Here is a simple proof using commonly accepted numbers on Global Warming.

over the last 175 years (1832-2007):

Percent rise in CO2: 38%

Percent of anthropogenic CO2 contributions to total CO2: 3.207%

Concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere: 370ppm

_________________
Effective anthropogenic CO2 imprint on the greenhouse:
(38% x 3.207% x 370ppm) = 0.00000451%

Everything you have ever heard about global warming is false.

Michael Brandow, Tallahassee, FL

Ok people, I know this is hard to grasp, but this is basic science:

CO2 TRAPS HEAT.

Now there may not be enough of it in the atmosphere right now to be causing global warming, yes, but I think seeing as we have only the one planet to live on right now we should maybe watch the old carbon dioxide.

Not that it matters, when the rising sea levels flood half the world and the new ice age starts I'll be burning your SUVs and bits of your house to keep warm.

Martin, St Andrews, Scotland

How easy it must be to make a living out of casting doubt on science. I suspect Mr Durkins film would be ripped to bits if subject to the same legal review as Mr Gore's. Sadly one only needs to create controvesy to spread doubt and confusion, hears hoping clarity and common sense prevails

Bryan, Chester, UK

It's time for a world government with an enforceable mandate to identify and prevent any event that has a reasonable probability of being a globally catastrophic phenomena.

Fragmented democratic sovereignties are not capable of dealing with these events effectively.

Mark, Woking, UK

As I understand it, there are a number of gases that cause global warming, one of which is CO2. As humans we are responsible for only a small amount of the CO2 that is released into the atmosphere. As such I am extremely bemused by the theory that we as humans are driving climate change. It seems to make little logical sense.

Andrew brown, derby, UK

Rather than human life causing/increasing GW, could GW have increased/facilitated human life? Just a thought...

Roger, London,

"There are other fuels that are harmless for the enviroment and could easily covert to existing auto's (E85, biodiesel, etc.)" = False !!!!

if you look how they are made, biodiesel are bigger CO2 emmiters than oil!

Davy, Noumea, New caledonia

Some people just want to take the easy road of life and pretend that there is nothing wrong with the way we live mainly because it would be to inconvenient to accept it and have to make some changes! Al Gore and Time Magazine are right on track and are doing a fine job.
JS

JS, Monon, IN

Mr. Andreasen is on the mark. Good sense indicates using renewables and conserving depletables.
Our present trends in CO2 and CH4 emissions, led by the USA waste of over 20%,will put us in an atmospheric chemical environment not found in measured core data since about 600,000 years ago, when I suspect we were not around in our present Homo Sapian Sapian form. If one accepts that Nature will cause an adjusted atmospheric/oceanic chemical equilibrium to occur to accommodate this high content of Green House Gasses, as all geophysical data and experimental evidence seem to indicate, then our progeny and possibly we can expect to experience environmental impacts that occurred at the time 6000 centuries, possibly 30,000 generations, ago.
Why expose ourselves and our progeny to this unexperienced, almost undefined unknown, when all it takes is reducing waste, that also helps us save on fuel bills, and puts us, efficiency wise, more in concert with Nature?

Joseph L. Goldman, Alpine, Texas

I remember from school chemistry lessons that C02 is heavier than air.

So why are there not low -lying areas of the planet's surface now uninhabitable due to C02 concentrations at nose level?

I too am convinced that Green is the new Red.

Peter, Auckland, NZ

We are running out of fossil fuels =Fact

Fossil fuels are toxic for human and the enviroment=fact

There are other fuels that are harmless for the enviroment and could easily covert to existing auto's (E85, biodiesel, etc.) = Fact

Our children will suffer from are ignorance in reforming our Planet= Fact

Dr. Kyle Knapp, Richardson, Tx

It doesnt hurt to have another opinion. I saw a documentary on global dimming the other day that opened my eyes. Pollution is actually keeping the earth cool as well as heating it up! I feel that people are too likely to jump on the bandwagon when anyone poses a new theory. Whether or not we all need to "get off the grid" or sue Gore for his findings and attempt to educate others seems to me a bit foolish. Only time can tell what impact our actions have on the environment.

