One has to seriously consider robert of vancouvers comments because all the rhetoric in the world will do nothing unless the big big boys causing the majority of the problem stop immediately. Enough time has been given to them already and they do nothing but talk. The little person sorting this and that may make a small change but nothing compared to what is needed.

As world governments and scientists, despite their good intentions, have no teeth when it comes to fighting the problem in real terms. The big boys are too big, It is not about money being poured into this and that but major polluters stopping. If America and China cut they production immediately the rest of us may feel like trying much harder. To hit the little people and not the big boys seems at best cowerdly

Chris Wales

Christine, Pwllglas, Clwyd

This planet can support all of us
if we reorganize things a little. First of all the gossip and fashion magazines should be banned - surely the human race can survive without them - and how many trees will be safed!
Only important news should be printed in newspapers, the rest will be accesable on the internet.
Then the goverments should spend more money and effort to fight the forestfire, coastal pollution, stream pollution from the factories, etc.
But guess what - you're not going to see this happen couse big guys don't want to lose their money - instead it's the poor and the middle class who have to pay extra taxes and nobody knows where this money will go!

victoria smirnoff, London, UK

Robert from vancouver writes: "Take me for instance, I gave up already and do not care any more. The decline is far worse than any report will show or any Brave Softy will reveal. All is too late, but it will last my days.
I refuse to separate my garbage or turn off my idling car engine while the big polluters laugh at all the Brave Softies who still do."
Multiply that kind of naivety by 'x' and you have the real problem. It's all down to you and me. Each and every one of us. As for me, I'm selling the car I bought to learn to to drive. I've got by so far without it and will continue to do so in the future. A small contribution to the solution of the problem. What will you give up?

Sun, Southend, united kingdom

If this is as bad as we are led to believe ... why are we still allowing uncontrolled vehicle manufacture; allowing plastic manufacture; why are we not limining commuting; stopping flying; not using nuclear fission instead of fossil fuels; banning plastic bags in supermarkets? Our little bit of recycling isn't even touching sides! I can't think that all this is serious .. the Americans, Indians, Chinese etc aren't doing much, if anything, about it -- and they share the same environment as us. Toxic waste in India or Pakistan has the same effect on us as it does on them. Just another tax!!!!

Steve, horsham,

I wonder if the dinosours made this fuss ?

James Mckeown, Kent, UK

This is the result of (human) over population. Less people means less pollution. From this, you can draw or make your own conclusions.

andy smith, st albans, England

We can be certain that nothing TOO desperate will actually occur until the Delegations are unable to think of
another suitable EXOTIC setting for the NEXT meeting !!!

Arthur D Siggs, Crowborough, Sussex, ENGLAND

It would be helpful to the layman if scientists could document the evidence for "man-made" climate change more clearly to the general public. As the ice-cap recedes at the South Pole, dead leaves have been found underneath it. That means there were once forests there. In other words, natural climate change, with the ice-caps alternately increasing and decreasing in size, has been in operation since long before human beings ever appeared on the planet. What experiments have been conducted to prove that the current diminishing of the ice-caps is "man-made"?

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

It makes me laugh, comments from people who cannont see the reality of global warming all aroud them, they only see it as a way to tax there wealth, yet they live in a country where 90% of the population have an unmoving belief in God who does nothing to stop the misery suffered by a greater majority of the world population. God save America... sorry but global warming will happen to all, just the rich will be able to prolong the suffering longer, until money no longer has value anyway.

Mark, Vannes,

Karen I think your right about govts and economies, most of my fellow proud Americans dont want to be at fault either, for fear of having to change lifestyle. My view for them is this ...Noone has to bear the blame, and if global warming is a natural cycle the point remains, ...If its 140C or minus 140C , humans need air and water and when thats shot, your dead, simple. Global warming be a result but pollution is the cause of many problems, as well as obvious to everyone.

Robin, Fremont, Ohio

To claim that 'we' are responsible for any instrance of global - i.e. world-changing - phenomena is an example of human arrogance at its worst. Even though the liberal climate-change brigade may argue against this viewpoint, the natural cooling-warming cycle cannot be ignored.

Yes the world is warming, but not to such a degree that a mass-extinction will be triggered. It is just that eco-systems will change. The human race will not die: we are sufficiently adaptive to counter any change.

