I think this is totally conjecture!

Richard Brown, Shelton, Wa

Whoever thinks theories, guesswork and conferences are going to help the climate normalize is in a fantasy world! We would not have to deal with this impending disaster at all were it not for the economic and political grip big business has on the reason our climate and earth may be doomed. Mankind has never been proactive.

Richard Brown, Shelton, Wa

The only thing you can do to 'act now' is to emigrate away from the UK, before the government taxes people out of existence, for something that is a tissue of lies and misinformation.

Paul Downes, Milton Keynes, Bucks

The build up of Carbon Dioxide is humankind's greatest threat to its very existence, but Carbon Capture, is putting off today what others will have to solve tomorrow. Politicians are pushing for CC, but the real motive appears to be the vast profits that multinationals will make and endow to them through taxation et al. The EU is no different here.

The World Innovation Foundation is the voice of the world's 'INDEPENDENT' scientific community This independence of mind away from the control of governments and multi-national financially supported entities, gives the WIF the ability to tell the truth.
Therefore with regard to just one possible aspect of trying to reduce the effects of global warming, that of carbon capture, what we are doing here is basically putting off as usual, problems that our future generations will have to solve tomorrow. Overall, politicians presently are dabbling with humankind's very existence.

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland

david hill, Bern, swiss

What the scientists are not willing to say is that all biological systems, including people, are in danger of extinction if nothing is done. Sea levels will rise for some three hundred years, then seas will start to dry up. That will take some five hundred years. The air will be to thick to breath, due to increased concentration of carbon and very reduced air oxygen. CH4 rain will gradually replace H2O rain. Temperature on earth will be hostile to life. We will all be gone by that time.

verify, Abidjan,

In the past ten years there has been an exponential melting of the ice sheets and a noticeable disintegration of the ice shelves, owing to 'global warming'.
> The loss of mass from the underlying Tectonics Plates causes them to ascend (iso-static rebound), and this results in an increase in the intensification and frequency of global seismological activity. The seismic data of the past ten years confirm this conjecture. Furthermore, the ice shelves impede the flow of glaciers and ice sheets into to the oceans; and when the 'polar regions' are subjected to unprecedented seismic upheavals, these events will then cause the ice sheets and glaciers to be dislodged en masse into the ocean!
> This occurrence will then instantly destabilize the earth's surface weight distribution (isostasy), and so precipitate a 'crust displacement' (Mag. 12). i.e., axis change! The previous subterranean extraction of fossil fuels will greatly exacerbate this impending Apocalypse

John Berbatis, Perth, Australia

Though it is unnerving and even frightening in a real sense, I agree with and support the scientific community's assessment of our dire world climate situation, as I do concerning the Peak Oil and fossil fuel crisis we are entering. The Bush government just doesn't seem to get or is unwilling to acknowledge (because of their own self interests) that "economic growth" is THE reason for global warming in the first place. How can it be that "investment", "technology", and "economic growth" are going to save the day? And even if this scenario were a remote possibilty (which it isn't), what will these "investors" invest in if there are no fossil fuels with which to build all of these alternative energy sources in the first place? The leaders and "investors" of Saudi Arabia, China, Mexico, India, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia, and etcetra are no better than our own. They seem to share some sort of collective insanity which allows them to pronounce a death sentence on their children. WHY??

David Kraus, Montpelier, Vermont

These are facts that have been known for 3 decades and promises from leaders that steps will be taken to reduce green house gases and there has been little action taken. we as a world are so depended on oil and the cash flow from it, so the rich get theirs and the poor continues to get theirs. we have the technologies to reduce the emissions farther than what is needed, but as long as the rich control the way we use fuel and what type of fuel it is that we use then we all stand no chance of change. we elect poeple that say one thing and then do the total opposite and we have to live with there lies until the next election then its some other different canidate promises of change and we buy into it again in hopes that their promises will change the we look out for ourselves and others and they fall way below the grade. so they guess that by 2050 the climate change will be so far out of range that there will be no way to recove. the use of technologies is there so lets us use it.

