If man ceased to exist tomorrow the earth would still warm. Man cannot stop it. For mankind to think he/she can warm or cool the globe is arrogance to the highest degree.

However we do have the responsibility to be good stewards of the planet and cut back on pollution for health/spiritual reasons. The "stop producing energy" alarmist mentality would not be beneficial imho.

Jacob, Lexington, SC

FINALLY! Scientist that have competing theories on global warming are really starting to get heard. I'm SO glad Michael Mann's hockey stick has been thoroughly refuted as bad statistics and, um, selective data. There is some EXCELLENT research from the Max Planck Institute in Gottingen on solar activity and its impact. At last, we can see there is a true debate, not a "consensus" as the uber-liberal rags like the New York Times would try to brainwash us into believing. What An Inconvenient Truth.

There is no doubt that we should all be cognizant of taking care of the environment and I'm all for energy efficiency, clean air and clean water. Let's agree to have a sensible debate about how much we can control, how much it will cost, and what will be the impact.

Steve, New York, New York/United States

Energy affects its environment. When increased microwave radiation is absorbed into our environment due to (among others) thinned ozone, then that energy can cause warming. Our oceans represent 75% of global surface area, so if they absorb this energy they will become warmer. Also, they would (due to decreased photosynthisis in photo-plankton due to increased UV exposure) contribute less oxygen to the environment. Taken with Nigel Calder's, Lewis Smith's, and this authors opinions, serious consideration must be given to carbon dioxide as not the only culpret in this warming cycle. After all, Alaska and Siberia were once the tropical paradises' that absorbed massive solar energy and produced that lush green fodder that is todays oil fields:)

B. Forkish, Creedmoor, USA, NC

I recently saw a Danish TV show about Henrik Svensmark’s research. In it he said that during a conference 10 years ago when he fist presented his work it created strong emotion from the climatologist. He was even told by the head IPCC that his research was irresponsible.
I’ve put together a site on global warming http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com comparing the greenhouse gas warming and the cosmic ray cloud cover theory with available graphs and information.

Per Strandberg, Voss, Norway

"Wait 10-20 years and the reason for the upcoming demise of mankind will change to something else." Really? That long? My goodness isn't there a new fad - a new fear for the people - every two or three years? I've recently heard that radiation (nuclear sort) is good for us! Whenever politics or their proponents are involved even science gets bent, as always.

Yendis, Wallington, Australia

In every report that I have read (reports by real scientists, not these people with an agenda) support the idea that man's contribution to global warming is insignificant compared with natural events. How much carbon dioxide is spewed by erupting volcanoes? A lot more than man can contribute. Global warming is the next big hoax to be sold to a very gullible, easily excitable, very foolish, public in the world. There will be people, countries, and, governments that get very rich selling this snake oil and everyone else will suffer.

Mike, Pontotoc, USA

http://warmingwarning.blogspot.com is a new blog commenting the klimate debate i swedish, english and german

Sam, Stockholm,

Our sun IS A STAR! Therefore wouldn't it put out MORE cosmic rays during periods of "increased activity"? To suggest "cosmic rays" from distant stars have more of an effect on our planet than our own sun seems ridiculous. This planet has survived through much more devestating events than man could ever hope to cause. It wasn't so long ago we were being warned of a new ice age on the horizon. Wait 10-20 years and the reason for the upcoming demise of mankind will change to something else.

DM, Chandler, AZ,

It is a very misleading headline.
Henrik Svensmark,.........said the experiments suggested that man’s influence on global warming might be rather less than was supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.”


That's rather a long way from saying Cosmic rays are more to blame.

Besoeker, Ecclefechan, UK

Why would a self proclaimed expert on GlobalWarming disregard a parameter of climate not previously understood out of hand? Is 'science' really the work at hand?

Chris T, Nampa, ID

http://www.junkscience.com/ is a very interesting resource. It breaks down the information on a lot of major studies.

Alfred Alan, Joe, Montana

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html - this site charts solar activity and compares it to earth temperatures. Solar Calf.