All of this is merely scare mongoring - and an excuse to make money. The 21st century is an example of too much education, too much voice, too much freedom - and not enough nouse.

Wake up you idiots! Yes, we should conserve fuel. Yes it is good to recycle. Yes it is good to reduce polution. But all of these climate changes would happen without us.

Any long-term solution would recognise the necessity of deep-space colonisation and a de-population of Earth...but that costs money, doesn't it?

LJ, Bekasi, Indonesia

And the UN/IPCC con rolls on. Another week, another breathless PR announcement declaring the end of the world. But wait! Help is at hand! Just give the UN & their coterie of 'experts' a few billion in handouts for more of their 'projects' and all will be right once again. Funny the way that works.

Oh, and a shoutout to the Times for running yet another picture of cuddly polar bears on an ice floe. One might almost think the global warming debate is driven by warm fuzzy emotions than hard scientific fact.

Rob, London, UK

"Is this the end of life as ( we ) know it?"*
We used to scorn those who held up a placard announcing the "The End is Nigh".
As the nemesis of Nature demolishes myth after myth that this civilisation is built on, when will nations face reality and take concerted and serious actions to limit the ineluctable catastrophe that awaits humanity?
For it is ever clearer as each day passes that our whole way of living is self-destructive and totally wrong.
"A seemingly simple question ; how is it that serious persons still continue to believe in Progress, when the most solid of proofs should have led them to abandon this idea, once and for all?" Christopher Lasch, "The One and Only Paradise", 1991.
*"Is this the end of life as I know it?"Article by William Rees-Mogg in "The Independent" of 21st. December, 1992, page 17.

Jeffrey Moore, Toulouse, France

If the government and Europe generally are serious about climate change, when can we expect to see Gordon Brown and co traveling in Diesel Fiat Pandas or similar vehicles and using video conferences instead of dashing all over the world.
Of course it is sensible to cut down on energy use, but I do not see how it is possible to reduce the UK's usage by 60% without a drastic reduction in standard of living. Perhaps someone could explain how it could be done, without using entirely Nuclear Power.

K Wells, Bognor Regis Sussex, England

Well said Adrian. The rest is just wallpapering over the cracks.

There are too many people on the planet!

Paulo, Milton Keynes,

We needed a panel for this?

Farrukh, Woking, UK

Hi Franco, do you know that Florida shall be one of the regions due to go underwater?
M. Saviolakis, new sources of energy are already here, we need simply to use them instead of going looking for the last barrel of oil. Then, if you want to remove people from mankind, you ought to start from the richest countries, the one that consume and pollute more. Ready for this?
Robert, we should do something anyway, but I also think that it is too late. But we can avoid the worst consequencies. Homo sapiens is an aggressive species unable to think to its future. Perhaps the Neanderthal, perfectly adapted to ice age, were better...
Monsieur Doug, how can you help the poor now, if you don't care about extinction of mankind? That's amazing.

Vincent Cole, Rome, Italy

Any technical fix is at best a sticking plaster. Even if we all halved our carbon footprint, climate change would inexorably continue because we will still have carbon footprints that are too big and too damaging.

There are two elements to a real solution. We can pay young women to be sterilised throughout the world and the Catholic Church will have to promote birth control. Compared to anything else, this solution would work. It would or course present its own huge difficulties and it would still require us all to use less energy.

This is the cheap, effective, option.

Norman Furnell, Penshurst, England

'Overcrowded, corrupt hellhole like Bangladesh.'

That's right, Franco - sit pretty, here in the West, after two centuries of wealth built on fossil-fuelled driven industry and colonial empires, and toss your judgement around on the mess you've left behind.

Dhaka - formerly Dacca - was a world textiles centre, two centuries ago. Then the British arrived.

Climate change needs everyone's help - including that of developing nations, and at multiple levels (energy efficiency, clean new energy, strong economies, and good governance). We will suffer the effects of climate change as much as - worse than - everyone else. We need to act, along with the developed world.

But that, we will do out of our own sense of duty, for a planet we share.

Don't for a minute assume you in the West have the moral standing to 'require' it of us.

