that the panel was somehow hasty in their 90% rating is incredibly misleading.

I agree that science is far from perfect and climate change could be caused by a number of factors (when is any change a direct effect from ONE thing?), however; I don't think you can look at the exponential impact that we as humans have made in the last 100 years and expect that we don't take a large piece of the pie. We have to follow the same rules as every other species, or (just as they do) face extinction.

Ashlie J., Savannah, Georgia, USA

@glen: You better do your own changing while letting me do mine. People who know what WE have to do are more of a danger than any climate change ever will be.

Gerold, feldkirch, Austria

To cite examples of unusual cooling as well as warming does nothing to disprove climate change theory. As many will have noticed, the term 'global warming' is being used less in recent years in favour of the more descriptive term 'climate change'. This reflects that we now better understand the complex ways that weather systems respond to overall warming of the planet, including regions of cooling, erratic storm patterns and extreme weather generally.

Laura, London, UK

Article facts are so poor, so very poor. Comments make my sense of logic bleed. Cold fusion myth was long before that, and it was never replicated, therefore it's not a "scientific" model, thousands and thousands of experiments tell us that AVERAGE (not today or yesterday) is rising faster and higher then ever - 50 million years or so worth of data. Not only are there leagues of scientist who are doing all they can to help people see, but it's an international realization. So many terrible things to comment on. It's not worth much, but I am a physicist, and while my field is not environmental study, wind energy is, and in my heart I know that we have to change.

Glen, Charlottetown,

'Conventional wisdom' which attributes climate change to man-made pollution of the atmosphere with 'greenhouse' gases increasingly appears to be a useful instrument for voiciferous (and violent) minorities to persue an agenda of social engineering.
The unbridled animosity with which Nigel Calder's excellent piece has been greeted was therefore entirely predictable; overturning conventional thinking has always elicited this effect from conventional thinkers throughout history.

David reynolds, Selby, England

Irrespective of who turns out to be right and who turns out to be wrong, a herd mentality will only lead to the whole thing being hijacked for political ends.
Many of those who imagine themselves to be be scientific and objective can be just prone to intolerant orthodoxy as any religious extremists. With the added danger that they imagine it could never apply to them.

These opinions need to be brought not the overall environmental debate if we are to get anywhere. To examine the case he raises is not to excuse irresponsibility with the future, and imply some being in cahoots with Big Oil. You may as well argue that the contrary argument is nothing more than an excuse for bureaucracy, high taxation and centralised control.
Those who run with the herd for fear of being ostracised are thinking of no-one except themselves, and if we become like this over serious global issues we will be played like fiddles.

Alistair Hale, Walsall, England

As part of my degree I took environmental science. On this module I was told that Mount Pinatubo released into the atmosphere as much CO2 and sulphurous gasses as mankind has in its history. Can anyone confirm if this is true or not and, if it is, how then can our contribution count for anything in the grand scheme of things? Also arent we at the end of a period of increased sunspot activity AND an el Nino period?

And for the people out there who clearly have not used a dictionary, a theory in science is a question which has not fallen in the face of tests. What people generally mean by "theory" is actually an hypothesis. That is why creationists always get the wrong end of the stick when they say the Theory of Evolution is only an idea. It has never fallen to any tests. Similarly I have not heard climate change being descrribed as a theory. Does that mean it does not have adequate scientific credibility to be regarded so? Is it in fact merely an hypothesis?

Paul Townsend, Canada Water, London

What if the IPCC is wrong? But we take steps to cut greenhouse gasses? We won't face disaster. We'll conserve a finite amount of fossil fuels that are near peak (good evidence to suggest we already are). What if the global warming deniers are wrong but we take their advice and do nothing? We face calamity and a grim future for my 8 year old daughter. This is about risk managment. It's worth the risk. It's the right thing to do, morally. Economies can adapt. 100 million environmental refugees thanks to flooded coastlines will lead to violence and death. You choose.

R McClure, Winnipeg, Canada

Watch out Britain the Eco-Fascists are here and they want to control every aspect of your life - for the 'planet' of course!

Leigh, Norwich, UK

The Cheif Executive of Exxon Mobil made a statement earlier this week that he and his company recognized that the planet was warming due to an increase in Carbon Dioxide caused by humans. I think that settles the matter.

Nick Wallace, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

You do not have to be a very great cynic to presume that the adoption of the Carbon Footprint idea is a perfect smoke-screen for all governments to use as a scare tactic to force us all to pay more taxes.
For me it is intuitive to presume that mankind does not wield sufficient power to control global climate or seismic or cosmic activity. So we exist perilously on an unstable planet in a solar system that has a finite life. It is we who are in danger in the short term - not the earth - so let us be more realistic in our aspirations.
Congratulations to Nigel Calder for using his famous name to bring this theory to our attention. My interest in science was helped greatly by reading his articles when a schoolboy 50 years ago and he has always given me the impression that he thinks deeply before he writes - a rare thing today where writers no longer appear to need to know much about their appointed subject.

David Olley, Winchester, England

do u know what ended the last ice age?
global warming. mmmmmmmmm...that sun sure feels good. i'll take global warming over global icing anyday.

sunny, sunny california,

I am very glad to see some real discussion on the topic, and importantly, an emphasis falling on the fact that climate change is occurring. I've only recently started to try and make a difference by using less electricity, and being more aware etc.

It pains me to read that some individuals believe that if they are cold at the moment, than surely, the world as a whole is not getting warmer. It pains me more to see how many of my friends and family assume that they cannot change - so why should we bother...

Jordan, Brisbane, QLD AUSTRALIA

Solar energy hits the atmosphere and green house gas acts like an insulator, however, insulators also work both ways and in fact, more energy is reflected back out into space by the presence of green house gas than is trapped, another consideration is that the energy trapped in the atmosphere remains trapped. Regardless of this, if the source of the energy were to change, which it is shown to do in the case of the sun, the energy in the system will be lost/absorbed to/from the surroundings. If the sun indeed gets slightly less active (the trend shows that it is) this planet will get colder. Furthermore, the specific heat of CO2 is fairly low and it will not retain heat well, in fact, CO2 acts like a gigantic radiator to outer space. Climate change is inevitable, and we need to evaluate mans impact more carefully.

Robert, Sandy, UT

A little humility is in order here. We think we know it all but realistically, in the grand scheme of things, we are no further ahead than when we thought the earth was the center of the universe. We have only been collecting climate data for a short time. We don’t know what our planets 500, 1000 or 10,000 year cycles are. We can guess, but at the end of the day it’s still just a guess. Don’t get me wrong, I believe we should do all we can to eliminate deliberate damage to the planet. However, all this hoopla about so called “experts” stating that greenhouse gases are to blame for global warming is just guess work, no more no less. When we have been collecting climate data for 10 thousand years or better, then we can tell what a “normal cycle” is. Get politics out of science and let our scientists monitor the situation so some day we will have some hard facts, not fanciful speculation.

Walt M., Duncan, BC

It isn't wrong. That's the hilarious part.

Mark A. York, Sunland, USA/California

If you are worryed about warming come here to wisconsin tonight it Will be -4F the warmest for the last few weeks.
I've been waiting for a tropical look for the great lakes since the 60's and it's always 10 years away.
I'm not saying the world is not warmer I just think the chance that we can do much to effect it is a example of very positive thinking and perhaps wishfull thinking also.
Besides we only have to save a few of us it's happened before and it will happen again.

james johnson, waukesha, wisconsin

He's the former editor of New Scientist - why does his mention of his book mean that he's suddenly an unreliable scientist? It doesn't follow.

Ewa, London,

I am deeply unimpressed by Calder's analysis, if that is what he thinks it is, and most of the generally uninformed comments thereon. I am most surprised that the Times should choose to publish such shallow stuff and reject his ill-judged criticisms of the latest IPCC report, which in reality presents a now almost conclusive judgement that in this era man himself has become the predominant agent in climate change.
I suggest that your Science Editor takes the trouble to look at www.realclimate.org and in particular the link to their report dated 16th October 2006 entitled 'Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin'. This comprehensively dismantles Svensmark's overheated estimates of the climatic importance of cosmic rays and uncovers curious parallels with John Tyndall's original research in 1859, which apparently generated similar wild over-reporting.

David Bright, Maidenhead, UK

The article on this a few weeks ago in New Scientist was much more balanced and informative. Unfortunately, with such complex system as the climate, you have to take all these phenomena into account and gradually tease apart the interrelationships, which are highly dynamic and often counterintuitive. To say that because there is a local cooling does not mean that the earth as a whole is not warming, associated destabilisation of current climate patterns mean that it would actually be odd to find no cooling.

To demean the efforts of mainstream climate science modellers is futile, and recent research is working to integrate both physical and biological feedback mechanisms so to say climate science is greenhouse gas science is patently wrong. Even Nigel should remeber Lovelocks original work on Daisyworld which neatly demonstrated the interaction of heterogenous biological populations with the environment with changing solar conditions. Single cause theories do not enhance understanding.

Steve Jones, London,

It woud seem that most of the squabbling 'expert's agree that the climate IS CHANGING, no matter the cause. Surely our duty is to find out HOW it will change further and what we can do to ADAPT ourselves to this - along with other sentient creatures and the eco systes that sustain us?

Helen, Norwich,

It is somewhat convenient that this contentious article is released the same time as the publication of their new book. Nice marketing cache, however the reduction of our pollution should be highly considered, it can’t be doing the planet any good can it?

Adam Webb, MK, UK

im from up north and i know it ain't gettin warmer. whoever thinks the world is getting hotter should come to clitheroe and see how bloody cold it is.

James Tozer, clitheroe,

The ability of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide to trap heat was established a century ago and nothing has changed since then to alter that fact. We now know that the level in the atmosphere has increased by 40% since 1950 and if it goes up another 40% it will be curtains for all of us. Solar activity and cosmic rays have not changed significantly in that period and are therefore just a sideshow to the main event.
Much has been made of scientists 90% certainty/10% uncertainly of mankinds responsibility and many false analogies have been peddled. A true comparison would be to have a policeman come to your door and say there was an unexploded bomb in your street and the experts are 90% sure it will explode and everyone should leave. Would anyone in their right mind risk their lives and the lives of their families by staying put on the 10% off chance that the experts were wrong. I think not.
If we have the will and the resolve we can do something about it before it's too late.

Jim Meldrum, Manchester,

Steve from New Orleans sums it up for me. The obvious existence of significant climate change predating any conceivable impact by man, for example the ending of the last ice age, clearly challenges the carbon emission based theory of global warming without in any way making the goal of bequeathing a healthy environment to the next generation any less compelling. But the idea that by wearing a hairshirt man can somehow maintain the earth's climate in a state of equilibrium indefinitely is simply doomed to failure.

Howard, London, UK

So what if the current theory on global warming may be wrong- surely any way of reducing pollution should be welcome.

Tora Soderlind, London,

Mr. Calder's claim that for the last "twenty years" any scientist wishing to challenge the idea of man-made global warning has been on a loser, is at best disingenuous. In fact, I'm 90% sure it's rubbish.

Anyone who seriously believes there is a lack of funding and support out there for scientists willing and able to point the global-warming finger away from the petrochemical and manufacturing industries needs their head examined. Indeed, with the amount of financial muscle which has already been exercised in this direction, it is a matter for some wonder that the most convincing "evidence" against the accepted theory is that which we find presented in his book.

His implication that our attempts to undo the damage should be abandoned, in favour of "humility in face of Nature’s marvels", is somewhat like suggesting that prosecuting someone for murder is an affront to the Justice of the Almighty.

G Kennedy, Glasgow,

hmmm, well actually here is another view on "Carbon footprint":

If trees thoughout their whole lifecycle (including decomposing, burning etc) put out as much carbon as oxygen (which I understand that they do) then going "carbon neutral" by planting trees is pretty hopeless. "we" release locked up carbon, so, then is the best solution to lock it back up again perhaps by (and I know that this SOUNDS rediculous) by doing things like tarmacing... then that way we redress the balance.... so the best thing is to lay tarmac... so then we need green cars to drive on the roads.... that way we become carbon negative... and that's what the argument is about really... that is if the carbon issue is the right issue.....

Paul, Milton Keynes,

It is clear that there are many known factors causing temperature rise, and it is also likely that there are some, as yet, unknown. Some factors are definitely beyond our control (solar activity and cosmic rays for example). However, the increase in CO2 is man made, and we do (could) have control over it. We cannot ignore it because other factors are also present.

George Carey, Bromsgrove, Worcs

Climate change is ideal for the government. Nothing gets people paying more taxes better than fear. Whoever coined the term 'carbon footprint' is a genius. Now everybody thinks that we can cool the planet by driving a prius. The best thing we can do to limit the greenhouse effect is to burn methane, which is four times as much a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Also, warmer temperatures at the poles result in greater snowall and hence more ice formation. Im looking forward to enjoying my first glass of Sussex Red.

sam tippetts, london,

So what if Mr Calder, in espousing a different theory, happens to be publicising a book? If the data he provides is correct concerning previous warmings, the increase in Antarctic ice, the Californian frost etc, then more questions would appear to need answering on climate change and its REAL causes.
I find the the notion of human arrogance particularly resonating. Yet again mankind has fallen into the trap of thinking he exists outside nature rather than as a small and, dare I say it, trifling, part of it. In the face of all this conflicting data how can we be so sre we are responsible for anything nature throws at us?
As a British taxpayer I rather like Mr Calder's 10% rule and want to hear more.

Pete Redford, Taunton, UK

One of the main points, as I see it, is that we have to reduce the pollution from green house gases.

We should do what is possible for mankind to prevent the dramatic scenario of climate change.

Tax policies can be used to change consumption patterns. An environmental tax on fossile fuels should be benefited by a general tax-relief. This will alter our consumption of polluting fuels.

And alternative energy sources will be a main driver for economic growth for those who take the lead in this business.

Odin B., Sotra, Norway

Of course we should clean up our act, but lets not go nuts here and get the idea we can control the climate of our planet through legislated rules and regulations.

Of course the sun determines the temperature of our planet and the next few years will tell the story, as we move into one of the most active solar cycles in history.

There is a dynamic relationship between the sun and the earth, with a marked difference in dynamic potential. And there is no one on this planet capable of preventing or stopping that relationship from continuing.

So what are we doing to prepare for some very difficult times ahead..........arguing about the weather?

We are so convinced that it's all about us and has nothing to do with natural cycles, but then its always about us isn't it.

David Barclay, Salt Spring Island, Canada

Aren't people rather missing the point..? Greenhouse gasses might not be the driving force behind climate change, but another mechanism might be. Surely we should try to understand the threat and perhaps counter its effects before we are all waist-deep in seawater or living in deserts?

Tom Wright, London, England

How interesting that the very facts you discuss, both assist and promote your own two books. Anyone who believes that the human race has not contributed to the exessive warming during this century is completely off their rocker. All we need is an on-going battle between wether we are or are not affecting climate change to stall the already painfully slow progress of people trying to make a difference. Open your eyes a little wider to include more than just your own reaserch.

Katy, Savannah, USA

Looks like Calder is merely promoting his new book,
He is really as guilty as those that he accuses of trying to line his own pockets whilst there is still any milage left in the global warming debate.
Calder only has a theory that he doesn't actual state how certain he is about it...Come on Calder are you 100% certain or only 90% certain or perhaps your certainty level is too low to register! Given how you mock the only 90% certainty of the IPCC its a liitle bit rich of you to put forward a theory based on very very small scale experiments which have yet to be related to a global model.
Perhaps you should donate all your book sale profits (if any)
to a worthy cause ...... like saving the planet maybe?

K Lam, Oxford,

Calder's article is damning not because of its attack on the global warming theory but rather its attack on the stifling of freedom and the politicization of research in the scientific community. Calder asks legitimate questions. If the question of global warming is settled, let's hear some answers on those questions and not ad hominem attacks. I imagine the silence will be deafening.

Josh Stern, Chicago, IL

The mere need to voice that someone is disappointed gives light to their supremist attitude. When Dr. R. Reinhardt, San Francisco, USA, says he is disappointed, and he makes sure that we all know he IS a PHD, we are to be impressed.
The fact is, according to Sir Thomas Kuhn, author of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1962), almost all breakthroughs in science come from outside the field of interest. So Doctor, maybe you will discover something useful, like improved sealing wax. This entire global warming bs is an example of experts fanning a fire that does not exist. You just wish we were so significant. We can be wiped out with one large volcano, or one large meteor. Get over it.

Paul Plumber, Vesuvius, Italy

Newton's theory does not hold water. Einstein reduced it to an approximation, useful only within a certain regime.

Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of the global warming theory, it has become the "conventional wisdom", almost a religion, pedalled every day on TV and in movies. When that happens, you can be sure competing voices won't be heard (even if the folks are no longer burned at the stake). There is little left of science in such a scenario, and more of simple self-interest and careerism.

The sad thing is that when Einstein was about, there were ample indicators that Newton had fallen on his face; so Einstein's revisions were (relatively) easily accepted. The brilliance of the global warming theory is that, hard as it is to really prove, it is equally hard to disprove. So it will be powering careers for years, decades to come.

Paul Bonneau, Cody, Wyoming, USA

Weather patterns leading to localised conditions are extremely complex, so to cite an example of heavy frost in California is pretty irrelevant. Increased glacier calving due to global warming from whatever source in Antarctica does lead to lower sea temperatures in a localised area of the southern ocean (Try putting a few ice cubes in a drink) as to Penguins they arrive and depart to coincide with the food source (Krill and Fish) so, when you start to analyse even small scale events i would not rush to any conclusions. There are more things in Heaven and Earth Horatio than dream't of in Your philosophy (that goes for both sides of the argument).

S.Ulrich, Leeds, U.K.

Ah how I long for the days of my childhood when the scare was of a coming ice age, when all of Scotland would be covered by miles of icy glaciers, what happened to that ?
And then again, there was the 'hole in the ozone layer' that seems to have been conveniently forgotten by 'the world's leading scientists'
In the warm days of summer I often wonder where that warmth comes from, and then I look up and see the large orange firey coloured thing in the sky, and when it goes away at night -well it gets colder........ mmhh.. there's a pattern here. The Sun warms our planet, when that influence is diminished the planet cools, a cycle of warming and cooling that has taken place for millions of years, prior to our late arrival.
Global warming is a favoured hobbie horse of the beardy leftist scientists and their paymasters.
We seem to need something to worry over, some disaster to anticipate, some drum of doom to bag on, what tosh get on an enjoy life.............................................

Alfie LaBoule, Emerald City,

Plants consume CO2 to make Oxygen. Just grow more tall, leafy CO2 hungry plants.

Cooperation from China and India is required for popution control or our efforts are worth little.

Alan, Harrogate, UK

If you want to know the truth about all that read Mr. Rimsky's book. It is worth millions of times more than all that research!

Nina, London, UK

From the geological record: Climate change has occurred with great frequency without any input from homo sapiens. And it will continue to do so forever, regardless of actions taken by mankind. If man and the Industrial Revolution had never appeared on this earth, the climatic swings would still occur.

Now, the true goal must be to reduce and eventually rectify over- pollution of our finite environment, REGARDLESS of any particular reason, cause, or arguement. It IS a matter of survival. Current debate supporting controversial ideas of man-made global warming takes media's centerstage and deflects from the true goal to just clean up for the sake of it.

Steve, New Orleans, USA

The problem with articles like this one is that they encourage all those who are blindly determined to believe human activity has nothing to do with climate change. Look at it on a personal level: if you were 90% sure that something you were doing would kill you soon, would you stop, or would you hold out for that 10% chance the doctors were wrong? Scientists should continue to look into the solar hypothesis, but to present it to the public at this time is foolish, because too many will use it as an excuse to keep polluting, and there is a 90% chance that such complacency will lead to the destruction of human civilisation.

Nigel Calder should think carefully about the effects his words will have on the future of our species. If he learns that he's wrong in 30 years' time it'll be far too late to do anything about it.

Richard Milne, Edinburgh, UK

Let's just assume that global warming is not caused by humans -- a dubious proposition to say the least. Are there not dozens of other reasons to slow the consumption of fossil fuels (asthma, heart disease, lung cancer, mercury buildup, oil spills, acid rain, habitat degradation, etc., etc.).

It seems to me that if we're going to challenge orthodoxies, what we really ought to challenge is the orthodoxy that a movement toward renewable energy and conservation is necessarily bad for the (global) economy.

First, fossil fuel economies incur enormous economic costs by degrading the human and natural environments -- which then need to be cleaned up. Second, industries, and companies that go "green" are, in the long term, surely going to contribute to economic growth, quite possibly tremendous economic growth.

In short, even if fossil fuel production and consumption do not contribute to global warming, there is plenty of reason to change our ways.

Christof Heinrich, Denver, Colorado

Whatever the case, I still can't conceive that its a bad idea to develop "green technologies". Or should we continue an endless stream of pollution just in case its NOT poisoning the planet?

Johnny Reb, Melbourne, Australia

Global warming is real, and it's happening now. As the IPCC stated, it's almost certianly due to man releasing greenhouse gases into the environment. In fact the increasing antartic Ice cover is actually a predicted part of global warming. I have just returned from Peru where the glaciers are disappearing at more than 200ft a year now. Anyone who disagrees with the IPCC simply does not understand the vast array of supportive evidence. Of course the science is complex, cleary beyond the grasp of the present U.S administration or the greed of big energy corporations. First we had climate change deniers and now the evidence is overwhelming, we have people who say it's due to the sun, or that it's going to happen anyway so let's just bury or heads in the sand. Let's hope those people are still around to explain their reasoning to their children and grandchildren.

Jo Leitner, Brighton, UK

These all seem like logical responses - but if we can do something positive towards recycling, being more aware of our carbon imprint then we have an obligation to do so...

Chris Morris, Reading, Berkshire, UK

Why doesn't the global warming brigade seem to take into account the effects of Earth's shifting orbit around the sun and the measurable change in solar output. The temperature on Mars has gone up as well. Shouldn't that be reason enough to suspect that the Sun may be a larger influence on planetary temperatures than saying man is 90% responsible? Sure there are things we can do to reduce our "carbon footprint", but in the long run, we're living on the Sun's time. When it finally spends its fuel... this planet is history. Get used to it.

Verona Foster, Cambridge, UK

Mr. Calder should visit Glacier National Park, in Montana. And he'd better hurry, because the glaciers are melting fast. Glaciers have no political agenda, they simply respond to the temperature.

Alan Unsworth, Rochester, New York

The key question here is whether the correlation between inreasing levels of "greenhouse" gases such as carbon dioxide, and global warming, can be construed as indicating that "greenhouse" gases cause global warming. However, correlation does not always imply causality. Amongst other hypotheses which must be considered is that of cause and effect reversal (i.e. global warming causes increased levels of greenhouse gases). There is some speculation already that increasing temperature reduces the ability of plants to metabolise carbon dioxide. Hence, there is a credible mechanism for global warming increasing carbon dioxide levels.

Does this mean we can afford to be spendthrift with the resources of the planet? ... No, because those resources are finite. However, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will probably have no effect in the face of the forces of nature, and carbon taxation is as good a way as any of rasing taxes to cope with the consequences.

Philip Whateley, Exeter, UK

Forgetting evidence? It's the evidence that is buried that we should be concerned about. Its good that someone has managed to publish real results like these, I have been saying this to my family and friends for years now and can finally prove my point!

Emma, Kirkcaldy, Scotland

I think Voltaire advocated believing in God because the consequences of error were worse for disbelievers proved wrong than for believers who would never notice they had been wrong. I agree that Global Warming is not a proven case, but I still support actions that proceed on the assumption that it is. If Global Warming turns out to be true, we did what we could to reverse it. If its a fallacy, at lease we burned less fossil fuel.

roo, Princeton, NJ, USA

Question: How do economists call acting in accordance with the 90% certain alternative?
Answer: Rational behaviour.

Andrew Teller, Paris, France

It should be remembered that in the last 50 or more years the co2 level has risen. Fact. does this coincide with the deforestation of millions of acres of forest?
A few hundred years ago much of Europe was forested all those burned up trees added to the co2 and now there are less trees to absorb it. Viscious circle?
Plant more forests as a simple and easy first step.
Dont be conned by Governments and green taxes!

Paul Wainwright, Deeside, Great Britain

Not the first time a controversial news article coincides with the imminent release of a new book.

Charlie, Auckland, NZ

You know what used to happen if you expressed a view opposed to the orthodox viewpoints a few hundred years ago? You got burned at the stake rather than ignored by the scientific, political and journalistic community. You know, just little, insignificant scientific theories that went against the vast sway of the 'common knowledge' of the day - like the earth being round rather than flat or the earth not being at the centre of the universe.

The whole global warming hypothesis (regadless of it's accuracy) has more to do with human psychology than hard facts. We get taxed to the hilt and the planet goes on it's own merry way regardless of Kyoto agreements or green taxes. Ever since the human species developed language, the end of the world has been nigh and this is just the latest in a long line of self imagined shadows hanging over us. I've lived long enough to see that neither the next ice age has arrived or fossil fuels have run out and the apocalypse hasn't materialised. Global warming seems to be the latest 'bogey man' to come along - I can't wait for another decade or so to see what the next fashionable global catastrophe is going to be.

Phoebe Baer, Manchester, UK

The effects of volcanic activity has to be considered since it reaches the upper atmosphere. The Mount St Helens explosion reduced radiation significantly, so we are presently in a quiet spell. Which means more radiation reaching the earth, with a significant effect on the Andean glaciers and such. Are we mixing radiation and temperature and then adding carbon dioxide to the equations that is well balanced by the oceans. I think we are overlooking a basic fact namely volcanic activity.

Antony IvanSmith, Cochabamba, Bolivia

"A 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works."

Rather, this statement shows how science editors understand little about science. Einstein fixed problems in Newton's theory but Newton's theory still holds water.

Besserwisser, witheld, US

An international group of scientists (including from major oil exporting nations) collectively expressing a greater than 90% certainty in such a complex field is nothing to sneeze at. Absolute proof isn't something that really exists in science. Strong, repeatedly validated theory is about as good as it gets. Anyone who looks at the actual science can see that the case for the human amplified greenhouse effect being primary in the warming trend is stronger than ever. That is, even taking into account the latest research on solar irradiance and cosmic ray flux. On the latter, see this comment from some top climate scientists regarding Calder's article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/nigel-calder-in-the-times/

Harry Newburg, Springfield, Oregon, US

Please see the comments about this article given by experts at www.realclimate.org. This experiment is easily refuted in terms of undermining the IPCC viewpoint on climate change.

John Bartlett, Sydney,

It's unfortunate that a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics and effects of what is called "global warming" is causing some to doubt the fact of its existence, simply because some areas of the world are getting colder. It may seem counterintuitive, but the fact is that global warming doesn't only cause temperatures to rise, it also causes other areas to get colder, it creates the environment for more extreme weather systems (such as Hurricanes) and it re-directs the paths of high-level air currents (the so-called "jet stream") from where they've been for decades, and probably far longer.

I'm disappointed that Mr. Calder would presume to know more than professional climatologists such as myself who have studied this matter for many years (and with no vested interest). He is right to be circumspect, but in presenting the issue in such a simplistic and erroneous manner, he creates more confusion in the public, rather than less.

Dr. R. Reinhardt, San Francisco, USA

I have myself been arguing against allowing the climate change threat to be used by peddlers selling us their magical potions but, having said that, the truth is that the costs of doing something about the climate change and being wrong, seem much lower than the costs of ignoring it and having thereafter the climate change threat to turn out true.

Per Kurowski, Bethesda, Maryland/USA

The climate change theory is repeated frequently because it diverts the attension of evryyone from real problems facing the world. This is also a novel method to pile on new taxes on already overtaxed population.

Abdul Basit, Newcastle, U.K

I think the title says it all - "An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change". Is this 'hint' a 90% probability or something less?

Would Mr Calder decline to insure his house and contents because there is a less than 100% probability of them suffering damage or loss in a particular year? I think not. Why doesn't he apply the same common sense to the probabilities used by scientists on climate change?

If he's so confident we don't need to modify our energy-intensive behaviour, here's a challenge. As a writer, perhaps he can draft a convincing letter to his descendants, explaining why we have left them so little oil and gas and why they are having to deal with floods, heat waves, food shortages and climate migrants.

Robert Palgrave, Woking, England

First it was the forests in Scandanavia that we were destroying, then we were all going to die in an atomic war if we did not give up our weapons and surrender to the Russians, then it was ethnic diversity that would be the end of us all if we did not give up our own heritage and take on another. So it goes on, some people are not happy unless they can spread doom and gloom everywhere, and the fact that they usually get it wrong dosent seem to bother them.
The really bad part of of this is that most of the people with the wrong ideas are in the government.
Don't let them ruin your kids future and your present with the same sort of half baked ideas they had in the past.
What we need is proper scientific evaluation, what we are getting is doom laden wishfull thinking. Were it not so, we would see a proper debate, instead of tablets of stone telling us what to think.

Dave Jordan, Warrington,

there should be a penalty, for chicken littles of the world. (public hanging),
the world was warming once or twice before, and will do so again. seems odd that the more i read that the world is warming, the colder it gets world.

some thing wrong there eh ?

iblosted, signal, az

What would it matter if the scientists were wrong and we greened our societies only to find out climate change wasn't man-made?

I'm yet to hear a good argument for why we shouldn't take action.

Moving to a greener economy, after all, is rightly seen by many as an opportunity to create jobs and promote economic growth.

Adam Vaughan, London,

Just the responses here show how attached the alarmists are to their views. They cannot take in any information that goes against their opinions-which isn't a problem when only the idiots do it. But it gets dangerous when scientists succumb to the same bias.

Jeff, Fond du Lac, WI USA

Cosmic rays? Why not. It appears to me that no single factor can be responsible for the well documented slight rise in average global temperature. However, though our efforts to curb the change may seem misguided at first, perhaps the manifest result of cleaner air, quieter transportation and efficient management of natural resources will justify this quibling.

Kerry Brees, Fargo, North Dakota

Is the climate changing? Demonstrably yes;
Is it changing because of mankind's activites? Probably, but only slightly;
So what force(s) is/are causing the change? Good Old Mother Nature;
Should we try and halt/reverse the change? Absolutely not. There's no point in fighting a battle you cannot win (and Mother nature will defintely have her way);
So what can we do instead? Quit girding our loins for such a battle and start learning to adapt instead - just as we always have done through the millions of years we've been on theis planet.

John Compton, Cork,

Let us spend tax dollars on how to cope with climate change and cleaning up pollutants, not the unending politicized studies and development of computer models which provide GIGO for policy makers. The sun rules.

fred cuhl, Pasadena, USA

You don't need to be a climate scientist to see there is a big problem with global warming. You should be leery of any "theory" with the following properties: 1) The predictions are apocalyptic, 2) The primary claim of the adherents is the assertion that "the science is settled," or "everybody agrees about it",and 3) The adherents want to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Chris, Champaign, IL

The War on Poverty gave us more poor people; the War on Drugs gave us more drug users and the War on Terror gave us more terrorists. I can't wait to see how much havoc a War on Weather will reap. The gloom and doom predictions just coincidentally also call for more centralized planning and government power. Some people never learn.

The international banking system is teetering on the brink of disaster as central bankers keep churning out more paper money based on debt, yet taxing the world to fight changing weather is the big concern? Economic disaster is 99% certain in the next 20 years as the amount of debt and unfunded liabilities caused by idiot government policies will come to roost. Get a life and stop obsessing over the latest reason to surrender your liberties. My God, the weather!!!

Mark Davis, Longwood, Florida

It is clear that western countries are running out of fossil fuels to drive industry cheaply. A green debate and legislation will bring on new technologies. "Climate" taxes will raise the necessary subsidies required to subsidise the develoment of new technologies. The western countries need these alternative fuels to maintain independence and financial survival in a global market.

However I do NOT accept the hypothesis that the world is heating up inexorably and it is the end of life as we know it. A bit of balance is given by this article which explains the natural variation that occurs historically and in different parts of the world. We live on a planet, in a solar system and this planet has been changing over millions of years. I am only glad that dinosaurs have become extinct!!

Alan, Harrogate, UK

Excuse me but aren't we forgetting the masses and masses of real, tangible scientific evidence that does support global warming (and evolution!!).

To suggest that a climatologist hasn't thought through all the available evidence is ridiculous. Science works by testing the 'null hypothesis' (the opposite of what you think will happen) and if that is disproved by the data to within 0.05% (usually), then and only then can you call your findings a real and an accurate representation of the world that we live in.

Let's not be idiots and pretend that polluting the earth doesn't make a difference. You don't have to be a scientist to work that one out!

Claire, London,

so if it's warmer now than at any other time in the past...how do they account for grapes and vineyards being cultivated in England during the Middle Ages, but not today because it's too cold?

peary perry, austin, texas

I believe something ought to be done about pollution and GHG emissions. But has anyone actually shown anything more than a correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global warming? Do we have proof of *causation*?