AA, Pleasantville, USA

Will Gordon Brown now start to tax the universe?

A Jones, Glasgow,

The solution to global warming (if such a thing exists in any meaningful sense) is AIR CONDITIONING.

Sidney, columbia, South Carolina

See http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html for more strong correlations of solar activity vs climate on earth.

Dave W, San Diego, CA

Wow youz Brits sure somethin'. The cosmic ray study is quite significant. Solar irradiance has increase significantly since the 16th century. Cosmic rays have decreased. Henrik Svensmark as can many other researchers and research institutes can bear this out.
What makes you all so confident in the data sets we use to measure global warming? Most of the data is from surface sensors/meteorlogical weather stations. This data was never meant to act as a measurer of a global mean temperature. Within this data set you can have only one station that represents 1000s of square km's of area. A temperature sensor only measures the micro-climate in the immediate vicinity of the sensor. I am a meteorologist and I've done experiements that show multiple 'climates' and trends based on sensor placement around my neighborhood alone. Quite amazing really.
Folks, there is a 66% uncertainty in the surface data set...a .6C rise past 140yrs +/- .2C. Many questions/problems to be addressed here.

tom, SAINT PAUL, Minnesota

Hi Dave from Dallas,

Do you remember what kind of computers we used in early 70's?

Do you really want to compare mens' capacity to understand and predict the climate future now and 40 years ago?

Marcelo Junqueira, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Still the same old story. No one ever listens to the scientific community until people start dying and then it's "Yea you told us but why didn't you convince us"

Teegan, Dublin, Ireland

Ok, so the climate is changing. Enough of this "pointing the finger" at what or who is causing it, just fix the problem. It sounds like now we have an idea of how this is happening so one would think we would also have an idea or two of how to stop climate change.

not4you, New York,

That's not an evangelical point of view, that is just one person's point of view.

Jim, Bristol, USA

People seem to forget here that this would like our pollution only be a partial contributor to global warming.
But what worries me more is that nobody seems to realise that our pollution contributes to more than just global warming eg Cancer , birth defects ,accelerated aging, neural defects etc. and not just that! have you ever seen smogg? think about the depression and difficulties that aloe causes. i mean so what the equation for global warming becomes slightly more complex and all of a sudden its ok live in our crap.

Christopher, Dublin, Ireland

The article says solar activity is "at historic highs." Show me: Show me the level over the past 40-50 years is significantly higher than over the previous tens of thousands of years.

David, City, USA

Some points to consider when discussing global warming.The Earth has been warmer and colder than it is now but the problem we face is the rate of change. No living organism,plant, animal or human is capable of adapting to the swift rate of change in their environment.
Another point, 30 years ago the science behind global atmospheric change was in its infancy and anybody who stood up and said "Hey ,I'm an expert on this" would have been believed and there would have been no-one to claim he was right or wrong.

Something to bear in mind

Geraint Williams, swansea, UK

While cosmic rays may have a significant impact on the climate, there isn't any significant trend in the amount of cosmic rays hitting the Earth over the past few decades. I.e. If cosmic rays were responsible for the recent global warming, the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth should have decreased over the past few decades. They haven't. The Danish researchers have failed to address this significant flaw in their research.

Mark, Dublin,

Actually this theory seems to tie in with Piers Coburn's data that implies global warming is related to the cycle of magnetic field fluctuations of the sun. See for yourself:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm

The charts on global temp vs solar magnetic cycle match well. Superimpose Volcanic eruptions of significance (e.g Krakatoa caused the little ice age.. and you have the whole picture. Co2 is irrelevant. As is mankind - thinking he is at the centre of it all - and wrong -as usual!
The way I see it... where were the aeroplanes during the many ice age/tropical cycles of the previous millenia...???