Believe what you want to believe in, fight for what you believe, but remember that others are doing the same exact thing.

Paul, Downey, ca

Sure - sounds political, but isn’t everything now a days. Why was it so easy to believe that CFC's were harming our environment, namely the ozone layer, but so hard to believe that CO2 is actually causing any harm. If you recall CFC’s were only in refrigerants such as Freon found in cars + A/C’s and as a propellant in spray cans. There were not many sources of CFC’s if you think about it, but it was more than enough to harm the ozone layer over the course of two decades. There are millions of sources of CO2 that spew tons of it a year, but many people find it hard to believe it has no impact on the environment whatsoever. This is something to think about.

Al, Miami, FL, USA

"...to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change..."
You cannot undermine what is not there.

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

Jonathan Leake fits very well the picture of a scribbler who parrots the gospel of the Holy Church of Global Warming. And, whoever does not agree with his baseless prejudices is defamed in a primitive manner. Just look at his wording: tormentors, notorious, right-wing ... what highly scientific language.

Otto Wildgruber, Dormitz, Germany

I am suspicious of the propaganda around Global Warming as it sees like just another political band wagon and from what I can tell there is plenty of money already being made which is what rings the alarm bells. Furthermore, many of these carbon offsetting businesses that have sprung up have not had their own impact on the environment suitably assessed or alt all for that matter.

That being said, it also makes sense to me to reduce our impact on the planet wherever possible. And on a more fundamental note, surely progress dictates that we move past our reliance on the old technology of fossil fuels?

Andrew, Cape Town,

Do you seriously think that these politicians really care about 'global warming'? Global warming, like everything else that the politicians preach about- is nothing more than scare-mongering.... indeed, we might be changing the state of the planet... but politicians don't care less about this- these are the people (such as Al Gore... who drove around in a big gas-guzzling tourbus when he was campaigning for president) who dictate to you to use less water, use less electricity, use less this, use less that- whilst they drive around in 4x4's and waste all the water and electricity that they want. They want your vote, they want money from you. Global warming is their new money-spinner!

Zoe, Liverpool, Britain

True view by a commentary:All we do is hate, lie and kill anyway. And we hide in the sand. Fact: things that usually grow in warm areas are growing in cold areas. Our forest are now 1/3 of what they were lets say 100 yrs ago. We get oxygen from trees and they swallow carbon dioxide. Too much carbon dioxide means more sun rays not escaping but instead warming our Earth. Ice mountains no longer have ice so more water into ocean. True that nature does this on its own but its a much slower process. We instead have accelerated it in a short time period. THE LIKES OF MONCKTON DO NOT WANT TO TIGHTEN THEIR BELTS. WHY SHOULD THEY? THEY ARE HAVING THE GOOD LIFE AT THE EXPENSE OF US AND THE FUTURE.

Zana Hepperly, Sedona, USA/ Arizona

As with many others, I was confused by the claims of the pro- and anti-global climate change arguments. So I decided to look at the data myself. I have a masters degree in systems engineering and am considered an expert in the analysis of complex systems. Here's what I concluded: (1) The earth's climate is changing. Always has. Always will. (2) The global temperature has increased by about 0.6 degrees C since the beginning of the industrial revolution. (3) About 80% of the increase is from natural causes and 20% from human activity. For this 0.15 degree increase we have received unprecedented global prosperity and improvement in the human condition. Summary: human activity has a minor impact on global climate that can be fixed by reasonable means. Politicians and demagogues are exploiting this to their own ends.

Frank Graham, Tucson, USA/AZ

Gore's film will never be beyond reproach. It was intended to be propaganda for a big swindle. There are carbon resources enough for everyone. The oil shale of Colorado to Utah have enough carbon for 1,000 years for the US. By then we may have overcome some of the NIMBY issues around peaceful use of atomic energy.
Gradual inflation is the core of current prosperity and shutting the industial world down using scare and propaganda is brutally cruel.