Savanturier, London, UK

I'm sorry but I wasn't reading the same article as most of the repondents here. Nigel Calder has simply put forward a scientific theory which happens to challenge 'conventional wisdom'. I didn't get the impression that he was arguing against cutting emmissions or against improving the air we breath. Regardless of whether the production of greenhouse gases may or not be a contributory cause of global warming leading to acceleration of climate change, reducing emissions improves the quality of the air and that this is a good thing is surely something everyone agrees with? What we do not agree with is politically motivated propaganda by voiciferous minorities within our society bent on using the 'conventional wisdom' as a pretext for their own agendas of social engineering.

David reynolds, Selby, England

Get a grip on your statisics people. Just because one is 90% certain that they are correct does in no way correlate into a 90% probability that they are, in fact, correct.

Mike, Annapolis, Maryland

Three cheers for this article, it's time the tree huggers were
put back in their boxes.

There is no doubt that there has been global warming, but the human effect is very much outweighed by natural cycles.

If we all returned to the horse and cart , China will have
exceeded our saving in less than a week.

Save energy where you can , but for purely financial
reasons and forget all this doom and gloom it will never happen

John Sheppard, moissac , France

Yes! Yes! Yes! There is another side to the argument of global warming! But do we hear it? Of course not...that would go against the media's ill-formed stance with their easy to digest battle against "green-house" gases. Before we embark on a crusade against these gases...shouldn't we really find out what is the cause of the possible warming? Has nobody else seen the awful parallel here with Iraq? Misinformation and half truths have led the UK and US into a quagmire of their own making. We need a real and honest debate about the perceived problems that exist in the planet's atmosphere/weather patterns. Rather than be led myopically by politicians and the media into action of any sort. We need to remember that Einstein was laughed at when he questionned Newton's Laws of Physics, even though the Royal Society knew there were problems with it themselves. We need to listen to all voices of scientific reason even though we cannot hear them above the stampede of politicians and journalists.

Nigel Wilsonlock, Jakarta, Indonesia

Follow the money folks. This is political and not good science. I still have the Time Magazine article from 1976 talking about the next ice age. The "facts" haven't changed much in the last 30 years, just the source of funding to promote a certain perspective.

The problem is too many people think that mankind is all powerfull when in reality we are just a passing phase in the earth's history. People only see history from there life time experience: us older folks think the environment is much cleaner than it use to be because of our perspective.

In the 70's the "crisis" was the population explosion causing a food shortage by the year 2000. In the 80's it was the oil shortage and how we would run out very soon. Now it is global warming but it will also pass as science always replaces politics in the long run.

Mike McLeod, Philadelphia, USA

Mars and its melting poles, Jupiter's warming, Saturn and its moon's geysers shooting out water when it should be completely frozen, the Sun's stormy season and warming trends (sunspots, increased temperatures, increased brightness, etc)... I guess we are causing that, too, by pollution. This tiny, microscopic planet we live on, inside a massive, huge universe, well, CERTAINLY we can rule out cosmic rays, solar storms, solar flares, or anything magnetic or non-terrestrial. I mean, really, our inner earth could in no way possibly warm the outer crust and/ or atmosphere. That's just ridiculous to think that could happen! And volcanoes, they couldn't possibly in any way add to the "greenhouse" effect, since they spew out harmless gases. Well, maybe they are a little harmful.

Wake up and smell the CO2, people.

Charles, Baxley, GA

For me the contentious and deplorable issue is not that 90% of relevant scientists share one view, and 10% another - it's the fact that the two sides of the debate have become so politically charged as to be diametrically opposed, with neither side of the debate willing or able to contemplate the potential veracity of the other side's argument.

As Chris Reynolds says, it is unlikely that a phenomenon (or lack of one) in such a large system as the Earth's climate could be wholly explained by a single cause.

Mr. Calder, in dismissing the "orthodox" viewpoint so readily in favour of his preferred theory, is guilty of hypocrisy - he is at least as dogmatic as the people he lambasts, and appears to be happy to be so, since it will presumably help him to sell his book. If he wants to find out why "unorthodox" theories are so often greeted with such mistrust, he need look no further than his own article, and the shameless plug that concludes it.

Al Goodwin, Bristol, UK,

Climate change like the 'theory' of evolution is on of those theories that is repeated so often that it is accepted as fact.

S Baxter, BIRMINGHAM ,

If we are causing global warming, how come Mars is warming up too?

Gail, Sussex, UK

What this story demonstrates is climatologists haven't thought through the available evidence very well. It shows climatology, a baby science of a couple decades, really, is too big for its britches.

Steve Aspenson, Minneapolis, US/MN

Simon of London makes the usual error of linking climate change with other environmental problems, Loss of species is mainly caused by loss of habitat, which is indeed caused by rising populations, not by global warming. Destruction of the rain forest has absolutely no connection with global warming. (In fact, a warmer climate and more CO2 make rain forest grow faster) Two different things going on at the same time are likely to have two different causes.

The best solution to species loss and rain forest destruction would be worldwide prosperity. The population of rich countries doesn't increase much, and modern scientific agriculture occupies much less land than peasant farmers. Only poor countries tear down forests without replacing them.

We need to use our brains. Ignoring facts that don't fit in with the human-CO2 theory is stupid, just as ignoring the theory because it doesn't explain all the facts is stupid.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

The view purported in this article is in the minority, the majority view amongst the scientifc community is that global warming is a result of human activity. This is the conclusive statement from a 6 years study by some the worlds leading scientifys. I'd rather consider their view as more plausible. The reality is that alot of the more disturbing results of climate change have not been fully discussed such as the cooling of the gulf streams, the potential runaway climate change that could occur if the permafrost was to go. The impact on our climate could be dramatic but yet some are willing to risk all this because no one has said its a 100% sure. No one can be a 100% sure about anything even about the facts we are supposed to know but 90% is pretty close.

Juzar, Bristol,

Mr Calder cites East Antarctica as a problem for climate change enthusiasts to explain away. Not so. Climate change models predict that rising sea temperatures increasing evaporation, more cloud cover, and often lower temperatures over land. Most climate change models predict a wide range of changes like these, not just uniform warming. He knows this, I suspect, but has a book to sell.

Mark Fletcher, Chippenham, Wiltshire

The plain fact is that the planet's population has doubled in 50 years, and that we have been behaving in a rampant, irresponsible way in all that time, squandering our natural resources and devastating our natural environment has to count for something. The smug fools who read this and think oh right, it isn't true after all, will join the vast throng of people who don't really care and are even less likely to change for the better. While this article / book may have some truth in it, I wouldn't count on it. And if you have children, you'd better start caring.

Jon Waring, Tokyo, Japan

Nigel Calder makes a point (but then he does have a new book to sell). Actually, there is merit in both theories - undoubtedly mankind's activities are having an unhealthy effect on our planet and its life. Likewise, one cannot argue against the cyclical effects of the Sun. Where Calder and the anti-global warming lobby are wrong, however, is in promoting their theory as an empirical opposite. In the grand scheme of things we can't change the way the Sun works or interacts with Earth. But we can take personal and global responsibility for the way we live today. The stakes are high and we should rise to the challenge. Hiding behind a particular scientific theory won't help.

Clive Simpson, Lincolnshire, England

Bill Hawthorne, Cajamarca, Peru says:

"The Global Warming Panic reminds me a lot of the Y2K panic. The experts predicted chaos then too."

Yes - and a large number of businesses spent a large amount of time going through their systems ensuring that they were Y2K compliant (my then employer found 4 different places where our system would have failed on 1st Jan 2000, which would have stopped the telephone systems of several countries dead). The Y2K bug didn't cause chaos precisely because we acted to forestall it. It's a very good analogy for climate change.

Andrew Dale, London,

90% of people once thought the earth was flat.

Steve Moran, London,

Underground coal fires occur in most, if not all, countries which have coal deposits. They are caused mostly by natural events such as lightning strikes and bushfires igniting exposed coal seams. A search of the web will reveal that around 10% of new annual CO2 emissions is attributable to this source.
Do you see environmental extremists out on the streets with banners calling for action against these fires? Of course not. The extremists only concern is to harm our prosperity.

Barry Smith, Canberra, Australia

Hundreds of climate experts and scientists gather in Paris to discuss the matter of global warming and they concur in saying that they are 90% sure that the climate is changing because of our excessive consuming behavior.

How arrogant and selfish should one have to be to still hang on to that 10% uncertainty to justify one's convenient but dangerous way of life?

If your cardiologist told you that he is 90% sure that keeping on eating beacon every day with breakfast would kill you, would you keep on eating beacon telling yourself: "well... there's a 10% chance he is wrong anyway!" ?

Polo Gutierrez, Toulouse, France

What a one dimensional arguement. Are species not being wiped out? Are rainforests not being destroyed? Is our own living environment becoming more polluted, more toxic?

The public doesn't need a 'get out clause' or a doubt to clean up its act.

Manufacturers, home owners and policy makers all have the capability to be more environmentally aware. Whether this is a climate change arguement on not. We all have to do something about the way we're living, or the next generations will not forgive us.

Simon, London,

One key confusion in the entire climate change debate is the constat reference to 'pollution'. CO2, the 'chief culprit' is the gas all humans expel every second through the most basic of human activity - breathing. Therefore the concept that regardless of the scientific debate surrounding greenhouse emmisions, we should be cutting the 'pollution' is a misnomer. CO2 is utterly harmless - unless it is accepted that it drives an increase in global warming. My view is the emphasis from government and industry has to be on finding a replacement for fossil, be nuclear, solar, fuel cells etc. Regardless of any possible affects from burning fossil fuels, what is clear is the world needs a new primary source of energy for the next century.

James Gambrill, Windsor, Berkshire

10%? when some of the top minds in the world are 90% certain, you are advising to consider the 10% chance that they are wrong? during which time developed western nations and the populations within them will carry on in the same vein as they have been, worsening a potentially catastrophic situation. we all know that given the easy option and the right option most people will always opt for easy, and carry on polluting if there is any doubt as to the cause of global warming. what is needed is carefully considered and appropriate, but immediate, action.

michael james, newcastle upon tyne, england

Whilst I'm still not convinced the global climate is effected to any great degree by human activity, I am sure we are poisoning the very air we breathe, something we are and will pay dearly for.

Terry, Newcastle, UK

I'd much rather it be that this particular theory is right, but it's not that bad if people are scared into cleaning up the environment, either.

Ben Nilsson, Los Angeles,

It's a shame that considered reports such as this get buried by the stampede of nonsense writing that blames global warming on cows or a minority of drivers.

Nobby Clark, London,

One problem with this debate is that we're looking for THE cause of climate change.
If I were to burn a lump of coal I would do many things. One is to release CO2 which would contribute to the greenhouse effect. Another is to release heat energy into the atmosphere, thus directly increasing global temperature (albeit very slightly).
Whilst studying geography at university in the late 90's we studied paleodendrochronology (tree rings) and found that temperatures in Wales had varied massively over the past few hundred years. This data did not match historical levels of CO2.
The greenhouse effect is a scientific certainty. What is not certain is the effect that is has on global climate.
Switching to renewable energy sources is good for the human race and we should be encouraged to consume less, but environmental panic should not be used to stop progress, rather environmental concern should guide science to greater achievements.

Chris Reynolds, Buderim, QLD, Australia

There is no doubt that England is much warmer than when I was growing up in the 50s/60s. I'm convinced that the major causes of global warming are natural. There is little doubt that the Sun will get progressively hotter and in a billion years' time we're going to have to find somewhere else to live.

Whilst I don't condone panic measures, I think we should control pollution on this planet, as it has more implications than warming or cooling. There is no doubt that some natural habitats have been poisoned by human activity.

Philip Pugh, Chippenham, England

Nigel's article is particularly welcome in providing an opportunity to consider an opposing hypothesis. If those pushing the human activity - greenhouse gas theory were really looking for a solution then surely reducing the world's population is the answer. If that is so then one solution not often discussed could mean the end of organisations like Oxfam, World Vision etc and the encouragement of one child families as in China.

Keith, Melbourne, Australia

This is science for you. The debate continues. Truth hasn't been found. In every scientific field, until proposed theories can stand up to critics, they continue to face scrutiny. What the general public fail to understand is that this is just science at work. It's slow. But that's how it is.

Hundreds of scientists could be wrong. But when the vast majority warn of impending doom unless we change our ways, and there are few naysayers that contradict they, I think the prudent choice is to heed the warnings. Even if the conclusions are wrong, the fact still remain that we're altering our climate, environment and life on this planet for the worse. That should be enough of a wake up call to panic and do something about it. We have the means today. There's no excuse. The only thing that prevents us is the will to do the right thing -- regardless of the debate over the cause of climate change.

Andy Dabydeen, Toronto, Canada

If climate change is not the result of human action, does that mean that undeniable increase in CO2 production has had no effect at all? What happens to all that carbon in the atmosphere then? the short term effects fo the industrial revolution were obvious and accepted, but people continually doubt things that happen over a longer time span than a single generation!

Martin Bower, Melbourne, Australia,

Chuck's comment (above) is the most sensible I've seen in a long, long time. Hear, hear!

Incidentally the 'hockey stick' (first comment ) has been completely discredited. See Ross McKittrick's webpage.

Chitprabha, Birmingham Gardens NSW, Australia

When the Romans occupied Britian,Britian was considered to be one of the best wine producing areas of the know world. That was amost 1600 years ago.

The Chince are reported to have sailed around the world in the 1200's via the Artic. There were no polor ice caps to stop their travels.

When the Incas controled Peru, there were no glaciers in the Andes; there are now.

A volcano in the Congo puts off more nitrous oxide into the air at the top of its crater more than 10,000 feet above sea level than the sum total of all factories, automobles, etc. in the US. The US pollution is at a very low altitude. The other major off-gas is carbon dioxide. No amounts of that was reported by the French scientist studing this volcano. See Nova, 2004, Volcano under the City, Mt, Nyiragongo.

I will not even get into flourocarbons or cell phones at gas stations.

David Hauseman, Atlanta, Georgia

Nigel Calder et al may very possibly have discovered an important natural mechanism. I am sure there are others also remaining to be discovered.

However, as an Engineer I find it very hard to ignore the almost perfect correlation between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and the steady rise of air temperature so clearly demonstrated in Al Gore's film, which culminates in the famous "hockey stick" in the last 50 odd years, where both CO2 and air temp have gone well over the upper bound background range of the last 650,000 years. This simply cannot be ignored until it is proved to be bad data.

Andrew Wilson, Paris,

If man is causing or a "major contributor" to the presently alleged global warming than how do you explain what precipitated the global warming after the past known ice ages. Is it possible that man invented the internal combustion engine first but had to wait many thousands of years to find a use for it and so it just "idled" at an all too common and famililar political traffic jamb until someone invented the horseless carraige?
One might note that this is a good indication as to why extraterrestial beings do not want to communicate with us do to our lack of intellegence and common sense or is it may be do to my bad spelling. Either way any intellegent human being should recognise that they are being scammed. The real hero is the one who can come up, and survive, a plan to bring humanity back on a more common sense and productive course whereby all are not fooled by politicaly correct statements and are smart enough to appreciate the efforts of a gifted few.

Hank, Conway, SC, USA,

It's all about money from research grants, after all if you proved that man wasn't at fault, then the mikkions for yur research would be cut off. Better to ignore unfortunate truths and keep on running around like chicken little yelling "The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling" and make movies so you can fly around in your giant carbon footprint jet and collect giant speaker's fees.
Too many times I've seen "scientists" present "truths" which are proven UNTRUE a few years later.

Pam Dunn, Tampa,

Nigel Calder (who was the editor of New Scientist for four years in the 1960s) is basically recapitulating the hype over the Svensmark cosmic ray/climate experiments. While the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes.

rickdog, minneapolis, mn

Two questions:

When thousands of leading scientists all reachin 90% concensus on an issue, isn't it just a little bit different than one single scientist expressing 90% certainty all on his own?

Couldn't your theory be easily proven with measurements of solar radiation over the last 100 years? Too bad no one has been measuring solar radiation. Oh well. I guess we gotta wait around for more evidence...

But I see you do have a book for sale. That's convenient!

Jason Brown, Los Angeles,

There are two things that drive me crazy about this whole debate.
1) It seems like anything ANYBODY says on EITHER side of the debate is automatically discounted by people on the other side. This article (and the accompanying comments) will be dismissed as corporate propaganda by the left. Similar articles taking the other side are dismissed as eco-orthodoxy on the rampage by the right. Global Warming isn't a hypothesis, anymore: it's a shibboleth for both sides of the political divide!
2) Ultimately, the existence and nature of global warming aren't the issue; our actions as a species are. Most proposals for reducing carbon emissions are good ideas even if carbon emissions aren't a problem. If climate change is happening, then people need to adjust to it regardless of whether the change is temporary, permanent, man-made or cosmos induced.