Chris Cale, Canterbury, Kent

On an entertaining program on PBS, Bill Moyer interviewed an evangelical “scientist” who espoused the evangelical spin on the danger of planet warming and humans attempt to rectify its CO2' catastrophic effect.
The Evangelical position is that if God wants to warm us out of existence so be it we shouldn’t interfere with Gods will.
My answer is your right, we shouldn’t interfere with nature, and so the next time you are sick, I urge you not to go to a Doctor. Don’t intefere with Gods will, and lets hope that his will is to lead to your extinction

John, Long Beach, California

exactly, steve and glenn. :) I just don't understand how people can think what they do doesn't effect the earth. There are 6,525,170,264 [(July 2006 est.)
According to https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/xx.html] people in the world today, and scientists have proven that we affect the environment and need to do something globally about it.

Vanessa B., Kansas City, Kansas

What does Steve in Brisbane know that seems to have passed by almost all in government, most business and even a few in media?

Peter Martin, Ross on Wye, UK

Carl Rove is already issuing an invite to the white house for a special dinner to honor this great thinker and Dr. of alchemy who is brave enough to publicly support the president's own, dark-age view of weather science.

Guy F. Lowell, Reidsville, NC

I remember the hype in the early 70's about running out of oil, the coming ice age, mass global starvation, overpopulation killing us ALL by the 1990's....it's still hype. The fools who want the Earth to remain stuck in the 1960's forever are in for a big surprise. The Earth changes with or without mankind. It grows warmer and colder in a cyclic rhythm and has done so over the past several thousand million years. It will continue to do so. The Ice caps will melt, then they will refreeze, weather patterns will change. The Sun which fuels our weather, changes also. Hey, I'm all for getting rid of oil as a major source of energy...but come up with an alternative that is just as good and doesn't prevent social or economic stagnation and retreat. The solar system itself is experiencing a warming period. Mars is warming and the Moons of Jupiter and Saturn are also warming...according to the probes we have out there.
Kyoto can't change the Solar System...or the future...

Dave, dallas, Usa/Texas

Sadly, such reports will only take the back pages of the papers because it is not in line with Brown's excuse to pilfer more money from our pockets.

Pete, Cov,

Finally some scientists that don't have their head in the ground! Satellite data has shown that the earn is not warming. The only warming trends are noticed on the surface (possibly due to things like urban heating). Not to mention that the green house gasses that we produce are only about 0.003 degrees Celcius of the total green house effect every year (total effect is around 32 C, water is about 99% of that).

We have to realize that the universe is still a lot bigger than us, even with all of our technology.

Jason, Seattle,

This is a ridiculous suggestion. The major cloud systems are in the troposphere where the weather systems are active. This proposal is concerned with uppper atmospheric effects of the stratosphere and even higher involving small amounts of water vapour and at best tenuous clouds which are not significant on a global scale.

Garry E Hunt, West Wimbledon, London

Finally some scientists that don't have their head in the ground! Satellite data has shown that the earn is not warming. The only warming trends are noticed on the surface (possibly due to things like urban heating). Not to mention that the green house gasses that we produce are only about 0.003 degrees Celcius of the total green house effect every year (total effect is around 32 C, water is about 99% of that).

We have to realize that the universe is still a lot bigger than us, even with all of our technology.

Jason, Seattle,

At last, some science is being applied to the issue of climate change. Reducing airborne pollutants is a good thing but cloud formation, land usage and methane emissions are surely more significant to the changes being witnessed.

Nick, aku, Azerbaijan

The hot topic 30 years ago was that we were entering a new ice age. Now its global warming. Make up your mind, do you really think the climate makes such radical swings in such a short time frame?

glenn stettenbauer, reading, PA

this information doesn't change the fact that the Earth is warming and we need to do something about it

steve, Brisbane,

From graphs of temperature and CO2 content in the atmosphere over geological time there would appear to be only a weak correlation between temperature and CO2, it is also worth noting that on these graphs both the temperature and CO2 levels are very low compared over geological time.

Doesnt cosmic radiation intensity depend on what patch of space the earth is travelling through:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Bubble

Simon, Glasgow, Scotland