VV, Cambridge,

I think the 'genie's out of the bottle' in relation to humans and climate change. Those nations that have already experienced the 'boom' in their economy won't be able to resist generating the kind of 'economic fusion' that continues to fuel it. Those nations still experimenting in order to bring about their own 'big bang' will rape the planet for whatever they need to ensure that their own 'mushroom cloud' of prosperity explodes.

If United Nations had power to act rather than to warn, there may be hope. The fact that it doesn't indicates that member states have got what they want - a talking shop where they can wring their hands and express concern - but continue to dump with impunity.

Human beings have short life spans; most governments (luckily) much shorter ones. No-one is protecting the future because it is not going to be their own future.

In the words of a song from the musical "Avenue Q" - 'everything in life is only for now'. In fact, 'life is only for now'.

Christopher Gough, Orpington, Kent

I have to say that the IPCC reports are becomming more and more shrill as the science becomes less and less convincing (see www.climateaudit.org to find out just how well trained climate scientists are in statistics).

Mankind has many problems at present, not the least of which is over-population. To the doubters, yes, I have decided not to have children and am therefore doing my bit. However, at the same time many of us are being asked to make sacrifices, there are religious zealots running around the third world telling people contraception is evil. If I were to make a simple suggestion, it would be that mankind should set his priorities according to need, not according to the funding requirements of a rather obscure branch of science (weather forecasting) that has so far failed to provide any convincing evidence that its hypothesis is valid.

Charles Gray, London, UK

I think I'll just wait for ecological disaster to (not) occur.

Meanwhile, I'm off to gas up my SUV and drive 25 miles to the big box retailer to get some food. Then I'm going to light up the backyard grill and cook some steaks, and open a couple of imported beers which I'm sure have been flown in by airfreight. I wonder what it's carbon footprint is? Next question: Who cares?!

Anthropogenic global warming is a bunch of crap.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

Given that 8 billion people could stand in an area the size of Greater London's 33 boroughs and cities, it doesn't seem inevitable the such a comparitively small mass should result in the world's devastation. 70 percent of the earth's surface is water. If we can shrink a mega computer onto a microchip, we ought to be able to develop a super-efficient way to desalenate and distribute water if the time comes for it. Many people don't like nuclear power because of the real and perceived dangers, yet it's very sustainable and is really quite clean--ask the French. In my view, the underlying motivation for the overpopulation brigade (besides fear) is "more for me if less of you".

John, Omaha, USA

Viable and economically feasable solutions to curbing excessive CO2 emmisions and lessening their effect on global warming are achievable, but it will require global consensus and political will that does not yet exist. Having had oilmen as President and vice President of the United States, which is politically and militarily the most powerful developed country in the world, has had a huge impact in dampening the will of developed countries to take decisive action on Global warming. Once world opinion and education are trully swayed in favor of responsible action, there is potential for highly efficient green technologies to provide stimulus for a viable 21st century economic boom, as well as helping to avert ecological disaster.

William Kieffer, Mt Shasta, California USA

Global warming is a side issue. The real indisputable problem is that by burning fossil fuels we are irreversibly using up our oxygen. We don't need carbon sinks, we've got them. All we have to do is stop burning them!

Alec Walker, Singapore, Singapore

The best minds in the world said at one time we are the center of the universe and the world was flat and that going to the moon would cause tidal flooding also the market would never hit 15,000,processers could never crunch enough data because of heat for fast PC usage and also giving people who make their money from acting, sports and music credibility opinion wise,politics and science,i dont let my dentist fix my car (good idea Al Gore?) TELL THEM TO KEEP THINKING! TWO THIRDS OF THE WORLD IS ALREADY A WASTELAND, ALWAYS HAS BEEN

MIKE CANO, ELKTON, FL.

Everyone worries about climate change, but at the end of the day nobody is prepared to radically change their lifestyle.

People put things in green plastic bags etc, but when it comes to planning their next holiday or buying a car, the environment gets forgotten about.

I don't believe mankind is genetically capable of changing its behaviour when it comes to events more distant than a person's future life expectancy.

So we will blunder on as before, and the population will keep rising, until nature takes care of things for us through mass extinction. For sure, when that happens the earth will not be a very pleasant place to live,.

Toby, Winchester, UK

2500 scientists will lose lucrative contracts if they don't tow the party line, governments are rubbing their hands in glee, at the many taxes they can impose on the poor taxpayer, McBoon think he is in heaven.