Michael, Pueblo, CO. USA

The politicians are there because of the mushrooming demand for a limited resource. Historically, that has always led to war. The current campaign will encourage efforts to curb demand and give technology more time to provide alternatives.

Grahame, Dorking, UK

In cases of scientific dispute, a useful test for the layman is whether a proponent of a particular hypothesis appears unreasonably attached to it, cherry-picking data that support it & understating contrary data. Here, Nigel Calder seems to be doing just that: the consensus of the recent report is, in fact, much stronger than the somewhat meaningless '90%' insisted on by the chinese, while his account of upper atmosphere temperature is stuck in earlier doubts. the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements is a good place to start.

boudu, berkeley, california

I don't deny the concept that we had previous warmings (Middle Age) caused by higher solar irradiation, but first I doubt there was at that time the same incidence of extreme climate events we now face.

Altough science is not unanimous as to why the Earth's climate is changing, it would be a very poor excuse not to modify our habits!
Common sense would suggest that disrupting our planet's cycles (carbon cycle) is not very wise when we do not know what are the long term consequences. If those huge amounts of carbon (oil) are trapped in the Earth's crust, this is for a reason, and letting it loose in the atmosphere will probably do no good to the natural equilibrium. Nevertheless, science also suggests that C02 excess promotes acidification of our oceans and destroys marine life.

At the end, it is not rational for "baby boomers" to continue driving their useless SUVs while they migth increase the likelyhood of forfeiting their children's future.

Jean-Paul Thiéblot, montréal, Canada

First we are told there is no debate, then that skeptics are corrupt naive etc. Then when people provide any evidence contradicting the "inconvenient truth" it is dismissed because "humans will always come up with evidence to support their prejudices". Why is it that Climate scientists and their activist friends are using the playbook of the Creationist/Intelligent Design proponents? Deny there is a dissent, then dismiss the dissenters, then claim there is no evidence against them, then dismiss the evidence.

Until recently, climatologist did not know that more water evaporated from tropical forests than from tropical oceans, how the Antarctic was kept cooler than it should be how deep human produced CO2 was going into the ocean and countless other things that are reported all the time. Give the field some time to mature before we cry wolf. Nothing will fall apart overnight and nothing will be fixed overnight. Slowing global growth could end up making things far worse.

Chuck, Saint John, Canada

Why is it that in this debate the facts about the Ice Ages are forgotten? The evidence of the cycles of global warming/cooling are ignored. We seem to be obsessed with placing 'humans' at the centre of the universe.
It is clear that there has been a continuing pattern of climatic change over many years. It is also clear that the consequences of the behaviour of humans across the globe does not help matters.
Why is it so inconceivable that global warming is occurring as part of a cosmic cycle; and that the increasing emissions of poisons from human actions is complicating this cycle.
Evidence indicates that we shall all be doomed by an Ice Age
in the long run, whatever we do.

J.Kelvyn Richards, Trikala, Greece

It seems to me that emissions in the atmosphere spike, then dissipate slowly, causing the temperature to spike then decline slowly. If this were true, it would be an easy trend to spot on a temperature change chart. All the long term charts for temperature I have ever seen never seem to exhibit this kind of trend. The trends seem to fit the idea of having clouds making the earth colder or warmer, because they don't take very long to form, nor do they take as long to disappear than gasses in the atmosphere

Stewart Olney, Ortonville, MI

I don't deny the idea that there were previous warmings (Middle Age for instance) caused by a higher solar irradiation of the earth, but I doubt there was such a high incidence of extreme meteorological events occuring worldwide like the ones we have those days.

Something is clearly wong with the world's climate and altough science is not unanimous as to why the climate is changing, this would be a poor excuse not to modify our habits!
With common sense, one would see it is not a wise idea to disrupt the Earth's natural cycles (carbon cycle) when we do not know what are the long term consequences.

If huge amounts of carbon are emprisonned in the Earth's crust, this is probably for a reason, and letting it loose in the atmosphere might do no good for the natural equilibrium of our planet. Reducing GHGs is clearly achievable but no politician seems to have the guts to do so because of the short term possible economical backlash.

Jean-Paul Thiéblot, montréal, Canada

Hurrah someone at last talking sense! When I was at school during the 1970-80's a new ice age was being pre-dicted and global warming unheard of. Certainly I do not think it was discussed during the heat wave summer of 1976. I do remember although only ten at the time hearing that weather patterns follow an approximate 25-30 year cylcle. Political man is somewhat arrogant in his view of the world thinking he who has only been around such a short time in the history of the earth could have so much influence. Didn't dinosaurs die out because of a great drought! Perhaps they should have enforced a hose pipe ban then and they might still be around!!

Jo Hillas-Smith, Paddock Wood, England

Global warming is the wrong term and is misleading. Climate change is more accurate. Although the overall effect is a warming of the planet, Europe could have much colder winters if Greenland ice melts and stops the north atlantic flow, which traditionally warms Europe. More energy due to overall heat increase, leads to more severe extremes in both directions. People need to understand this. We are in a climate crisis, no doubt about it. Not even 10%.

jan jacobs, London,

He who hopes for the end of the world should be the first in line. That aside, global warming is big business in the science quarters. Fear of global warm-up and its frantic supporters drive the engines of grants. These grants keep the scientific establishment bankrolled. These same scientists are not going to cut off their funding by findings that do not support cataclysmic warming. Its gross arrogance for humans to think they have much impact on global temperatures. The money would be better spent on something we can actually do something about.

Thomas Dixon, Old Washington,

Is it not a fact that man was not here to record the previous few million years of the earth's climate. Surely all this waffle about "Global Warming" should be put on the back-burner and left to simmer until we all realise that we are only here for a millisecond, so lets all get on with our lives and ignore the politicians. Maybe someone ought to tell them (politicians) that the taxes they will reap from all this hype would pay very nicely for a new space rocket to explore ever deeper into space - forget about puncturing the upper atmosphere.

Jane, Duffield, Derbys., U.K.

How can you go along with an argument about climate change from a person who doesn't understand that "global warming" is not solely isolated to warming effects. It's climate "change" - the temperatures will rise in some places, fall in others.

And anyway - even if humans aren't the major agent in climate change, we know enough that our emissions COULD do that, so is there any harm in paying the taxes, that deter people from polluting, and reduce the emissions to prevent a future problem, if it isn't already a present tense one?

Sarah, London, UK

As the experts find it hard to agree, the average man, as a relatively uniformed individual must make his own choice as to which side of the chilly or warm fence he sits.
But it’s a rather convenient way of raising revenue Mr Brown surely can’t believe his luck to have such a willing cash cow, and no doubt will continue to milk the said cow. In reply to various loud voices in the media and indeed pubs, who inform us that you cant deny the changing weather over the last four years and it’s defiantly milder. And you have to agree perhaps by a couple of degrees or even three. But if that’s global warming don’t worry because at that rate we will all be dead by the end of the century. As the forecast is for a four degree raise by the end of the century, it would seem sensible to put recent weather down to natural fluctuations. And not run around as Mr Frazier once put it (he was Scottish to) shouting were all doomed.

David Miller, Kettering, Northants

Excellent article. However, it is likely to be ignored, or shouted down by the GW zealots.

Anyone that dares to wimper a half sentence that midly contradicts the popular view is in danger of being burned at the stake for a heretic. Hmm, maybe not, that would increase carbon emmissions. Hung then? Possibly, but then we have the methane problem at some stage of composition. Stoned to death? Still the methane.

Say la vee, as they say in France.

Robb, Amesbury,

I do aggree with challenging orthodoxy and we should all keep our eyes open but if this book is only about the sun being 'lazy' or not is in itself a very lazy theory. The sun does in its life time get closer and further from us and that does lead to climate change and no one denies that but the fact that the CO2 levels have risen more in our century than any other has to be a worrying indicator. And also the writer who mention the writer Michael Crighton, Please remember he's a FICTION writer

Eugene Murnane, Sydney, Australia

The Cofradia de La virgen de las Angustias in Granada, Spain has a complete and exhaustive record of temperature and earthquakes since 1493. A study of these shows that average temperature changes of up to 5 degrees have ocured every 50 years, while the mean 100 year temperature remained constant. So the warming represents a cycle of normal climate change at which we are reaching a peak. In 200-300 years we can expect the temperature to drop some 5 degrees and to endure a mini ice age. Why the scientists and politicians dont start with this kind of information instead of short term statistics and computer models I cannot understand.

PEDRO F SANTAMARIA, Granada, Spain

I am not a climate scientist, so I could use a simple explanation-- If you look at p. 30 of Jan Beran's Statistics for Long-Memory Processes (Chapman and Hall/CRC: 1994), you will find temperature data from 1854 to 1989 for the Northern Hemisphere. The trend looks awfully linear, by inspection, and the residuals from a linear fit also look rather small, with what may be a small periodic variation.

Now, this is just looking at the graph, and by a non-expert. But, if CO2 is driving the show, and CO2 excess, whatever that is, is due to human activities, and human population has grown exponentially, and human per capita use of power is growing faster with time, and human use of power is primarily from fossil fuels, it seems odd that the exponential or whatever higher order driving function would result in a linear response. Not impossible, but odd.

Could someone enlighten me what factors are operative here? I am from Kansas, so kindly keep it simple, if possible

John Brand, Baltimore, USA

I have an open mind on the issue. On the one hand we know that as the ice-cap recedes at the South Pole, dead leaves have been found underneath it - in other words, there were once forests there. So if our planet, in some prehistoric era, was once far warmer than it is now, who "caused" the global warming? Conversely, the fjords or Norway were scooped out by glacial activity. In other words, there was once global cooling, and expansion of the polar ice-cap, on a massive scale. How do scientists tell the difference between natural and "man-made" climate change? Please explain.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

The problem has been the same since the seveties, when we were threatened by a new ice age. It is not global warming, it is the energy crisis. Global warming seems to be an easier vehicle for politicians to handle the drive to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, whilst the global population grows and opposition to nuclear power persists, we will continue heading towards a precipice of economic collapse, which is a more demonstrable nightmare than that of global warming.

john shale, wigan,

Refreshing to read an alternative to the current orthodoxy, but what worries me most is how many commentators, including politicians and journalists, rush to defend the politically corrrect view with no reference to the science beyond a vague assertion that 'most scientists agree on global warming'. If scientific rigour, and thus the truth, has now been subjugated by political expediency, as it appears to have been, then we surely are all doomed.

Kevin Hawthorn, Hereford, UK

I have serious doubts about the man is destroying the planet story and I cannot help but believe that the so called 'overwhelming weight of evidence' associated with it is actually the say so of far from independent academics who are looking at data from just one (politically approved) point of view. So far this government and their opposition accomplices have done little to assure me that this is not just another gimmick to divert attention from a dreadful war and to raise taxes to pay for it.

John, Ross on Wye, England

Good reasoning from Mr. Calder. I cannot disagree with Lee from London (above) that the more prudent use of resources, the better. Yet, as Mr. Calder points out, what it disappointing is our modern failure to grasp the validity of the true scientific method in adducing cause-and-effect pertaining to complex, large-scale phenomena. We ignore it -- and squelch those renegade "mavericks" of science by a too-enthusiastic embrace of the momentary reigning theory -- at our peril.

dernon, Garden City, NY

Humans will always find 'evidence' to back up their beliefs/predjudices, whatever they may be. The small bubble of life-giving air around this planet is vulnerable to influences from us, our local star and maybe extra-solar factors aswell. Of these, only our own CO2 emissions are within our control. It would be prudent for us to minimise these.

Ru Hartwell, Llanddewi Brefi, Wales

Do I actually care? I'm not sure I do if I think about how the human race behaves towards each other - maybe the end of the world would be a good thing.

D Jones, Oxford,

So studies denying global warming are in the pocket of multinational oil companies? The opposite and equyally cbynical view is that no-one gets more research fund by saying that everything is as it was - so can we conclude that many of the pro-global warming groups have found the best way to raise funds is to cry 'wolf' and we need money to confirm the wolf isn't outside your door.
But I find it worryingly convenient that evidence of cooling is automatically taken as proof of warming because it falls within the 'predictions' of models that most experts admit are far from perfect. Could it be that the warming is eithin the limits of variation of a cooling earth?

I am still on the fence about the level of impact Man is having and am dismayed at the level of insult thrown at anyone who dare suggest an alternative model - but amused by how the arguments and blinkers are reversed since the 80s!.

Mike, Manchester, UK

If you would like to read, in layman's terms, about climate change and its cause since 1000 AD, visit. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
John gives logical insight to the natural occurrence of climate change assocciated with the sun.
There has been climate change since the earth's beginning and will continue until its end. The only reason I can fathom for the intense interest in this subject is money. Approximately 80 billion dollars has been spent since the mid-eighties on this "new" industry, and for me, logic doesn't justify its expense.

Joseph Schwerzler, Ocracoke, NC, USA

Thank you "Weir C." for succinctly so summing up what's wrong with both sides of the global warming argument. While I have some sympathy with W.R.B. above, completely ignoring the issue won't help anything or anyone. Even if you believe there isn't a problem at the moment, sensible and sympathetic use of our scarce resources is the best way possible of ensuring that we can employ what is available in the most efficient manner, as well as keeping the world a nice place to live. For a much more balanced argument on the merits or otherwise of the so-called "facts" about global warming, read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"

JM, London,

I'm just waiting for them to blame smokers (excuse me while i light up)...................

Amalia, Exeter, UK

Everybody will look back one day and realise that the subject of global warming has been hyped up by the governement for only one reason, to levy green taxes. The goverment are short on tax revenues and this is a great way to raise them in the name of saving us all from catastrophy. Can anyone explain how increasing fuel surcharges on flights is helping save the planet, The same number of flights will be made, it will just cost us all £10.00 more, there is no benefit whatsover to the planet but there certainly is a cash benefit to the revenue. If they were serious about this they would have to cut down the number of aircraft flights.

David Lester, Sale, England

Dawn Williams (London). Of course he's writing a book -how else do we get to know about it. That does no mean he may be wrong - he may be right. None of us were around thousands of years ago when the world really got warm. As for those airports they keep building - it's because you, Dawn Williams, go on holiday. And if you really want to bring silence to any discussion on CO2 emmissions etc, just mention ships.

Phil, Preston,

One little problem with Henrik Svensmark's idea - cloudy skies make for warmer not cooler weather. Last week we had clear blue skies and it was freezing; this week clouds and balmy spring weather. Clear skies just release the heat of the day to space at night, clouds keep it in.
Whether we are responsible for 3% of athmospheric CO2 or not, CO2 levels have gone up from 270 parts per million to 380ppm in the past 50 years or so with no credible natural explanation. Once we reach the 550 mark we've had it. I think we owe it to our children to at least make an effort.

Jim Meldrum, Manchester,

It is very interesting how, when a viewpoint becomes the orthodoxy or politically correct view, alternative views get mocked or even persecuted.
We need to be always very aware that science is not absolute truth - only subjective views. The further from the obvious scientists delve into matters the more caution needs to be the watchword e.g. gravity - if someone dislodges a brick from a wall above your head your better not stop to consider whether gravity is true or not! Contrariwise, weather patterns are notoriously difficult to predict there are so many small variables make up the whole.
"there is no such thing as scientific certainty - those who claim it are not scientists - but there is good faith"
"anyone not of the orthodox view tends to get lambasted."
Excuse me, I am reminded of Darwinism - a theory which 'in the round' seems reasonable but whoever actually observed and proved in living creatures order coming out of chaos? That would be science.
So much of so-called science is faith - we believe what we want to believe.

Lowry, Ramsgate, UK

Whether a part of Antarctica is getting slightly cooler or not is totally irrelevant to the issue. The average global temperature is increasing at a faster rate than at any time in the measurable history of the planet.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is also increasing at a faster rate than ever before and is many times higher than it has ever been. Ever.

It doesn't take a convention of climate scientists to realise the two are connected.

Articles like Calder's only serve to obfuscate what is in fact a relatively simple issue. What we require is action. Dinosaurs like Calder are of no help.

Eddie Taylor, Cambridge, UK

The industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels over the last century has grown at an explosive rate compared to preceding history. The measured growth in atmospheric CO2, the hole in the Ozone layer and apparent global warming have occurred concurrently. There are reasonable theories that connect the two, although there are so many factors in play that, as with much else in this world, a simple causal relationship is hard to tie down. Governments have done little, despite the hot air of their rhetoric, to counter any of the perceived "causes" of global warming and the taxes imposed by the UK government are a hypocritical sham, with the arguable exception of the Congestion tax from Ken.
The profligate use of the world's resources is growing at an unsustainable rate, so whether you subscribe to the global warming, or Nigel Calder's views, the action should be the same in the interests of the long term security of the human race on this planet - a more conservative use of resources. If global warming provides the lever and thus forms the means to that end, I will go with it. There is no definitive cause found yet.