Francis Manns, Toronto, Canada

Just a note with reference to Krakatoa, tsunamis, solar variation and Mother Nature's other overwhelming displays of force.... Mother nature will do what she wills with us and there is little that we can do about it.

However, it cannot be disputed that we CAN improve our lot here on Earth. We do not have to live in a cesspool of industrial waste. We do not have to breathe polluted air and drink contaminated water. We may have nothing to do with global warming, but that does not mean that we shouldn't try very hard to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, cut the emission of unhealthy gases and minimize the production of toxic wastes. Let's eliminate the political aspect (and blatant lies from both sides) of this "crisis" and get on with it. As Homer (Simpson) might say ... "doh."

Brett Little, Boston, USA

I would like to think that there are some people who will be open-minded and scientific and will see the anthropogenic CO2 warming theory as a very, very good theory, which we ignore at our great peril, but flawed, particularly as an accurate guide to future climate change. The kind of ritualistic name-calling that passes for debate in some quarters won't help.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Only a few thousands of years ago,the area where I am now sitting was covered with a thick ice sheet,the kind that persisted,the kind that didn't go away.Today there are trees and grass and birds along with balmy temperatures here.Man didn't contribute to this warming trend until quite recently.,if at all.There have been several of these ice age and melting cycles in the earth's history,and there will probably be more.There are many contributing factors to this recent warming trend,including,but certainly not limited to,the hot air coming from Al Gore.

ron, toronto,

Once again the "Flat Worlders" pull their heads out of the sand to trash the work of leading scientists from around the world. They and their like are in denial that there are changes in the climate which appear to mirror the increased consumption of carbon based energy. The world can follow their hypothis and do nothing and wait until they are proven right or wrong or rapidly reduce theuse of carbon based energy and moniter the changes to the atomsphere when we reduce CO2 emissions. Either way there will be changes to the atomsphere. I vote towards caution rather then do nothing.

And as Poul Anderaeson pointed out in his commentary, there is a finate amount of fossil based energy left. Since the world must change its sources of energy, it makes sense to find sources which do not spew CO2 into the atomsphere as do oil and coal. The 20th century will be known as the cnetury of waste, the 21th should be the century of conservation.

Lawton Maner, Williamsburg, Va, USA

The problem with Gore's GW hypothesis is that he has not proven conclusively that correlation is equivalent to causation.

The Earth appears to be warming. Granted. Several studies have indicated that increases in carbon emissions and carbon's measured levels in the atmosphere appear to correlate with this warming trend.

At first glance, a hasty individual may leap to the conclusion that since carbon is being poured into the atmosphere AND the Earth is getting warmer, then carbon emmisions must be CAUSING the Earth's warming.

However, that's the fallacy which is now being pointed out by many other scientists and it's why many individuals are losing patience with the anthropogenic GW crowd. Simply, corellation does not IMPLY causation.

As repeatedly pointed out, many other causes for GW could exist (and which may also explain accumulation of C in the atmosphere ). Until each of these other possibilities is conclusively disproven, no one can state a conclusive cause.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

We could argue all day whether or not there is a God. The real question is: does religion make the world a better place?

Whether or not OUR pollution is contributing to climate change, would cutting back on emiisions make the world a better place?

Anyone who would oppose making the world a better place is either capitalizing on doom and gloom or polluters.

kari brown, Lake Tahoe, USA

The reasons people are opposed to nuclear power are:

1. There are NO SAFE means to dispose of the waste
2. The subsidies the government gives the industry are needed so they can turn a profit.
3. These government subsidies should be used on sustainable, clean, US made, readily available energy sources.
It really doesnt have a think to do with submarines.

StevenAK, Pittsburgh,

what is happening to the world?

jasmine hamilton, beechworth, victoria

I see the world as being lazy as to the way we deal with everything. What happened to all the hard working people who while working to make a living also cared about what the consequences were. Automakers are the worst, in America all they want is to make a fast buck, no quality, at least not for a reasonable price, andbeing behind every smaller country in gas mileage and cleaner air,I believe it, I've seen it, so it is true.