Chad L. Cook, Oklahoma City, OK

The Oxygen envelope around our Planet is now very, very thin. Not one Scientist is saying this fact. The melting Permafrost is putting a LOT more Carbon into the Atmosphere than all the Vehicles in the World. These are facts. Instead of trying to put a stop to, or at least slow this down, mundane excuses and solutions are being put out. There HAS to be more Tree plantings, and fewer cuttings of Trees, no matter which Country it is in. A stop, or severe slowdown in Building must be done, to save not only our Trees, but our OXYGEN. It is pure Madness to continue to chase a Monetary end, to see how much Money can be made, when the outcome is not just no Banks, but no People to go to them. Those that think they will just get into a Hole somewhere have a suprize coming. Everything is connected, or have I been the only one to notice the increase in Earthquakes in the past ten years? Somebody needs to wake up those that cannot see beyond their Noses, or into next week!

Wayne, Fairview, USA, N.C.

Science isn't determined by consensus no more than the consensus of a 1925 jury should have outlawed the teaching of the science of evolution. We're not deniers, we're reliers, relying on the Scientific Method. The history of the earth shows how dramatically, rapidly and repeatedly the climate has changed. What happened to the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska? Have sea levels risen a bit since then? What about the centuries of rain that has eroded the Sphinx in now-arid Egypt? What about deglaciation? What rapid rate of temperature change must there have been to melt the glaciers so rapidly catastrophic floods inundated the earth? What happened to cause the flash freezing together of great varieties of animals more typical of temperate climates along with humans in Alaska and Siberia between 11,000-9,000 BC? If it happened before industrialization, it can happen again, and therefore it can be happening right now without any influence from man. Stop this socialist con, NOW!

Douglas R. Chuhran, Marine City, USA/MI

"More than 200 scientists signed a declaration..." What happened to the 3000 scientists we here about in the news?

BobB, Chowchilla, California

It's too late already, this CO2 emission hype is a red herring, methane is the killer. It is a major greenhouse gas an is self perpetuating, more methane=more warming=more methane. It is unstoppable and we need to prepare now, adapt even, for the dramatic climate change that is accelerating faster than any of the scientist's, in my view, optimistic predictions.
Get ready to survive the worst case scenario and start preparing now, move if necessary, whilst you still can. If you are in a safer zone then at least think about how you might be more self sufficient when there are food shortages, long power outages, looting and anarchy are rife, as people everywhere panic and struggle to survive.
Remember Hurricane 87 in the south of England, no phones, electric, trains, just imagine that happening nationwide, it would be months before things would be anywhere near normal. Ireland and France and all of the UK would be in the same boat, so we could not call upon them for help as we did in 87

Mike, Haltwhistle, England

I am extremely disappointed (to say the least) that the New Government of Canada has chosen to be part of the group of nations who have decided to force the world down the latter route of these two options.

Robert Miller, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

until now whatever 'development' has taken place has been with humans as focus of attention. ecosystems and other life forms on earth have remained insignificant. with the approaching climate change we have a very difficult choice to make. we have to fcus on saving the ecosystems and other life forms. if they perish, humans will surely follow. will this be possible at the last minute? if so how is it to be done? will we be able to give up our desires and stop acquiring material wealth?

with climate change will come another worry, which is quantitative and qualitative availability of water, an issue which is unfortunately still to gain sufficient attention. city-centric development will be the inhibiting factor for water availabilty, so policies for adopting and developing methods for water conservation need to be designed and implemented without further delay.

Mahatma Gandhi has said that village development cannot be ignored to which very little attention has been given.

Arundhati, Pune,

It is tragic that it is very unlikely mankind will cut their emissions so fast and drastically that either abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided. Emissions will very likely raise due to a rapidly growing population and world economy. Besides, to avoid dangerous warming, the US would have to cut their emissions much more than the amount mandated by the Emissions bill now under consideration.

Instead, any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing some of the excess CO2 from the air. I suggest the low cost method of biosequestration (read my blog at www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for more information). Otherwise, there is a practical mechanical method for removing CO2 from ocean water.

We will end up spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to reduce our emissions, only to see our efforts accomplish too little too late. Besides, soon climate change will start costing us big time, leaving little resources to cut emissions.

Brad Arnold, St Louis Park, USA/MN