Lee, London,

If the issue were really reducing CO2 emissions, then all the alarmists would be championing nuclear power, especially the newer PBMR technologies. The fact that they are not is very revealing.

Nuclear power for electricity generation has significant advantages, as France has found. It is the one technology that reduces CO2 emissions rather than just moving it around.

w.Pederson, Naples Fl, USA

Well you knew the oil men would have some rebuttal to the study.

Neil McLaughlin, Lake Mary, FL, USA

The author of this article falls into the trap of many by confusing climate change and global warming. Climate change implies a directionless change in temperatures and thus could lead to warming or cooling. The IPCC predict an AVERAGE global warming but it is expected that some locations will be cooler than they are at present. A shift in Ocean circulations could for example, lead to a reduction in temperatures in the UK as the gulf stream is switched off. Yes its true that there are cycles in the earths temperatures but the rate of change of the current change is what makes scientists adament that human causes are at fault.

Duncan, Bradford, Uk

When are you car-hating luddites going to come clean, and admit the whole global warming farce is a subversive plot to undermine global government by lentil-sucking anarchists, unwittingly supported by tax-hungry politicians. Grow up!

W.R.B, Barrowby, Lincs

I can remember in the seventies all the scientists banging on about a new ice age possibly in the offing. Since then they all went quiet about that and now the pendulum has swung to the global warming hypothesis. Its obvious we don't yet have the tiniest amount of knowledge about the natural rythmns of the earth's cooling and warming. A lot more research needs to be carried out. I agree with the view that global population is a more immediate worry when talking about the earth's rescources.

Lewis Medlock, Aintree, Georgia

This is the only article I can remember seeing that questions the politically correct and current politically expedient view of mans' culpability for climate change. Hurrah!!! I'm with you Nigel
By the way surely the burning of fossil fuels only returnes to the atmosphere carbon dioxide which was taken from the atmoshere bt plants in the first place.

John Dent, Huntingdon,

Ah, so if 80% agree on something, it must be right......
ever heard of Lemmings? If global warming is inevitable, and we are now aparently beyond the point of no return, as was said in the press recently, why aren't we building flood defences..? How do you think coal deposits were formed in the UK?

W.R.B, Barrowby, Lincs

If you disagree that global warming is a man-made problem, then rather than just saying you don't believe it or generating conspiracy theories, why not look at the vast body of scientific evidence that supports the theory, then discuss which parts of it you specifically believe to be false. The cosmic ray theory is very interesting and deserves a thorough investigation. However, the huge majority of scientists (and I think you'd be surprised how few of them care whether the British government raises tax or not) believe the issue to be real and man-made. In these situations, I tend to believe those who have seen all the evidence, studied it thoroughly and know far more about it than I.

steve, Loughborough,

Ashley says: "I never see this debated by politicians." So the, albeit not openly stated, compulsory sterilisation programme in India never happened. The Chinese never introduced a law limiting families to one child, and politicians from Japan and several European countries never mention the ageing population due to falling birth rates.
Global warming is just one of many urgent problems threatening humans with extinction. A paradigm shift is needed; there are alternatives to economic growth driven by blind consumerism.

Terence Hollingworth, Blagnac, France

A very interesting article. It does reintroduce the sometimes extreme variation in climate in the distant past (when man could not have been responsible) into the discussion of global warming.

Marek, London,

There was always something that never quite sat right with me about global warming. I think the main problem I had with the ideas was the evidence of dramatic weather changes going back thousands of years. Albeit as a layman on the subject, these ideas sound a lot more convincing to me and it will be interesting to see what comes of them. Even if our carbon emissions are having no effect on climate change however, reducing them must be seen as a legitimate aim in its own right. Surley the more efficient use we can make of our planets resources, the better.

Weir C., Birmingham, UK

Well, I have to say, this viewpoint would have been more convincing if it was objective. It was almost there - until the last paragraph, I was with him. And then he had to mention that in actual fact, he is peddling a book to support his theory. Another salesman, who doesn't actually "know" the answer but stands to make money out of another theory. Be careful about letting the gas guzzlers off the hook too easily. We can't undo the damage 10 years down the line when someone else proves that *this* is another bogus theory. Lets rather err on the side of caution. Rather than standing back while our governments make money out of our consciences, we should be scaling back. The taxes get higher and we keep expanding our airports. Where's the logic in that????

Dawn Williams, London,

Ashley is correct about population growth.

According to the Treasury web site, world population doubled, from 3 to 6 billion, between 1960 and 2000 and is expected to increase by a further 8-10 billion by 2050.

Not only that, but the 14-16 billion people on the planet will expect a higher standard of living than they do now (currently 1 in 5 live on less that $1 per day), consuming ever more resources. Water could be the crunch factor, rather than energy, especially in sub-saharan Africa.

Bryan, Ormskirk, UK

I think it would be kinder to the starving people of the Third World if as well as food we sent them serious information on birth control. It is so sad to see some empty-breasted mother holding a tiny baby which she is unable to feed, with another three or four wide-eyed youngsters trailing behind.

Years ago in India Mrs. Ghandi tried, and the Chinese in their own way formulate plans. But sex, life's greatest free pleasure has its unseen cost in millions of unwanted mouths which havr to be fed. A far bigger threat to the world's population than any amount of global warming.!

Austin F. Holroyd, Huddersfield, U.K.

Readers may be interested in the discrediting of cosmic rays = climate change theory <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/">here</a> in RealClimate.

Frank Rizzo, London,

I teach English, and have recently been appointed the school's 'Green Czar', my remit being to green the school. I am an environmentalist by temperament rather than one by training or by scientific persuasion, and am finding my own position difficult because The Stern Report and the IPCC Summary for Policymakers persuade me of one thing, and articles such as this one by Nigel Calder persuade me of another. So where do I stand, and how to I advise pupils and colleagues?

Although I suspect I do not understand the subtleties of The Precautionary Principle, it seems to me that to take no action while the arguments are continuing is irresponsible, and it is a more than sensible precaution to reassess our assumptions about the way we conduct our lives for the sake of future generations. We all seem agreed that Climate Change is happening, and that this implies to me that we will need to behave differently in the future. In a nutshell, I think this means husbanding the earth better.

Anthony Peter, Crowthorne, Berkshire

Calder presents an exciting argument, however, he should stick to journalism. Anyone who throws numbers and history around without reference makes an unsubstantiated argument.

Peer reviewed journals, that this author denounces for not accepting the subject of his book, are under strict guidelines to provide valid and reliable explanation for their numbers. The outcomes and measures he does compare are not reliable. America's first weather satellite was launched in 1959 (and did not measure temperature). Real climate change would in fact appear as only a wobble in the small sample of 50 years. I appreciate an argument based in science but Calder's misinterpretations are criminal.

Ashley, Dresden, Germany

As a geologist/geochemist, I have always thought that the proponents of significant warming due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions were mistaken in assuming that the human influence was dominant. Human emissions account for about 3% of the carbon dioxide flux in the planet-atmosphere-biosphere system, and is below the level of variabiity of the natural system; furthermore the increase in atmospheric CO2 can be accounted for largely by release from melting glaciers and decreased solubility in warming ocean waters.

The solar hypothesis put forward here, if true, should gain ground rapidly as the world cools in the next 20 years through two low activity sun-spot cycles. There is already signs of this cooling, as the oceans are already losing some of the heat gained in the later 20th century, and the cooling in Antarctica rather than the predicted rapid warming (GHG models have rapid polar warming as a characteristic).

Dr Ian Blanchard, St Albans, UK

The idea that climate change is human induced should be laughable. As I understand it, human activity contributes some 3% (maximum) of CO2 production, and CO2 is a second order greenhouse gas. Methane and water are first order greenhouse gases. That the climate is changing is probably true, as it has done countless times before. Warm conditions promote life, life means CO2 from respiration and methane from farting. Which came first, the warming or the gases? The political agenda of the greenhouse protagonists seems to be more about a hatred of our successful capitalist society than any real concern for the earth. The earth warms and cools, the sea goes up and it goes down. I have lived in warm and cold places, believe me, warm is better.

Tim Rankin, Bowral, Australia

The Global Warming Panic reminds me a lot of the Y2K panic. The experts predicted chaos then too.

Bill Hawthorne, Cajamarca, Peru

"The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion."

Interesting example: but Sir John Cockcroft was only one scientist who was 90% sure. The report represents many scientists who are 90% sure, which is decidedly more significant. I'm not certain whether to think you intentionally misled readers with your example to suit the argument, or whether it was simply a poor example.

Ian Johnson, Christchirch, New Zealand

Come on people! Which option do we want? Human-caused climate change we can do something about? Or Sun-controlled climate change we can do naff all about? Cosmic-ray fluxes as modulated by the Sun undoubtedly have some role in climate, but reconstruction of past climates via the proxy of carbon dioxide levels shows a pretty clear link there too. It's not either/or but potentially both/and... do we want a double-whammy of increased greenhouse gases AND solar-driven temperature rises??? No way! Only an idiot thinks another climate change cause negates the necessity of dealing with the one factor we can control.

Adam, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

My respect for New Scientist's credibility has just taken yet another nose dive. It's bad enough what happened last year with the publication of David Bellamy's laughable article, rebutted so wonderfully by George Monbiot (see [oh PLEASE see!!]: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/). Now we are being asked to believe that a whole mountain of evidence must be overturned by one experiment? Come on - there is no such thing as scientific certainty - those who claim it are not scientists - but there is good faith. And New Scientists' coverage of the 'other side' of the climate change debate is markedly lacking in it.
A tragic blot really, for science and for truth.

Zareen , Colchester, United Kingdom

Mark Layland - the high levels of CO2 are not at a level at which plants breathe it in! We're talking about the CO2 high up in the atmosphere, hence the 'greenhouse' effect.

Jessica, Reading, UK

I think this article flags up a recurring feature of the scientific community, which is that anyone not of the orthodox view tends to get lambasted. Used to be those who believed greenhouse gases would cause climate change, and now it's those who don't. It's always disappointing, as I thought science was supposed to be based on data, not bitching.

It also leads to polarised views. Has anyone entertained the idea that both the high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and solar activity are contributing to our warmer world? The author of this article ignores the evidence for carbon dioxide making its contribution.

Jessica, Reading, UK

So, every 365 and a bit days the earth is in exactly the same postion it was a year before ?, i doubt it, a calendar is hardly a datum point and timing it will be no use either.
If the earth is shifting closer to the sun this would also heat the planet up, digging, extractring, drilling,bulding, burning and exploding have affected the balance of the planet, it's off course.
I doubt we can reverse the harm we've done during the last century, too little too late.
" better to burn out than fade away ? "

TC, Birmingham, UK

I have always wondered how carbon dioxide, which is heavier than air, gets "up there". Now it seems that less of it must be getting up there, because the effects we are seeing are partly, or mostly, caused by something else entirely. And its something out of our control, that car drivers and airline passengers (and farting cows) can't be blamed for. Oh glorious day!

Dave, Basingstoke, UK

Presumably like everyone else who has read this article I would be more than happy to accept this alternative theory to climate change. The daily pounding of guilt that I currently endure with every non-environmentally friendly choice I make is starting to weigh heavy on my shoulders. It makes for much better sleeping to accept a natural cycle in progression coupled with a government conspiracy relating to tax hikes. Such an article should not, however, prompt a back track in conscientiousness towards our planet's welfare. It would be prudent to remember that whether human kind are to blame or not, if our planet's temperature does rise five degrees celsius or so, we will not be in a position to continue this debate.

Tess, Cambridge, UK

The real problem is overpopulation of the world.More people equals more resources needed.Over the last 30 or 40 years I understand the population has doubled.If this information is true then this is the real problem,and overshadows everything else as an increasing population is unsustainable.I never see this debated by polititians.
AD

Ashley, London, England

It seems to be in vogue to talk of global warming and blame it on CO2 from cars etc. Excuse my ignorance but schoolboy biology states that plants consume CO2 and liberate O2. Also that CO2 is heavier than air (eg dry ice). The teachings then go on to show how plants thrive in a CO2 rich atmosphere and are stunted where the levels are low. Also questionable is the manipulation of data to prove warming etc. The above reinforces my view that the establishment does not want to consider anything that does not support their stance.

mark layland, ledbury, uk

To theorize that global warming has man-made causes is audacious because variations in temperature throughout history have had natural causes. It only takes a misplaced or over-emphasized fact to the contrary and the theory can be thrown into doubt. To reduce man-made emissions requires huge economic sacrifices, that is why "..they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies" (from the article). Whilst otherwise this wouldn't be relevant to the reader, in this case, what are your commercial interests, Nigel?

Rick, Brisbane, Australia

Dave in Exeter is right. Soon we will be taxed for breathing - CO2 emissions are contributing to global warming! Weather has always been cyclical and sunspot activity is usually the key - but hey, while we are in government let us tax tax tax.

Anne, Warminster, UK

I think there is climate change. I don't think we have much to do with it. Jolly good wheeze for raising taxes, though.

Don Hoyle, Milton Keynes, England

Governments love to have an enemy to distract the electorate from their incompetance and justify unpopular actions and taxes. For Galtieri it was the Falklands war. For European politicians it will be global warming. They will save us from it ! - while they fail to address other more pressing issues. What a fantastic excuse. We will never know if they are right until they have long left office.

Gwilym Ashworth, Petworth, UK

Sir
Governments of today seem to be ignoring the most critical aspect of alleged climate change due to CO2 emissions i.e. the volume of CO2 emitted to atmosphere is directly proportional to our depletion of finite earth resources. The arguments are posed in such a way that the general population is unable to see how they might influence the process. We see the Chinese locked into ever increasing production of throwaway products that are too cheap to bother repairing, whilst the market led economies of the West (led by the USA) are glorifying consumption for its own sake. I would like to propose that far from rising sea levels being the next major problem to face mankind, it will be social upheaval due to a global economy in ruins due to a lack of raw materials to fuel its unsustainable industries. This is epitomised by the idea of turning over arable land to fuel production rather than concentrating on feeding the world's starving millions.

Dr Steve Brown, Rotherham, UK

The real problem with this issue is finding information that hasn't been written with an agenda in mind. Climate change happes all of the time though - the vikings used to live in areas now far too cold for us to live in.

I remember seeing a documentary about climate change which disovered pollution was cooling a localised area - the pollution created clouds thereby cooling the area downwind. Our drive to reduce pollutants, while good for air quality, is reducing cloud formation so this effect should be allowed for.

Another pheneomenon is that of an asteroid hit sending dust into the atmosphere. It is believed this would cause the sun to be screened, partly due to an increase in cloud formation as a result of more condensation nuclei. This will have a massive effect on temperature.

Based on this a detailed study of cloud formation has merits and the theory should not be rubbished out of hand.

Duncan, Cambridge, UK

If cars and planes etc really were killing the planet surely the government should STOP us using them, not say it's ok to kill the planet as long as you pay for the privilege.

One can't help but suspect the government knows the climate change argument is no more than convenient nonsense which it can use to boost revenue.

Dave, Exeter, UK

One must not forget that during the last inter-glacial period the sea level was higher than it is today which means that the temperatures were also higher. And there were no humans then were there? So could it not be that the global warming we are experiencing today can simply be put down to nature?

Kevin, Nottingham, U.K.

“Imagine being 80% confident that you will have an automobile accident on the way to
work... and then deciding NOT to take precautions. Insanity!”

I would try to understand how that 80% figure was arrived at. If I found that it’s derivation was flawed and certain “inconvenient” factors were ignored I would drive.

Jay Singh, slough, berks

The problem is that "Climate Change" has become politicised. Politicians see it as way of increasing taxes (they all talk about carbon neutral - what about revenue neutral!) Climate modellers know that their grants depend on feeding politicans with yet more dire predications justifying yet more taxes.

If the climate change predictions are correct there will be huge cost implication - either for reducing carbon emissions or the consequences of global warming if we do not. All alternative theories should be fully examined to justify expenditure on a global scale.

Ron, Cambridge,

What I want to know is what is the alternative to global warming? Can anybody answer that? Is it global cooling? So we either fry or freeze to death - pollution isn't great and we should take reasonable steps for cleaner lifestyles but is the climate changing because of us ( and i know you global warming fiends will say we are accelerating the process - so why is the ice flow growing in Antartica) - it has always changed and never been static.