MO, Otsego, USA

1. The judge ruled the Al Gore film was broadly right in its conclusions.

2. Leading climate scientists are warning that major sea level rises this century are a real possibility, a danger whitewashed by the IPCC. See http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/03/a-sudden-change-of-state/#more-1072 and his source reference 1.

Jim, London, UK

Patrick of Ottawa:
1- I'm older than you and I see little difference.

2- Sunspots reflect the sun's variable magnetic field-strength, not its temperature, which is fairly constant.

3- The South Pole is not warmer than 'average', whatever that is.

4- Not relevant to the global warming argument.

5- However many actual climate scientists IPCC has, and however 'convinced' they 'seem', the evidence is poor and the IPCC is a political, not a scientific, body.

6- Yes, the whole thing is based, not on scientific observation, but on 'feedbackology' - the assumption of theoretical mechanisms which are unobserved or unmeasured or blithely extrapolated from the test-tube to the planetary scale. These are used to multiply the real data and produce 'virtual' disasters. Needless to say the magic meltdown feedbacks only work in the future, and can only be triggered by the tiny warming effect of CO2, but not by comparatively gigantic temperature hikes like the El Nino of 1998.

Thank You

John B, Middlesbrough, UK

The population of the world about 100 years ago was under 2 billions. It is now over 6 billions and is projected to peak at 9 billions. They all eat, they all need heat, they all pollute.

The world should combat this global crisis by educating the women. I think the only aid we give should be to build schools, train the staff, and fund the teachers. Nothing else.

Its not my carbon footprint thats the problem, its the fecundity of a lot of people in the rest of the world.

No kids, no interest, not a believer in the hyped up by arts graduates hearsay that is global warming.

Have less kids. Problem will eventually go away. And I suspect the polar bears and penguins will have an easier life if humans aren't competing with them for food.

David B, Larkhall , UK

Such junk. Al Gore is terribly wrong on more than just 9 facts. Milankovitch, people.... Milankovitch.

Samantha K, Phoenix, USA

Re: With the current trend in energy consumption, fossil fuels will last only some 20-30 more years.

I was told the same thing as a sixth grader in the early 1973...Understand that incomplete and even false data is used to manipulate the public. An example, the US Navy has run hundreds of ships and submarines on nuclear power since 1954. However, the eco-nazis in this country effecively scared the public into thinking nuclear power is a timebomb. So, we have not commissioned a nuclear power plant since the mid 1970s. The United States could have been independant of foreign oil imports if we had pursued nuclear power. We need clear thinking and honesty to make the right decisions about our future energy policy. We don't need those with a pathological need for attention using contrived information to lead us into the future...

Scott Wiggins, Charleston, SC/USA

Obviously these people have more pounds than sense. I'd sail right over to the UK and tell them off, but I'm too afraid of falling off the flat Earth.

John McIlray, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA

What a load of rubbish how can you give a nobel peace prize to him, the world as changed for centurys, and its funny how when there is a crises people seem to crawl out of the wood work ans seem to know all the answers, wots hapened to the ozone layer that seems to have been forgoten

Gary Gardner, bilston,

Do we have to listen to this small minority?? Who is behind the high court challenge?? They were very coy when interviewed on PM. What happened to the precautionary principle?? If the scientists are 90% right we are going to find life very uncomfortable. Do we want leave a world to our children that is unsustainable. Surely it won't kill us to give up some aspects of modern living. Cycling is good for our health and saving energy in the home is good for our pockets. Why are people so selfish ???????

Magapanthus, Merseyside, UK

Another 'world is flat" nominee no doubt.