History will show, the world goes through many changes. At the moment many scientists will tell you that the very slight increase in temperature is in the main down to sun activity. These scientists are not allowed air time, or given the chance to an open debate. Even the news media refuse to allow them space.

We the public, are being brain-washed big time. It would not surprise me to see ducking stools set up in all the towns for those of us that have not been taken in. It is becoming a repeat of history, last time it was religion, this time it is 'the worlds end is nigh' campaign. Global Warming will become the new substitute for religion, the governments will be the cardinals, Save the Earth and the Green Party the Bishops and the worlds press their disciples.

Duggy, Swansea, West Glamorgan

Guys, exaclty, the world balances itself. It doesn't need us to watch over it. If "we" (humans collectively) hurt the environment, well the world will rid itself of its disease, maybe by having a fever, maybe by making our life less hospitable etc. Yes, so then people die, and animal and plants, and those that do survive will live on (most adaptive, maybe the strongest, or weakest or even luckiest etc). We are just part fo the nature cycle. Have nothing to fear, as we are animals ourselves and part of nature. We humans are no more important or special than any other creature in the grand scheme of things. Why should we let s afew selfish individuals that feel they need to help perpetuate our eternal existance. Come on get off your high horse, the human race is nothing special. Just part of the evolutionary scheme of things. We are not some ultimate culmination of the best this world ahs for life etc... We merely were the beings to be most adaptive into our current environment

Chris, NY, NY, USA

It is historically true that the developers and polluters have had
had the most impact. but the bottom line in all this is greed.

Robert M. Prowler, Pompano Beach, USA, Fl.

I just wonder how many scientist who disagree with Global Warming were invited to this UN Panel? It is easy to get agreement if you do not invite anyone who disagrees!

I also find it odd that the UN seems to ignore what its own study said is the major contributor to green house gases.

This is on the UN's own website!

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

But for them to target countries that produce most of the livestock would mean they could not attack only the wealthy industrial nations. And isn't that what this is really about? Redistribution of global wealth?

How much time in Mr Gore's movie does he spend on this? Does he even mention that livestock is the most significant producer of greenhouse gases?

Heather, Lowell Ma, USA

Dont worry about the climate,, we are going to be fighting over oil soon as it begins to dry up, how can we have sanctions against Iran when we need their oil?? Why are we in Iraq? Oil !! Look how much oil prices have risen over the last few weeks

World war 3 is looming as Russia seeks to control the world with its oil and gas supplies!
We wont need to worry about climate then!

steve, wolves, uk

The first angel blew his trumpet, and hail and fire mixed with blood were thrown down upon the earth. One-third of the earth was set on fire so that one third of the trees were bruned, and all the green grasses.

John of patmos, Patmos,

Nothing shocks, angers, or disappoints this educator so much as the incredibly stupid deniers who see GW as some sort of evil plot to do them harm. What fools. They always have strong opinions with weak facts, and no amount of evidence will convince them. And that includes the majority of the Republican Party of the USA which has paved its own way to hell. They remind me of an incident where I wal helping to sew up an injured drunk but he kept ripping out the stitches as fast as we put them in. Some people don't know when to shut up and let better educated folks lead the way.

Ben Hurst, Fayetteville, USA North Carolina

The National Climatic Data Center would beg to differ, according to their data last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years -- capping a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels,

Matt, UKiah, CA

How can we believe the people at the U.N. The corruption, their runs rampant. All they want is more money to enhance their position. They allow countries like China and India to polute without any critisism, but will blame countries like the U. S. As far as i am concerned close down the U.N. and send back to their 3rd work environments.

Bill, Emory, Tx. USA

Global warming is a serious issue that we deal with but I don't believe it is the end of the world. Earth has been through several major climate changes, and life has survived. Not to mention that the Earth's magnetic field is down 10% from previous years which would allow more solar radiation to reach our planet. I'm sure it is an issue that can be dealt with.