Many of Einstein's theories, for all his genius, are now being proved to be wrong but he was clever enough to open up ideas for other scientists to investigate as technology has enabled them to do - just because someone is a great scientist does not mean that they are right - as in most areas of life- abit of common sense will see through much humbug!

Andy, Chester,

For anyone who has not reailsed it yet, the greenhouse gas theory - and it is exactly that, a theory - has provided governments the world over with the rationale for a whole new set of additional taxes to inflict on the overburdened lower middle class. You can now be taxed twice for having your household waste collected: once through your council tax and a second time for items that the authorities arbitrarily decide they do not want to be bothered collecting. It was governments in the US and Britain, if you remember, who encouraged the rampant consumerism that has created all sorts of problems only one of which is pollution. If Gordon Brown was serious about climate change, he would persuade the government that it should re-nationalise Britain's rail network, get it into an affordable, efficient state for consumers to use and he could at a stroke halve the number of cars on the road, but then he would lose all that lovely tax revenue from petrol consumption, road tax, etc

VDriscoll, London, England

Nigel Calder suggests that "a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea". Sure, but Galileo was countered Aristotle and the Catholic church, not some earlier theory that we would recognise as scientific. And Einstein's advances on Newton and 19th century "classical" physics extended previous theories. Calder implies that a 10% uncertainty leads inevitably to dramatic theoretic revision - "That is how science really works" - but it's more likely that the theory will be improved and extended. Appealing to "heroic paradigm shifts" in this way is over-dramatic.

IS Calder's suggestion that it should be business as usual until we've run out of fossil fuels?

Clare Hay, Cambridge,

Nathan can't find the remark in the Summary for Policymakers about the contribution of the sun to climate change. He should look at the bottom of page 3. "Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. " TAR is rthe 2001 document mentioned.

Nigel Calder , Crawley,

As an historian, I am delighted that someone can now explain how climate change has happened in the past centuries without industrialistion, greenhouse gases or any impact by mankind. The current orthodoxy reflects an incredible arrogance on behalf of mankind that they can believe it is man who influences climate change. But then I forgot, Man is the centre of the universe.

Jamie Johnston, Carrickfergus, United KIngdom

With all the contrasting reports and all the mitigating circumstances (I now believe that George Bush IS in the middle east for their oil), I find it hard to believe either schools of thought. However, the price of being wrong, and that climate change is indeed our fault is far greater than the costs, hence, I will do my part in reducing gas/electricity usage, reducing my longhaul holidays, energy saving lightbulbs, low consumption fridge-freezers, etc. HOWEVER, I will never support any sort of road pricing, due to (1) It will NOT take people off the road. People who are on the motorways NEED to be there for work. (2) Lack of transparency of an incompetent Treasury means that the income generated might well be used to plug some black hole government scheme (Do I hear NHS/Pensions?).

Pete, Cov,

People who dispute human influence on climate change are generally not well enough informed, to make that argument.

If you wanna argue with 1000's of scientists, you need to do the background, put in some hours, collect some references, that sort of thing. then go to realclimate.org and see how far you get.

It is not clever to just repeat strawman contrarian arguments, gleaned off some neocon apologists website, or clutch at half truths (which you saw on a Big oil ad on TV), that have been rebutted years ago, as if by repeating something ad nauseum, it makes it true. The arrogance of some people, especially badly informed americans, is unbelievable!

mark, midlands, UK

What good could possibly come from these findings?? More pollution, destruction, more corruption?!

julz, Lalor, Melbourne/Australia

The cost of addressing the absolute certain calamity of the millenium bug just a few years ago seems to have been forgotten.
It may be on this occassion with global warming someone has got it right, but lets be honest the hypocritcal taxing that is disguised as green taxation is not going to get the public on side.
The hypocritical press do not help either; a couple of weeks ago HRH Prince Charles was castigated for his carbon foot print but today all the front pages show the stars who have flown in from all over the world to the BAFTAs, what about their carbon foot prints?
If all the politicians are so certain why are they all not working together on an international scale?
You can bet your life that we hear in the UK will be at the forefront of the taxes paid to prevent global warming.

richard, leicester, england

I'd like to see where this is in the Summary:

"The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report."

I can't find it, and it would seem to be the pivotal piece of evidence for the article.

Nathan, Ambler, USA/PA

I often read comments similar to those of Hawk Johnson that suggest because meteorologists can't predict tomorrow's weather with 100% accuracy therefore climatologists can't accurately predict future climate. Such reasoning is not only falacious but demonstrates ignorance of the difference between basic concepts such as weather and climate.

Chris, Perth, Australia

Radiated solar energy is proportional to 4th power (!) of temperature. If we are worrying about some 0.6degC of warming, where exactly do we find 100 years of measurement of solar temperature accurate down to 0.1degC ?

I would not vote to impse a Breathing tax ( O2 in, CO2 out, right ?) on my children before we at least have a rough knowledge about our most powerful warming contributor.

Petr Viche'rek, Harvard, massachusetts

Consider consider the costs (both human and in dollars): massive!

The IPCC report suggests 90%... even if the number is truly 80% or 70%, that's a substantial risk and we should take serious precautions and invest substantially in mitigation. We spend a lot of money on insurance for much less likely and less consequential risks, why should we ignore this huge risk?

Imagine being 80% confident that you will have an automobile accident on the way to work... and then deciding NOT to take precautions. Insanity!

David Drapeau, Toronto, Canada

I think the author makes a good case about objectivism in science, but he makes some confusion on difference between man-made CLIMATE CHANGE and man-made GLOBAL WARMING.

The consortium of scientists believe that Climate Change is happening, not just Global Warming. Climate Change can result in vast array of new weather patterns.
Where is his absolute objectivism, when he cannot distinguish the two properly?

The author also is showing his own particular bias in the solar hypothesis, and thereby arguing against the man-made climate change model.

I think the better route to take is BOTH are happening. Man-made climate change compounded by changes in the solar weather patterns. But that remains to be seen.

Alain Bloch, Portland, OR

The decision that needs to be made is whether billions of dollars and Euros should be spent to either:

1. Reduce CO2 emessions that are *possibly* contributing to *some* of the observed global warming. This theory is based on dubious "predictions" made by computer climate models that are riddled with assumptions and simplifications.

or:

2. Used to fund initiatives to deal with the effects of global warming, whatever the cause. Note that global warming is predicted as a small net benefit for Western countries (e.g. more arable land), but a major challenge for developing countries (e.g. more desert and less able to deal with flooding).

Gary Mulder, Cork, Ireland

Even if carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases are playing a "great deal less than advertised" why take the chance?

There are many other good reasons to transition from a fossil/atomic energy economy to one based on renewable energy. It is a lie and a myth that renewable energy will destroy the economy and result in returning us to the stone age. It is also a lie and a myth that it cannot do the job.

Not making the transition and suffering the effects of an unavoidable economic/geopolitical catastrophe of a world competing for ever depleting nonrenewable resources is the surest path to a new "stone age".

The fossil/atomic energy industry is monopolistic at worst and oligopolistic at best, it is high time to dismantle the billions of subsidies flowing into this filthy industry and open the market to competition and growth of renewable energy.

Rowan , Sydney, Australia

E=MC^2

Yes, it all balances and is equal, what are the real tolerances of nature and have we unjustly claimed the world as ours (humans)? Surely we are a very small percentage of the living species, that is what we value isn't it? Life!

Without the intricate workings of nature we have no home, we have no future, we must acknowledge that we are not alone and that we can't abuse what isn't ours to claim.

Carl Cood, London,

You will never read this in any U.S. mainstream newspaper. Global warming is a fact, and is not open for debate. In fact, we can't seem to have an open or honest discussion about anything in our country. The media has been so consolidated, and news so sanitized, that all of the newspapers print identical stories. I long for the days when our country had an independent press, and each reported different stories with differing viewpoints.

Kay Peterman, Palm Springs, California

In the 1950’s there were around 2.5 billion polluters in this world. There are now around 6.5 billion.
So all those extra polluters aren’t having any effect on our climate?

The sun has its ups and downs but the percentage change is very small and certainly there hasn’t been a threefold increase in its output as there has been with the human population pollution.

Antarctica is cooling because climatic changes are altering weather patterns and ocean currents, isolating the Antarctic regions from the general trends.

Have no doubts – WE are the cause of global warming.

Chris, Taunton, Somerset UK

You people can't be serious?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

Congratulations. You've discovered Phlogiston.

Mark A. York, Sunland, USA/California

I'm from Alaska and if you travel to Seward you can walk up to the Exit Glacier. There are signs posted at where the glacier terminated along the path and it is easy to see the glacier was melting back in the 1700s. I believe in global warming but I don't happen to believe that we are at fault or can do much about it. We're on this planet for just a short while so I'm going to enjoy my stay while the politicians try to make me feel guilty because of my enjoyment. I believe the scientists will come closer to reality eventually and perhaps I'll be around to read about it. There is just too much that does not correlate when the "reasons" for global warming are spouted by the press. I'll just wait, and enjoy my time here, thank you!

John, Big Lake, Alaska

I have seen too much contrary evidence and too many well-based arguments to accept that there will necessarily be significant global warming this century, that the effects of such warming should be cause for great concern, and that it would be predominantly caused by human activity.

But let us suppose that governments around the world decide that the doomsayers are correct, and that they will act decisively to ameliorate emissions linked to warming. This will require that they sustain for decades policies which have significant costs on their communities but produce no discernible benefits. If the warnings are correct, drastic action may have some ameliorating impacts late in this century. But none of us paying the cost will ever know.

The chances that governments could maintain support for such high cost, no benefit policies for the required period is contrary to all experience.

Faustino, Brisbane, Australia

East Antarctica? East of what?

Timothy Bucci, Springfield, IL / USA

Whatever happened to the theory, predicted many hundreds of years ago by a mathematician/astronomer, that the earth warms and cools partly because its orbit around the sun is not constant, meaning that, at different times in history, it has been variously closer to and further away from the sun, a theory confirmed in the 20th century by examination of historical ocean bed cores showing that the temperatures on earth have fluctuated exactly as that theory predicts?

James E. Petts, Burnham, England

Come on now...give the guy some slack. After inventing the internet Al Gore had to come up with something even bigger to shout from his soap box. I think that Al needs to investigate this new revelation first hand. Lets all chip in $10 to send Al Gore to the sun so that he can tell us we are wrong....

Micah, Atlanta, Georgia

Climate change doesn't always mean warming in your specific location. Turn off the North Atlantic current and a few Europeans are going to start getting a little colder than typical.

It should surprise no one that climate and weather are not easily modeled. The phrase "not easily" being an understatement. If you cannot accept the fact that science deals with statistics then you might consider thinking about less complex issues. Try the sports page for example; your favorite sport team or player has a low probability of winning every match / event / game over the next year. There is a greater probability they will act within a range of their past performance.

"Within a range" is a phrase worth dwelling upon when considering the topic of climate and statistics. And if the player(s) change their fundamental behaviour (don't train, just drink beer) the results are likely to change. Change a little, then change a lot. And they will not necessarily return to their old performance soon.

don, Troy, NY, USA

To bulbul: No one is denying that we're experiencing a warming trend globally. They are only questioning the human influence on this trend. Our politicians are raising alarms that "we" are causing this warming and propose drastic measures to counter it while many respectable scientists argue that the degree of human influence on global warming is still a subject for discussion and making policy without fully investigating other potential causes is, at best arrogant, and, at worst, dangerous.

packinpa, York, PA

Most of the folks making comments here are nuts. Al Gore is not a political extremist on a religious mission. He's a man presenting an argument. Such accusations only prove that the writer himself is an extremist and therefore his comments are tainted. You don't have to agree with Gore but his proof is better and more convincing than the deniers and until that changes you guys are out of luck.

Aaron , toronto, Canada

Lets see the evidence first. I am not being sceptical, I have always wondered about the medieval warm period and, there is an interesting book about the chinese voyage of discoveries (1420) which mentions a diminished artic icepack and a larger antartic icepack. So i do think the idea has merit - but if the global warming trend is man made and its going to get hotter then I would rather we took a few precautions. One advanatge is that within 4 or 5 years we should have more trend data on global warming to see what has happened. I hope it is the solar radiation but for my kids sake i'd rather have some insurance against the man made affect.

paul smeeton, beverley, uk

Proper scientific procedure would be to develop a theory, and then try everything possible to "break" that theory in order to prove it. Global wraming is getting the exact opposite treatment. Every tiny shred of enecdotal evidence is pointed to, and all contrary evidence is ignored.

Ken Foster, Brighton, Colorado

Ah this is more refreshing than a Siberian summer. I'm so glad to hear dissent amongst people when it comes to climate change. The climate was changing before man was driving SUVs and will be changing long after we are all riding purple sun powered hybrids with flowers painted on the side. If we'd have followed the recommendations of previous era scientists about climate change we'd have been deliberately dumping CO2 in to the air to offset the coming iceage... How would that have made the environmentalists of today feel? The next generation of environmentalists will look back on this time with relief - that we did little or nothing to the environment - because it wastes time and resources that can be better applied elsewhere...

Jon, Albuquerque, USA

Whatever for global warming, Once again the real issue is sidestepped by a bunch of bleating opportunists and neysayers. Does anyone care about global POLLUTION? What's a girl have to do around here for some clean water and some fresh air?

monica, london, UK

Who was driving all the SUV's that were responsible for melting the glaciers that covered a good part of North American during the decline of the Ice Age? Maybe it was Al Gore's ancestors. What! Did I hear that the continent of Antarctica was once a tropical paradise? I'm sorry, but I do not believe any of this hocus pocus science that in the '70's was predicting a "doom and gloom" ice age and now cries that "green House" gases will be the demise of human beings on planet Earth. It reeks of the "Mom, send money" liberal mindset.

AW, Denver, North Carolina

New evidence from ice cores show that this is absolutely not the "warmest temperature" ever. In fact, it's 2F-3F below other peaks. Even if we head up to 2F-3F by 2050, we'll only be as warm as past natural cycles. The studies I cite are Andrill:

http://www.andrill.org

John Bailo, Kent, WA, USA

I would say it is Nigel Calder who appears not to understand how science works. I have just re-read his essay on climate change in his book 'Magic Universe' in which he rubbishes the computational modelling work and gloats over the 'deposing' in 2002 of Robert Watson the chairman of the IGPCC for being too political. Clearly Calder is either a professional (paid ) skeptic or he is in the business of selling that lucrative commodity- optimism.
In no way has he shown that the presence of additional effects such as cosmic radiation invalidate the known effects of greenhouse gas accumulation.

John Edwards, London, England

To:
Jeff Heisler, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA

What? What then do you attibute this deep freeze we are currently in?

Harold Mayes, Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Another cause of global warming has got to be deforestation (lower heat absorption due to lack of photosynthesis) and the corresponding paving that can increase local temperature (ex. Pheonix inner city is hotter than surrounding desert. I imagine the biggest culprit in all of this are huge corporations like Walmart and all the Walmart wannabes that not only have avres of parking lots but also huge roofs. I doubt that funding to study such a simple global warming factor (assuming that man can have such an effect) will be sexy enough for Al Gore ilk, not to mention the fear of upsetting the next super-power Wal-mart (China).

Kyle, Nashville, USA/TN

So you advocate do nothing. What if it's true, and our actions now are the cause, and what if it's true that we have limited time to act? Is the action of not acting really the prudent course? If you found a bomb on the street would you call the police? Or would you leave it there on the chance that it might not explode so that the authorities could save some money by not responding? The cost of action is worth it.

Jim, Leicester, MA

I have been around for sixty or so years and I'm not a scientist or an expert on the weather. It has been a rare occurrence in my life when the weather for the next couple of days has been predicted accurately by people that are scientists or experts, so you'll have to pardon my skepticism regarding predictions about what the weather er...everywhere... is going to do over the next ten years or so. I understand that notable experts like Algore (who, by the way, invented the Internet) and John Kerry (who served in VietNam) advocate the global warming thing but I ain't buyin' it.

Hawk Johnson, Falls Church, VA

Earth has been in the "global warming" state for 18000+ years. No, the cavemen SUVs that started it all off haven't been found, *yet*, but that's only because Al Gore hasn't gotten his hands dirty and admitted to inventing Archeology.

Derf, Louisiana,

This article is STUPID. Europe will freeze when the gulf stream gets cut off due to global warming. It's a complex process. Smarten up people.

James Dumonte, St. Louis, USA

This looks likes an article written by someone who has a book to sell. Oh guess what!?!

Chris, London, UK

The sky is falling! The sky is faling! People nowadays don't recognize real danger, but instead direct their attention to foolish notions.
I remember 'The Population Bomb' by Erlich. I remember "global cooling" and next ice age in the 70's. I am witness to the campaigns against smoking, trans fats, tap water, and disciplining of children. Much ado about nothing.Nonsensical do-goodism run amok.
What people ought to fear is the human heart and the evil that lies deep within mankind. There is no cure for this. It can only be staved off with vigilance and a willingness to face it and to fight it. Sadly, this willingness has given way to the desire for nonsense. We are surely doomed but it won't be global warming that does us in. It will be backbone cooling.

Steve, San Cemente, USA/California

Even if global warming is not what it is cracked up to be, can appropriate conservation hurt? Can development of alternative fuels hurt, especially if they make us less dependent on foreign oil? And what happens if they're right?

Dick Eades, Jonesboro, USA / Arkansas

Who cares.

Craven Morehead, Seattle, WA

Looks like someone in Delhi didn't read the article.

There are so many factors affecting the climate that to narrow the cause down to one is arrogant and does a disservice to the true scientist searching for an answer. So much has been connected politically to research in Climatology that the truth will be buried under the rhetoric from the politicians and the media.

Deb, Fort Wayne, IN

I feel very important. Apparently I am more powerful than the sun in changing the climate of the planet. Why on earth would we think that something as weak, insignificant and non-important as the sun, could possibly have any impact whatsoever on the temperature of the earth.

Bradley, Washington, DC

To Jeff in Michigan: Current global mean temperature is about +0.5 degrees C above the historical mean. Temperatures in the Mid-Holocene got up to almost +2.0 degrees C and there have been numerous periods throughout the Earth's past that were even warmer.

Walt, Bridgewater, NJ

It's not an environmental or climate problem, it's a population problem.

Mother Earth will fix that soon by killing off 2bn people.and what's left can try again for another 40 years.

David, Dubai, UAE

Some questions. What caused the world's climate to heat up thousands of years ago and what caused it to freeze again? It wasn't me - and as far as I know there were no Chelsea tractors about then nor cheap flights. So who's conning who?

Phil, Preston,

You only have to look at the other comments made here to see how how politicised this debate is. There is more concern about redistributive taxes than there is about evidence for or against climate change. I'll like to point out to the sceptics that just because this latest claim fits their own political prejudices its no more or less scientifically compelling for it.
I'd also like to make the (hopefully obvious) point that even if climate change turned out to be unrelated to carbon emissions, there are still massive issues left to be solved relating to pollution, deforestation, species extinction and global insecurity created by the fight over remaining oil supplies.

Murray Goulden, Nottingham,

Al Gore had sponsored hearings on toxic waste in late 70s, and hearings on global warming in the 80s. He had a book called "Earth in the Balance" and he had traveled around the world on numerous fact-finding missions. During his tenure as Vice President, he was a proponent for environmental protection. On Earth Day 1994, he launched the worldwide GLOBE program, an innovative hands-on, school-based education and science activity that made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment and contribute research data for scientists.
In the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Ayça Gezener, Istanbul, Turkey,

You have got to agree: we are ruining the planet and if the climate's being affected by interstellar radiation or not does not make any difference. We will face serious trouble no matter what, but just ignoring the whole process because you disagree on its causes is plain stupidity.

So please stop moaning.

Mikko Anttilainen, Helsinki, Finland

Thank You Mr. Calder,
How about a "Restless Atmosphere" Book?
Or a "History of Pseudo-Science" Book.
By looking at the climate data, I've found so many inconsistencies with "today's spin on global warming" that I've stopped working at verifying anything said about climatology. It has turned into a discipline not worth the time. The trouble is that there are real geophysical problems to study that affect humanity, and they aren't.

Paul O'Neill, San Antonio, TX, USA

Many years ago, 90% of the people believed the world was flat, the sun & planets revolved around the Earth, and skeptics were burned at the stake. Just because 90% believe, doesn't make it so and never will.

Ronnie, Los Angeles, CA

In the 15th century EVERYONE just knew that the earth was flat. And to contradict this credo one would most likely find hmself in a dungeon somewhere.

Ask hucksters such as Al Gore, Ted Turner, Richard Branson, or any of the other groupies of anthropogenic global warming why the planet warmed and cooled in three major events in the past 100,000 years. Ask them for a reasonable, climatolgically based explanation, not more of the reckless, irresponsible, and intellectually dishonest socialist-political "globaloney" we've been force-fed for the past 30 years with the ever-compliant aid of the leftist mainstream media.

The earth and its systems are so big, so dynamic, largely unpredictable, and so infinitely complex; to think our meager existence could cause such inbalance is simply arrogant and disingenuous.

Marty C, Woodridge, , USA Illinois

Unfortunately human beings have a sort of built fear of life. Religions and politicians make full use of this. They use it to persue their vested interests. . A good example is Browns tax on flying. Religions have always used fear to promote their business. Anyone who wants to get a bit of research money beats the drum loudly. As we cant correctly forecast the weather tomorrow how likely is it that we have any idea where its going in the next fifty years. It would help,if these depressomaniacs would look at the facts. This they never do. But in spite of all the hullabaloo the fact is that in the last one hundred years the world temperature has gone up by .6 of one degree. Most of that happened prior to the seventies. *In the last eight years the world temperature has fallen. They dont talk about that silly, its bad for business. Relax and enjoy yourself, the world isnt coming to an end.

tremlett richard, london,

Do you actually know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere? If I am not mistaken, it is less than 2%. How do you know it is bad? What on this planet consumes and thrives on CO2, and also, incidentally, produces oxygen? Plants maybe. What ever anyone says, including the IPCC, should be countered with, "Okay, but is it true?" Truth does matter and is relevant and should be what drives decisions and policy making; not an appeal to emotions and/or fear and guilt.

Greta Hyland, Duluth, USA, Georgia

The scienfitic consensus is on unprecedented climate change: that might involve local cooling (e.g. if Gulf Stream is diverted away from Northern Europe) or it might involve significant warming (leading to drought in some areas around the equator). Credible scientists allow for these variations in their models so Nigel Calder is being deliberately selective and blinkered in his argument here. He is portraying theories of climate change in an unusally simplistic form just to discredit them. Also, if margins of error discredit all scientific studies, as he claims, why don't they discredit the Svensmark study he quotes? Or is all pro-climate change evidence inherently fallible while all anti-climate change evidence is inherently right?

Scientific theories are naturally open to debate but one thing is for sure: our industrialised, urbanised lifestyle is not sustainable if applied to all 6 bn of us and fossil fuels are finite so that is reason enough for us to innovate for the future.

MB, Edinburgh,

Most telling comment above is from Mike in Ithaca. He says there is "so much attention to the few.." ?! That is outrageous. Nearly al attention is given to warming fanatics and when is the last time there was a headline regarding legitimate global warming debate. Just last week in the Minnesota legislature there was a global warming advocacy session and the next day, the local paper headlined "less critics this year". What they did NOT report was that the critics were systematically DENIED the podium. Global Warming fools like Mike merely want to SILENCE debate and that is the most scary part of this.

Tom, Minneapolis,

Al Gore, running around the world, in his private jet to receive his “atta boy” accolades, spews more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than a dozen factories. Pop idols, movie stars, and other jet setters are beating the drums about the sky is falling, but they continue to maintain several private mansions around the world, yachts, and a stable of automobiles. In the US, there are 535 commander-in-chiefs who don’t trust the recommendations of thousands of government analysts, so they continue to jet from country to country spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If our leaders and idols are not walking the talk, how can they criticize the average person for being skeptical?

Richar Peasel, Grand Blanc, Mi.

And what can septics say about the correlation between the CO2 level and the average temperature? This is a scientific fact that is proved for the last 600,000 years?

Yann, Brest, France

I recommend Mr Young to go to Miami beach, apply some SFP and bare his head in the sand...
And what nonsense is this LWL: "the industrialized nations our populations are actually declining, which means our environmental footprint is declining". I have never heard such nonsense.
Global warming is not about politics but it should be on every politician's agenda by now.
Perhaps for people in Europe and US who live in concrete jungles and don't have contact with nature apart from visits to man made parks this is not a real issue, because it is not their reality. But I live in a city, Rio de Janeiro, with the biggest urban forest in the world. It is a pitty. You don't know what you are missing, but I and many others know what we will miss if nothing is done.

Nina, rio de janeiro, brasil

The idea that pollution and climate change are all due to 3rd world overpopulation when America emits 20% of the world's pollution and greenhouse gases and has one of the fastest growing populations is frankly disgusting.

Wake up, people. Denial, greed, and sheer laziness are going to kill us all.

Joss, Oxford, UK

Al Gore and his bunch of "Chicken Little " political twits have latched on to a new excuse to return us to the stone age!!!

Larry, Buda, Texas

I'd like to know what Mike in Ithaca is betting.

Do you have any idea what is going to happen to the economy if you put in place things like the Kyoda accord?

Maybe you're rich and won't suffer, but the poor will suffer dearly and the economy will tank.

Thats a pretty big bet to be wrong on.

Fred, Washington, DC

Someone asked:
Is there *any* evidence that cosmic ray intensity has changed over the last century? Any whatsoever?

YES, overwhelming evidence. The sun's magnetic field REVERSES from north to south during the sunspot cycle. The sun's magnetic field tends to block out cosmic rays.

During the last cycle, the sun's magnetic poles FAILED to reverse properly. As a result the sun's magnetic field is UNUSUALLY WEAK right now. Cosmic rays and interstellar dust moving at incredible speeds is bombarding the solar system at a VERY UNUSUAL level.

Jonathon Moseley, Dulles (near Washington), Virginia, USA

Global Warming has been a poor theory in predicting climate events to date. Sciencitific theories that are not predictive are not science, they're vapor ware. If the polar ice does melt and the seas do rise, we humans will still have plenty of real estate available to modify to our needs. Humans have lived through Ice Ages and tropic drought - we'll use our brains and our ability to manipulate our environment to cope. We're not all going to sit in New Orleans, waiting for the waters to rise, but one thing is certain, a political vote in DC isn't going to save us.

Kate Duvall, Atascadero, USA, CA

Funny how this boom of articles letting humans/corporations (the lines are clearly blurring) off the hook, occurred within a few days of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report was released. Makes one wonder...

Emily Helms, Wayne, PA

Funny how a boom of similar articles were released all within a few days of the IPCC report's publication. makes one wonder, doesn't it.

Emily , philadelphia,

Bravo, bravo!!! Thank you for a voice of reason amid the din
of politically correct hyperbole. Please keep speaking out.
Diogenes lamp burns wearily these days.

Diane Auerbach, Newport Coast, CA

Remember, the expects said: the earth was flat, the sun orbited around the earth, and all the computers in the world would crash on Y2K

Gregg, Washington, D.C.,

The hypothesis is new, its testing is not enough to establish it asa theory. However statstically 90% probability is too low particularly when dealing with massive variables with best guessess substitutitng for data and projecting 20 to 30 years in to the future.

Intuitively I don't believe science is a domain of the collectives and the truth of any ascertion is validated by the number of people supporting the ascertion. Just the relative size of the solar system and human activity are eveidence enough against the human factor in global warming.

For better or worst the Sun is the controller of the Solar system weather. Like all things good and bad even the fad of global warming shall come to pass.

shivlynn, San Diego, USA

To doubt that politics can adversely affect science is idiocy! Check history on that one. Also, remember in the 1970's that global cooling would have us freezing our buns off by the 1990's? I don't recall reading any apologies from the "ecoshriekers" for their boneheaded predictions then nor do I expect to hear any in 10 years after "evil man" caused global warming is proven to be a dung heap. It's ironic that those who demand the greatest sacrifices by the masses have not demonstrated any environmental sensitivity themselves. Private jets, a stable of autos, mansions and castles, etc...

James Sanders, Baton Rouge, Louisiana/USA

Since the planet Mars is going through global warming also, isn't a solar cause far more likely?

Robert, Syracuse, NY

It is worth noting that the average elevation of Antarctica is 11,000 feet. It is the highest continent, even though Asia has the Himalayas. For precepitation to be increasing in East Antartica--and it is--a lot of humidity has to be reaching that vast ice plateau--a sign of warming elsewhere. In any case, a cold spot on a warming world is far from evidence of anything--the climate models which predict warming predict such cold spots far into the future.

To speak of failing to test climate models is errant nonsense. They are tested by starting them a couple of centuries ago and running them against historical data. Models which correctly predict the past and present data are assumed to be more reliable than those that get it wrong, and are then selected for further elaboration and refinement.

Brant Boucher, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

"Furthermore, consider the precautionary principle. Consider that even if global climate change turns out not to be affected by climate change we lose little by acting as if it does. What do we have to lose from weaning our society from fossil fuels?"

If we get a new ice age (a very plausible effect of global warming - warming -> ice caps melt -> saline level changes -> conveyors stop -> no warm winds -> ice age), and we don't have an infrastructure anymore to provide fuel, we'll have people starving and freezing to death. We can only get rid of fossil fuel if we have a complete new, just as efficient, but not as pollutant, energy source. And I don't think we have one like that yet.

So we can talk about removing fossil fuel, but can we really do it and stay alive?

We get one chance to get this right, and if we're wrong about the correlation between fossil fuel and global warming, and completely ignore any other reasons, we miss our chance.

HK, Orange County, USA

I have a weather station in West Milford, NJ and have records dating back to 1992. I've seen a distinct trend toward much more snow in the Northeastern part of the US since that time. For example, in the last 4 winters from 2002-2006 NYC had 40 inches of snow or more 4 years in a row. That has never happened since records began in 1869. In NJ, it was 80 inches per year. It only happened once before -2 yrs in a row in the 1940's. After a warm start it has been bitter cold here in NJ for weeks. I think the sun
is the key to the earth's cooling/warming cycle. When warming occurs at the poles, the cold water from melting ice cuts off the Gulf stream in the Atlantic and cooling cycle starts again.

Chris, West Milford, USA/NJ

Regarding the first comment, "It's amusing to see that the correspondent who complains about 'irrationalism' is goes on to compare Al Gore to Hitler." I have read the article three times and see no references to neither Al Gore nor Hitler.

As I scientist I can assure you that the global warming debate is far from over, even if the main stream media wishes it so. I have no preconcieved opinions about the relative importance of man-made gases, I'll form my conclusions from wherever the science leads. I do however take a dim view of a hysterical media and irrelevant comments related to Al Gore and Hitler. Please open up your minds beyond your political agendas and allow the best scientific thought to advance.

Brian, Denver, Colorado, USA

Given that the Earth is only one example, wouldn't it be of benefit to expand the sample size when looking at the effects on climate of variations in the sun's strength or cosmic rays? The Mars Global Surveyor has found that Mars' polar ice caps have shrunk--could this also be due changes in the sun or cosmic rays? If it is happening there, it may help explain what is happending here. And given the lack of man-made greenhouse gases on Mars, we can eliminate one of the variables that could explain the change.

Jacksonian, Arlington, Virginia/USA

Inevitable that this reasoned article evokes a scornful reaction from some eco fundamentalists who, like other fundamentalists regards argument against thier mantras as tantamount to blasphemy. The fact is, whether global warming is or isn't man made, we should not put anything into the atmosphere if we can avoid it. Also, challenging another piece of dogma, wind power and renewables aren't the answer.

Andy martin, Crewe, UK

It does matter that these experts are only 90% sure. The global warming crowd wants to use this hysteria to implement sweeping socialistic policies. We will increase taxes for everything and it is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on man kind. No one is for pollution but we all should be against lies to drive an unspoken agenda. It is all about your money the people who want to take it.

Ray Bergman, Kansas City, MIO

Extinction is the norm, ape of the curious mutation.

Marcus, Lyttelton,

Shades of Malthusian theory and "Spaceship Earth" (Boulding). Global theories of anything are absurdly simplistic in retrospect.

Modeling solar dynamics is one scary proposition. Anyone courageous enough to attempt the proposition deserves consideration whether it is politically correct(corrupt) or otherwise.

Charles Sangston, Timonium, USA

The "American weather satellites" actually do show a trend since 1999 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif)
and of course there are many complications with respect to satellite measurements that make interpretation less straight forward than the use of the word "satellite" often implies for people.

The main problem with the Cosmic Ray hypothesis so far is that there has been no trend in cosmic rays since measurements started in the 1950s (ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/COSMIC_RAYS/climax.tab) So that leaves the current warming completely unexplained.

Ken, Boulder, US

Hmm, was it so long ago that the church and all it's experts assured the populous that this world of ours was the center of the universe? or, awhile after that, that the world was flat?

The problem with allowing NON-scientific minds to medle in the mechanics of scientific discovery is that the biggest loser ends up being science (and the world) et al...

Show me a "scientist" (quotes intended) who's absolutely, 100% certain of something he cannot absolutely 100% prove, and I'll show you a politician!