Emma H., Ottawa, CAN

Gradual inflation of currency over the years allows todays resources to become tomorrows reserves. These are economic definitions that allow prosperity to grow as currency inflates. You may find it hard to appreciate but by the manner our quality of life has improved and lifespan has lengthened over the industrial age has been exponential. Granny might not understand the words, but she would recognise that modern productivity has given liesure time as in no other time in history. For information's sake - the oil sands in Alberta and Saskatchewan Canada duplicate the middle east, and the oil shale in the US has enough carbon to last the US 1,000 years. The Uranium supply in Saskatchewan are a similar story.
Fear of the future is insanity. The planet has enormous resources remaining. Eistein has said If only we could come to grips with the nuclear age, we could have paradise on earth. The NIMBYs do not have a clue what the future could hold. CO2 IS PLANT FOOD.

Francis Manns, Toronto, Canada

There are so many things to say about this issue, I know not where to begin but here goes...

1- I am only 44 years of age and I have seen significant changes in my local climate, not to mention the global changes that seem to be occurring.

2- Assuming there has been an increase in sunspots over a long period of time?, sunspots are actually cooler areas of the surface, NOT hotter.

3- The temperature increases at the Earth's polar regions are far greater than the "average." When the north polar ice cap is gone, what then?

4- Using fossil fuels creates so many problems anyway: smog in cities, increases in cancer rates & asthma, wars & conflicts to protect our supply chains, etc..

5- Only 1 scientist on the I.P.C.C. board? What about the other 2485 researchers and scientists who seem pretty convinced of their assertions? Why do we question the integrity of ONLY those scientists we don't like?

6- Positive feedback phenomena is the really serious issue here!

Thank You.

Patrick, Ottawa, Canada

I have no vested interest in whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real or not, other than the interests of an inhabitant of the earth. I also have a masters degree in systems engineering and am considered to be an expert in data analysis and systems modeling. So I looked at the data carefully and, to the extent possible, ignored the hype from both sides. My conclusions: (1) The earth's climate is changing, always has and always will. (2) The earth has warmed since the dawn of the industrial age by about 0.6 degrees C. (3) About 80% of the increase is from natural causes. (4) Our payoff for a 0.15 degree increase in global temperature is worth the cost: prosperity on a global scale and tremendous improvements in the quality of human life. In summary, I believe that we are responsible for a slight change in global temperature. I believe it's a minor problem that can and will be fixed. I suspect that politicians and others are blowing this out of proportion for their own ends.

Frank Graham, Tucson, USA/AZ

There was "consensus" among many Germans during the reign of Hitler that Jew's were the reason for all of Germany's ills. Boy were they off the mark. Please politicians need to stick to naming state flowers, and kissing babies. As for all of the experts, go jump into the ocean. It is warmer. The earth will do what it will do, as it has proven time and time again. It controls us not visa versa. Karakatoa, the 2004 sunami, Katrina, are just a few examples of how insignificant we really are. If we do end up exterminating ourselves its just as well. All we do is hate, lie and kill anyway. Wow, I am really crabby. More coffee!! Got to go. chao bella.....

Tom, Stillwater, USA / MN

There's a lot of confusion in the public's mind. As I see it

Global warming is a fact. It has happened many times before, is inevitable, and will be a humanitarian disaster unless politicians get to grips with its implications very soon.

Anthropogenic global warming is a weak hypothesis that does not explain the observed facts but does provide a politically convenient excuse to raise taxes, blame everyone else (including other politicians) for the disaster, and do nothing to avert it.

Al Gore is a politician.

Alan Calverd, Bishops Stortford, UK

Why not follow IPCC and Gore EVEN IF their predictions should turn out to be dead wrong?
With the current trend in energy consumption, fossil fuels will last only some 20-30 more years. Energy policies take time to implement.. So we seem to be better off if we start right now implementing alternatives and promoting energy conservation ...

Poul Andreasen, Copenhagen, Denmark

I would just like to point out a few issues :

1) Nobody actually knows what the 'Earths Climate' is - as it follows cycles, at some stages there have be 'Ice Ages' somtimes so hot nearly all species died out (Permian).