Andrew, Denver, Colorado, USA

Hm, who am I going to believe on the future of the planet: 2,500 of the world's top climate scientists, or some blogger in his bedroom who notes it was quite cold the other day?

rj, Brighton, England

I am suspicious of the "UN Scientists" issuing a report that will "require immediate action in Bali." What a set up! The environmental change believed to be occurring is the mechanism through which the UN will begin to seek authority over the rights of sovereign nations ... for the good of the planet, of course! With or without these changes in the environment, the UN has been obsessed with finding ways to become the world governing authority through many mediums. Sorry, but I am suspicious of motive even though I do believe we are experiencing climate change. The UN is not the agent through which the world should rally on any issue of concern. It has proved itself incompetent through a track record of failure on too many critical issues. How many Christians have been wiped out in the Sudan and China; how many people groups are suffering due to the UN’s turning a blind eye to petty dictators?

Whet, So Cal, USA

Is over population really the issue here? Or, is it that we need to find ways to cope with the expansion and increasing demand for food, fuel etc without wasteful reliance on natural resources with harmful by-products.

Lets focus our attention on developing newer, cleaner technologies and efficient, yet fair, methods of food production. Surely there are enough clever minds in the world to focus their attention on providing solutions for proposed problems, instead of adding to scaremongering, which is dull and pointless.

Whether or not the Earth is going through a natural change, or one that we have contributed to, it would'nt be such a bad idea to try and respect the environment we live in,. has this not been the ethos of many civilisations that post industrial age seems ti have to forgotten?

nio, chigwell,

It is ironic and unfair that the countries contributing least to global warming, such as Bangladesh and Maldives, will feel its effects most. It is not a valid argument for newly industrialised countries such as India and China to say that other more economically developed countries have been contributing for years so they are entitled to contribute too.
Tackling Global Warming requires International Co-operation from all countries, in order to reduce the amount of green-house gases being emitted into the atmosphere. Each country should enforce clear legisalation in order to curd such emissions. We should be living sustainably so that the generation after ours are able to enjoy the comfortable living standard afforded by us today.

Christina Kumar, Warwick, England

There is something very disheartening about the hostility to Al Gore and the message he brings us. Even confirmation of his warnings by a majority of the world's most knowledgable scientists fails to move his detractors, who seem more motivated by party affiliation than common sense or concern for themselves or their children's future. When judgement or conscience is trumped by partisan politics then one of them is flawed....either the judgement or the conscience.

henry landis, hampton bays, n.y.

I just took my family to the Shedd Aquarium this week. What a wonderful experience. It's kind of sad to think that someday - for whatever reason - many of these creatures may become extinct. Wouldn't it be a greater shame if we could've done something about it? Will they be replaced by others?

To me it's always been a spiritual issue, and pollution and over-population - and whatever happens as a result of these - are merely fruits of a deeper scar on our souls. As long as people continue to be driven by greed and self-indulgence, it doesn't really matter what happens to the climate. You will not be able to stop things from getting really HOT.

I say, fix your attitude and your heart. Don't be so jaded. Learn to care again. Don't live just to "get yours". You may not really want all that comes with that package.

Lastly, big corporations are not the ones to blame. They only exist because a lot of individuals - you and me - collectively put the demand on them for resources.

Steve, Chicago, IL

If one short cycle of global warming brings a 4-degree increase in temperature, what will 50 cycles bring? We already know that Earth is destined to become a Mars-like planet in hundreds of millions of years, yet through ignorance we seem to be on track to create widespread if not total death and destruction in just a few centuries. The truth is that we could stop burning fuels of all kinds today, start reclaiming deserts by planting trees and stop diverting rivers needed to grow food. We should move away from unhealthy beef, which should be eaten no more than four times a month, care for our oceans which can feed us, and insist that all polluting emmissions be harnessed immediately. Even very inexpensive filtering methods can reduce pollutants by about 80%. We should not permit any air or effluent emmissions anywhere that have not been filtered in some way. As soon as possible all should be filtered to remove 100% of pollutants. Finally we need to safely use up nuclear waste

Emma H., Ottawa,

I would like to ask the would be experts, what is the biggest natural cause of global warming? Now don't squirm in your seats, tell the truth about volcanoes, animal wild life and things you have absolutely no control over. Please print that list for all the world to see. I can see you squirming!

Bruce, Central IL. , USA

One element that stands out for me is the startling range of opinion and/or projection of our human impact on global warming. In a time when so many tools of technology are available to us, including the means for planetary discussion like this blog, our only consistant conclusion is we are miles apart on this issue.

Strangely enough, there would be some measure of comfort in knowing, with a high degree of confidence, that the present actions of humanity were the cause of this global change.

But for every "authority" proclaiming we are, there is another proclaiming, with equal ferver, that we have nothing to do with it.

Some of the most tragic events in our human history have started just this way. And while I appreciate the ability to communicate with others world-wide in a way our grandparents would have thought impossible, it only confirms uncertainity. That admission is deeply troubling, for certain.

B.K. Smith, Binghamton, U.S.A. New York

The green ‘groupthink’ ideologues have transformed their paranoia into a religion so-much-so that, like other fundamentalists, they are terrified that if they admit they are wrong or have exaggerated any single issue it would have a domino effect and the green movement would collapse like a house of cards, they all know that no power station has ever reduced the amount of fuel it burns because of the availability of wind power – but to admit it would be ‘climate change treason’. Now even they can’t believe how the bewildered amongst us have fallen for their propaganda and no longer question the pseudo science they are being subjected to.

Brian Christley, Abergele, UK

So warmer climate equals mass extinctions? That would explain why so few plants and animals are able to eke out a precarious existence in the tropics, while the polar regions are famously teeming with life. You couldn't make this stuff up - unless you're the IPCC.

John B, Middlesbrough, UK

That the IPCC uses the word 'may' instead of 'will' indicates just how hazy, unscientific, and political is its whole approach.

john cornford, Arundel,

We humans have adapted extremely well to our host, namely mother earth. We've become consumers, adept at harvesting all it's resources. But, what's another word for consumer - parasite!
Nature has it's own way of dealing with plagues and parasites, which inevitably results in a catastrophic decline (or indeed the extinction) of said parasite. Now that humans are infesting and destroying their host, the host is reacting angrily.
Subsequently and ultimately to the benefit of the Earth, humans will dissapear or be reduced to insignificant numbers.
The planet will survive and evolve, leaving future cockroach achiologists to ponder the mysyeries of a short lived, incredably dynamic, adaptable, but self destructive species.
The world will be better off without us!

Norman, Udine, Italy

A few centuries ago a small group of people claimed divine right as the moral authority of "royal" rule. Nowadays the same type of people have latched on global warming as the new moral authority to subjugate the masses under elite rule once again.

Fred, Kittanning, USA, PA

Among measures to counteract climate trends, POP-STOP has an important place. It is clear that the planet cannot sustain the present global levels of population, let alone any increase. If we aimed for 5% less GNP and 10% less population by (you suggest when), we could ensure that individual living standards need not fall.

The big question is, of course, how. My money is on fiscal incentives - influence behaviour by tax policy. But any construcitve proposal would be welcome, if it is going to help save our planet for future (hopefully less numerous) generations.

Douglas, Arlesheim, Switzerland

This issue seems to have some what of a habit of bringing out the eccentrics. Death camps you say? Whats that? The UK compared to Bangladesh?
Hmmmm.
Anyway, yes it is possibly THE problem of the current crop of humanity, but where is the fight? Where are the people rallying for victory?
They are clearly not here...

X, Cheltenham, Glos

Global warming is overated.
If man and planet can survive the Iceage, Super Volcanoes, meteor impacts, mega-quakes, desertification and John Prescott then global warming, I'm sure, we can easily adapt to.

Phill Barlow, The Wirral, England

Do we need anymore reports to convince politicians? Its pefectly obvious to me that change is going to be calamity driven. Those with the muscle are going to survive while the weak are sacrificed on the alter of consumerism. In my area we're fighting a monstrous new Tesco plan that will up the levels of air pollution and squander thousands of tonnes of carbon so they can offer even more food in an area with 7 supermarkets within a 15 minute drive. Its a microcosm of what's happening everywhere. Is my MP making a fuss over it.? Not a bit. We're going to have find a new God to replace GDP

Ray Cobbett, Emsworth, Hants,

Again, careful avoidance of the real issue, which is the size and growth rate of the human population. Pollution and overexploitation are inevitable consequences of this, and there doesn't seem to be any political will to tackle the biggest issue of all.

Alex, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

It's unsurprising the IPCC report now talks of "abrupt" changes. The warmists can no longer tell us that we're heading steadily to hell, because the world stopped warming six years ago - a fact they're remarkably quiet about.

Neil McEvoy, Surrey, England

If this is their final verdict can we hope never to hear from the IPCC again?

D Cage, Highworth, Wilts UK

I believe the media has been one sided in the argument and topic of climate change. For instance it was only 10,000 to 20,000 years ago of the last ice age and mans impact was very minimal in respect to burning of fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Also over 90% of green house gases are water vapour which has far better qualities of trapping heat radiation than Carbon dioxide.
Too much emphasis is placed on C02 whilst methane produced from paddy fields in Asia and livestock produces huge amounts of gases.
Also the world is in a continual flux of change, dependant on our orbit from the Sun and periods of higher solar activity. This is a direct link to Climate change and is predictably cyclic. Just looking at the Geological record and you can see how many times the globe has heated up and cold once more.
I don’t believe in Carbon trading, what a fiasco that has been with countries being given too much quotas and then making huge profits out of essentially thin air. There is something

Jan Moodie, Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire

You make big fuss about little things. At first last winter the temperature in West Siberia was 52-56C blow zero and the year before it was the same there. What are you talking about? Russia and other norths countries can't exist without warming themselves. And you propose to impose adittional taxes on us for you to whom little snowfall is disastar live better?

Boris, Orenburg, Russia

My best guess is that even with the most dire warnings, most developed governments will be reluctant to act for fear of damaging their economies but most of all, losing their next election. We have a severe drought here in South Australia, the worst on record. The householders are on restrictions, the farmers who feed us are on even tighter restrictions but non-agricultural business is allowed to do whatever it wants. We have just staved off an attempt to tax rainwater. In the meanwhile our Government is fiddling about the edges, talking but not walking and the biggest river in Southern Australia is already dry in patches and the summer has not officially begun. If you want to come Down Under, you will be most welcome but please bring your own water.

Karen, Adelaide, South Australia

We are the only species that worries about global warming. Millions of species have come and gone and the world keeps turning. Many times the world has become hot or cold and the world keeps turning. Just adapt or become another extinct species. What so special about the human race that the "Earth" or "Mother Nature" can't get on without us? As for for future generations, who cares? It's the poor and suffering here and now that need help.

Doug George, Antibes, France

A. Saviolakis:

So you're volunteering yourself, your family, your kids and their kids to be among the 4 billion+ people who need to be "removed" from the face of the earth to make room for this more sustainable society you propose? If you cut current human population by 2/3, exactly who are you saving the world for?

My God, have you even aware of what you are suggesting? You'd have to fire up Auschwitz again and build another 20 camps like it to even make a tiny dent towards where you want to go.

Steve Kraft, San Jose, California, USA

Allowing uncontrolled immigration from the third world to the developed world will continue to make the environmental situation worse. The UK's open borders will evenutally turn the UK into an overcrowded corrupt hellhole like Bangladesh. The UK already has the corrupt part down. This faux global warming scare is a PC way to tax the developed world.

Franco, Palm Beach, USA FL

So long in all these reports the word "could" is being used before each line of a disaster certain to happen, the major polluters will just shrug it off.

Soon there wont be enough corrupted Nobel Prices to be handed out to Brave Softies.

If "could" will be replaced by "shall irrevocably", nothing much will happen either.

By now it is obvious that humans do not deserve to live on this shamelessly abused planet. We simply do not have a strong enough developed capacity to curb greed.

Take me for instance, I gave up already and do not care any more. The decline is far worse than any report will show or any Brave Softy will reveal. All is too late, but it will last my days.
I refuse to separate my garbage or turn off my idling car engine while the big polluters laugh at all the Brave Softies who still do.

I think we should just have a huge last destructing party of maybe about 300 years and then call it quits.

robert, vancouver,

All the mischieve committed over the past fifty years - population growth from two billion to six billion - must be corrected over the next one hundred years, i.e. world population back to two billion at most by which time environment-friendly energy sources may be in place, perhaps even fusion technology. The planet cannot support more than two billion people at reasonable standard of living given the current situation. The environment-dependent quality of living may then be kept at a reasonable level also.

A. Saviolakis, Newcastle upon Tyne,