John, Bozeman, Montana

A panel of 25 scientists are 90% confident that Global Warming is to blame on humans. However, we must look between the lines. It is standard in studies to use a 95% confidence interval, this study uses a 90% CI. This shows that this study is not credible. What most likely happened is they used a 95% CI, the data was not statistically significant, and they did not get their desired outcome. Therefore they could not conclude that global warming is man made. If they decreased the CI, it is then likely they employed other methods such as eliminating unwanted data, or substituting data, in order to get the desired results. It would be OK to use a 90% CI if the results at 95% CI are also published. It is common practice, though, to use only a 95%CI. Also, the panel of scientists were politically appointed, so it is likely they have a political agenda. Global warming may very well be man made, but this study does not concur with that hypothesis.

A Rosario, San Diego, USA / Ca.

With China scheduled to build 2500 coal powered electric plants by 2020 nothing the west does will turn greenhouse gas emissions around.

Bill, Philadelphia, Penna

Antbody that believes in global warming, should come to wisconsin and surrounding states. I'd like to see Al Gore and friends come and pay my heating bill and shovel my driveway and side walk. Core samples show that the earth goes through cooling and heat changes. The past week , the temps have been pretty cold.

dan, germantown, usa

The wonderful thing about science is that it is driven by constant re-evaluation. The bad thing about it is that complex fields of study are almost impossible to convey in a 500 word newspaper article or a 10 minute slot on CNN.

THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ARE NOT SOLELY DEFINED BY EARLIER SPRINGS AND LESS ICE. The effects are wide, varied, and since each component of our ecosystems affects others in ways we cannot fathom, can also lead to isolated cooling events.


Furthermore, consider the precautionary principle. Consider that even if global climate change turns out not to be affected by climate change we lose little by acting as if it does. What do we have to lose from weaning our society from fossil fuels? from dependence on unstable oil supplies? Oil isn't finite, burning coal produces pollutants other than carbon dioxide, and technological innovation creates jobs.

Ruth, Hanover, NH

Measurements of cosmic rays since 1953 have shown no trend that is correlated with changes in temperature. No trend = no explanation for current changes.

Whether or not cosmic rays have an effect at a larger time scale has no impact on evidence that CO2 levels have an impact on current changes.

This study does not challenge the orthodoxy one bit.

Peter, Sunderland, USA MA

Jeff,

If the current weather is much worse that previously experienced then how the the glacier on top of your Michigan and my NYC melt? That must have been a pretty warm period. And how did those glaciers form in the first place? Would you like that to happen again? Seems to me the weather fluctuates quite a bit.

R. Baker, New York, NY/USA

Cutting carbons has additional benefits than merely its effect (minimal or not) on global warming. Why must "Global Warming" be a foregone conclusion for innovators to develop cleaner energy? I personally have my doubts about the extent humans affect global warming. That doesn't mean I think we have nothing to do with it and it doesn't make me an oil guzzling toxic spiller. I hate the smell of exhaust and diesel. the black smoke pouring from a truck or a buss exhaust appalls me, but history has shown that warming and cooling trends have occurred long before those items scarred our world. bottom line, whether or not we have anything to do with global warming we need to do something about our ridiculous treatment of our world; however, like it or not, I have to wonder if global warming isn't simply a convenient way to scare usually apathetic people into action. I also think we should look carefully at who benefits from the "sky is falling" tactic as well.

Yvonne, Los Angeles, USA

Not so much of the "We".
I have often railed against this brainwashing and credulity, especially of those oxmorons 'greenpeace' and 'FOE'.
My posts on Anna Shepard's weblog 'Eco-Warrior' and elsewhere point out some of the many factors that influece our weather.

John Gregory Flinn, Bealencourt , France

Unlike anything nature have (sic) ever shown before? You're joking, right? There is plenty of evidence of much more moderate climates, in times past, in many of the more frigid regions of this earth. All of you people out there with newly-realized scientific aspirations, do some research, please. Man has been burning carbon-based fuels, at a steadily increasing rate, for thousands of years, if for no other reason than to keep warm. Now, suddenly, there is a change to the climate at some exponentially increasing rate? Why, then, did climatologists state with conviction that global cooling was the issue, back in the 70's, and that they had data to support that hypothesis? The whole world seems to need a refresher course in the scientific method.

John G, Boulder, Colorado, USA

I tend to be a global warming believer, but if the skeptics are right, then all the better! I do have a sinking suspicion that pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere will have to unexpected results, but who knows - it'll probably take about 50 years before we really find out. If the alarmists are wrong, let's at least not kill off environmental sensitivities. We should applaud environmentalism for:
* Getting rid of the lead in paints
* Making the link between DDT and plummeting bird populations
* Working for sustainable fishing practices
* Getting rid of smog (I'm from LA)
* Stopping CFC production.

Chris, Long Beach, CA

Never mind that fact that big business like GE, BP petroleum are all getting into the "green credit" business where they take frozen levels of CO2 emissions and sell them to new plants and manufacturers. They sell solar power credits and wind power credits. Apparently this is a HUGE money maker for them and will gladly take your tax dollars to continue this business.

Sandy Santiago, Bedminster, USA, NJ

Within 10 years global warming will be exposed as the biggest scientific scam of all time. Unfortunately, this will tend to taint good science as well as bad, as the public becomes more and more cynical.

peter s drang, newfoundland,

there really are only two certainities....

Fossil fuels are finite

The global econonomy is based on fossil fuels.

It follows that redcuing dependency on fossil fuels would be wise while they are abundant.

If "global warming" is the mjesanger...whats the harm in all these reports....it seems we dont want to aniticipate life with out fossil fuels, its easier to scare people...with stories of climate change...and get change in behaviour...than to spread doom and gloom with stories of running out of oil

alec morrow, London,

Sensationalism is a manner of being extremely controversial, loud, or attention-grabbing. It is also a form of theatre.

I don't have anything against Al Gore but I would rather listen to the scientific community. If you think his production was the scientific community you should go back to watching Springer.

I'm more scared of Al Gore than I am of global warming.

"http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

NP , Midwest,

I always enjoyed talking about the weather, until now. It was a safe mundane conversation starter. People go bonkers over it today with entertainers preaching how the Earth will be destroyed by water from melted glaciers starting with their homes in Malibu.

Without a doubt, Urban Islands can cause changes in the climate around the cities. Phoenix, AZ stays pretty hot at night now. Consequently, the average night time temps have gone up considerably since they have been recorded, but it has little to do with greenhouse gases.

Did you know that the average person generates about 450 liters of CO2 each day? Someday the Earth lovers may be trading breath credits, deciding who can breathe and who shouldn't. Obviously, the people that disagree with them will be the first required to stop their breathing or pay dearly to continue.

Doug Carlson, Phoenix, AZ

bad headline. should have read: anexperiment that hint sthat "THEY" are wrong on climate change.

where do you get this "WE" business? i know climate chane politics are just a buch of hooey and i'm not a scientist.

charles cathey, marietta, usa/ga

Man made global warming is getting all the grant money right now. It's more than a type of religion for these people...it's a their source of income. Al Gore's scientists arn't even climatologists, their scientific background doesn't involve climate studies...yet he trots them all out as "climat experts"

Russell, mason, Michigan

When looking at heated scientific controversies, it is worth bearing in mind Max Planck's Principle of the progress of scientific ideas:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Nigel Calder will be 75 this year.

Ian, London, England

Even if we are wrong about global warming, we're right about cleaner fuels, more efficient energy technology.

Paul Lichtenberg, Pasadena, California

Regardless of the debate on weather we are causing global warming or not, NO ONE can deny that the human race is polluting our world to death. It's just a matter of how much time will go by before we have to live in self-sustaining environments as though we lived on the moon!
When will the ocean life die? When will the air no longer sustain life? This is why we have to stop pollution of all types. Maybe not our children, but their children and the existence of the human race in the long term depends on it. Anyone is just ignorant or in denial if they don't realize this.

Randy, Oro Valley, Arizona

Thank goodness for a more balanced view on the topic of 'global warming'.
Hundreds of thousands of well paid scientists and propagandists world -wide have turned global warming scares into a major industry. It is in their financial interest to propagate this hypothesis or myth and it is in the interest of governments to support the propaganda in order to be able to impose further swingeing environmental taxes.
Very few people dare to question the PC consensus on the effect of human activity on world climate. Almost 100% of the media accept it as a given fact and anyone who challenges the unproven 'science' is regarded as a moron.
Unfortunately, the population as a whole seems to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the constant propaganda.
Please let's have more questioning of dodgy science.
As Hitler once said: "the greater the lie, the more likely it is to be believed".

Alan, Milton Keynes,

I want to collect the 25 million for discovery of scrubbing CO2 from atmosphere. The answer: Trees.

Dan Eglof, Sanford, Florida

Let's postulate a new medical procedure having 90% likelihood of living through the procedure. Anyone foolhardy enough to risk undergoing this procedure should be welcome to pay for carbon dioxide "credits."

In epidemiology, 95% is just barely acceptable to form a conclusion. Why is 90% acceptable for human causes global warming?

Terry Kane, Atlanta, GA, USA

I'm afraid pushing a new book will cause some authors to say anything. You've built a historical house of cards and played them all, so not much new to look for.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

Same old fallacious flim-flammery from deniers. The problem is it isn't true. It's not the sun, the stars or the cosmic rays. It's CO2 from fossil fuels. Read it an weep. Inconsistancies in local weather patterns, all predicted in the global warming scenarios, don't disprove AGW in the least. They prove it.

Mark A. York, Sunland, USA/California

We're doomed. Even if we survive global warming as a species, the DNA of the idiots who believe this theory will still be in the gene pool. Who knows what crackpot theory their offspring will devise.

A. Clevland, Greenville, SC

Why think about what might happen hundreds of years from now when the temp. could go to 7000 f in two years.
It only takes a big bomb from our good friends in Iran and that's it.
Or They could cut off the oil from the world and we will not have many choices about anything. You think that corn will help next year? How about ten fifteen or more.
And what about all the people (poor) in the world that eat corn. Let them starve so we can go to our jobs if we have any that is.
This is all about money and power, that's all.

Shirley E Maunz, liberty center, oh

The best question to ask, it seems, is not whether we are to blame for global warming, but whether our industrial actions have a positive or a negative effect on the whole. It seems difficult to prove the latter, and thus seems wise to give the benefit of the doubt to the idea that we do have something to do with it, and to make positive change. If we simply null the debate as irrelevant, we may pay dearly. If we learn to have a softer impact on the planet and its resources, and global warming proves a hoax, there is nothing lost.

Nils, Santa Barbara, CA

I finally found a sane review of this so called global warming. The weather is always changing anyway. I just can't believe that we, human, can't even predict the weather out for one week and we are supposed to believe that the ice is going to melt and we are all going to cook!!! Come on people, get a life and get a clue. It is very arrogant of people to think that WE are causing the earth to get warmer. 30 years ago here in the US, when I was in elementary school, the very same scientists said we were all going to freeze to death.

Ron Symons JR, Cocoa, Florida USA

"While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean"

Really? What's all this about then? http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/

John Smith, Smithton,

Good to see a sensible opinion in the media for a change. It's ironic that those here who are most virulant against this point of view are from the country that takes the least action against the man-made global warming that they posit.

Paul Jameson, Poole, Dorset

Yes, let's vote for big government to make our choices for us. This is just another chance to tax and stifle inovation, heck maybe even set prices. You people are fools for going along with this crap. Give it a couple decades and you'll be proven wrong. Problem is, you'll be clamoring for the next big government intervention. You're like to ignorant masses in Atlas Shrugged. Wake UP!!!!

Pat, Dayton, USA/OH

It seems to me that the whole man-made global warming idea comes from the belief (yes, belief) that the earth is fragile, and that mankind is ruining it. If you believe in the fragile earth concept, then everything about global warming sees logical.

But if you don't then the big, hot ball of gas (the sun) sure seems like the likely explanation....

Greg, san jose, ca

Right- so CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and we shouldn't worry about screwing with the delicate atmospheric equilibrium which grants us the conditions that have allowed us to prosper as a species. Surely there is no correlation between the massive abundance of CO2 in Venus' atmosphere and its absurdly high temperatures. Surely the ice cores have been tampered with by "environmental radicals with a hidden agenda."
It may well be true that there are more factors contributing to our current situation than just greenhouse gases, but you can't argue that greenhouse gases don't have an effect. Therefore we NEED TO CHANGE. We learned long ago not to put the latrine next to the cooking fire, and it's that same common sense that drives us to be cautious with the things that keep us alive. Everything has to adapt to survive- what is so horrible about switching to cleaner fuels that we need to fight it with our dying breath???

Scott, Madison,

Cosmic rays cause cooling of the earth? Now that would be an inconvenient truth!

A. Gore, greentown,

How many years of consecutive solar cycle data do we have compared to climatological data?

Bubba, Minneapolis, MN

if this junk science that Al Gore promotes...(he truly is no scientist) says that greenhouse effect is caused by co2 emissions then they should be on the bandwagon for more nuclear power plants that are the cleanest things going... this would reduce our dependence on the middle east oil fields wouldn't it..? But nooooo.... just ask any greenpeace environut and they will spew more lies than you could shake a stick at about this type of clean energy. they'd rather have us burn more coal. Idiots...

dennis, Santa Rosa, california,USA

With all of the climate changes in the world, from tropics in North America to Glaciers overrunning much of North America, why is the Earth's temperature at this time the optimum desired normal temperature?

John Odegard, Omaha, Ne

I concur with everything that has been said. By the correspondents! We are being duped. A scientific case can be made for just about anything. For every proponent of GW there will be an exponent. It just so happens that at the present time the media is in the proponent corner.

Jim, Auckland, NZ

Who. Really. Cares?

You and I both know we won't do anything about it.

And stop worrying so much. Change is part of our lives.

If Europe loses the Atlantic Conveyor perhaps Africa and other continents will lose their deserts...

It will balance itself out, people. Sit down, relax and enjoy the ride because there is NOTHING you can do.

Jay Wergeld, New York, US

I don't care whether it is warming or cooling, or whether the cause is carbon use, solar energy fluctuations, interstellar radiation or the price of fish. But I do care deeply that we find explanations and solutions. We will only find the truth by using the truth - good science based on evidence and judged by peer review on a fair and level playing field. We may stumble on some partial solutions by other means but only by being more lucky than we deserve. A presumption that human activity is the principal cause of warming is as dangerous and wrong as a presumption that it has no effect. What do we need to do to solve climate change ? Answer - Promote objective study of the subject.

Harry Willis , Northallerton , North Yorkshire

Hey Bob, isn't the human body a GOD created system? It is? Oh. I guess I shouldn't bother with antibiotics next time I've got a case of GOD created strep throat.

Dan, Los Angeles, CA

Hey! Al Gore invented the internet, he must know about weather....right? I bet GW scientist would have said the earth was flat if they lived in that period.

It's time we except these theories for what they are THEORIES!

Chris, Waterboro, USA

Cosmic ray theory has no record of making correct climate predictions; CO2 infrared absorption theory has a good such record, dating back to Tyndall and Arrhenius. Hundreds of billions are annually collected in fossil fuel tax revenues, motivating governments to seek ways of failing to understand that the associated CO2 is harmful. And slip money to nuclear opponents, of course.

G. R. L. Cowan, Cobourg, Canada/Ontario

The brightness variations in the sun will have a direct effect on the temperature on the earh. They also have a direct correlation to climate changes in the past. While at the same time CO2 increased from 0.0266 percent to 0.033 percent. This is a minor and indirect effect. The sun wins hands down as a major factor and CO2 drops to a minor factor. Now with the cosmic ray-cloud discoveries, more pieces of the puzzle are appearing
When you consider none of the so called climate models take into account the effect of cloud cover we are trying to make predictions based on models that do not reflect the reality accurately... really stupid !

Patrick Stone, Santa Clara, Ca

Maybe the oxygen level is low on the other side of the pond. If you can't get this article and are still bent on making global warming the hottest issue, above global starvation, global militant Islamicists, tand other real issues, then you are seriously compromised.

The blame here lies not only on ignorant folks like yourselves, but also on the leftist media.

John Blythe, Redwood City, USA/CA

Who is wrong about climate change? There is no dispute among scientists today that global warming is real and is caused by humans. The only dispute is in the popular press where unethical journalists choose to write stories like this just because they can. Do your research next time and do our children, the inheritors of our climate problems, a favor by not creating confusion for your readers.

Kristen, Houston, Texas

Global warming is nothing but a money grabber to send to the under developed countries. Think not, Kyoto in its first 10 month EU countries purchased carbon credits in the tune of 20.1 billion dollars. China received just over 60