2) We are either a) coming out of an ice age or b) in an interglacial period ( thats right Ice Ages are also cyclic, the ice growing and retreating during the Ice Age)

I have no doubt some scientists believe man is responsible for this change as there some that dispute this. What annoys me is the 'politicians' jumping on a bandwaggon and using scaremongering tactics and pseudo-science. It appears now thet everyone is a climate expert and anyone who mildy questions or disputes the 'It's our fault the worlds climate will change and we're destroying the planet' mantra, is branded as a heretic.
I would like to go back to some healthy debate ....

James , Munich , Germany

Breaking News!

For thousands of years intelligent people have known the moon is made of cheese. Clear thinking people have known this obvious fact over the centuries. However, a recent and grandiose scheme has recently come to light, one designed to change the attitude of the unthinking masses for subversive reasons, and you are to read about it here for the very first time.

A United nations sponsored scientific study, involving several thousand scientists in the primary research and thousands of others around the world concurring on the peer review of the results, last year reported on the conculsions of a decade long study. It's conclusion? There's "an extremely high probability" that the moon is actually comprised of nothing but rocks and minerals. No significant cheese at all that can be determined.

Today, however, Doctor Wut A. Leptose, a scientist at the Lillidispution Foundation who specializes in moon studies, reported that the moon has been known to naturally go t

John Craig, Parker, CO, USA

I have no doubt that propaganda is being deployed by both sides of the argument. However, since nobody actually disputes that the world is getting hotter, it hardly matters whether it's our fault or not. The point is, it will have some very unpleasant consequences and we are the only species on the planet which might, just might, be able to do something about it (though I personally doubt that - given that we only contribute about 3% of CO2). But one has to try - and asking that everyone conserves resources, and trying to develop more efficient and eco-friendly technologies seems merely the sort of thing we should have been doing all the while. Being humans, of course we didn't. But why argue now about how much dead industrialists were to blame since the Industrial Revolution? Or whether a polar bear has actually drowned yet, or merely expected to in the next ten years? Methane seems to be as much of a problem. How about a methane-offset tax on beef cattle and lamb.

monica, guildford, UK

These guys obviously care little for their fellow man and much for the money they get by posing a fools point of view. They make me ashamed to be part of the same species.

stueysplace, Athens, Ontario Canada

I cannot believe that anyone would say that just because you have a degree in one thing, that you have no intelligence in another. Sounds like someone is trying to maneuver prejudice against his competitor and is looking to disrobe his respectability. Tut-tut. I am a former elementary teacher, but I have enough intelligence to know that we have the solution to much of our pollution at our fingertips via the electric car (which was scrapped supposedly because it wouldn't get more than 150/mpc to a gasoline engine at 300/mpg--and how many people go more than 150 miles a day?). Solar energy cells don't pollute and have a lifetime of 30 plus years. But these solutions don't perpetuate money into the hands of big business, hence the solutions are discarded. Now our manufacturing, which we had some control over while in our own country, has now gone to China (and other places which do not have these tough pollution controls), who plans more coal-fired, pollution-belching plants.

Janet Hyder, Elizabethton, USA, TENNESSEE

The biggest question would be, which version of Swindle are they planning to send to schools? The film has already been modified and reissued many times due to blatant inaccuracies throughout that make Gore's film beyond reproach by comparison. It is littered with the same handful of skeptics spouting the same diatribes that have all been redressed within the scientific community, not to mention the laughable "global conspiracy of scientists" premise on which the film is based.

Michael Flint, Tampa, FL, USA

"George Monbiot, an environmentalist and critic of Monckton, said: 'He is trying to take on the global scientific establishment on the strength of a classics degree from Cambridge.'”

Don't you hate it when people use reason against consensus?

William F Naegele, Albuquerque, NM USA

George Monbiot has got a cheek criticizing Christopher Monckton for ".......taking on the scientific establishment on the strength of a classics degree..." He himself only has a degree in zoology, not physics, chemistry, geology or climatology and it is a matter of public record that the board of the oft referenced IPCC only contains one scientist. Te rest are all economists and philosophers or historians. So much for the scientific veracity of their pronouncements.

Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK