The EARTH undergoes an ice age cycle, with a minor period of 27,000years, a major cycle of 110,000 years! (see National Ice Core Lab)...The last Ice Age started ending about 12,000 years ago!...Mankind contributes 12 gigatons of CO2/year---Natural sources contributes 18,000 gigatons of CO2/year!...Actual Global temp readings by space age recon show a .2 degree C DECREASE in global temp since 1958....SO, Go figure yourself ! A Real Earth Scientist

Ed, Avila Beach, USA/CA

Boxorox do you just willfully misread things like this all the time? The statistical change is 15/100 FOR THE US ONLY. The global impact is a thousandth of a degree. Negligible indeed. You are just plain negligent.

Evan, Victoria, Canada

The fact is that all the carbon contained within the fossil fuels that we are using today, used to be in the atmosphere, until animals absorbed them and died and turned into oil or coal. The fact is that places like Siberia and Greenland have been covered with temperate and tropical forests, in the last 4500 to 9000 years. The fact is, that when glacial ice melts on top of mountains, often dead plants are exposed, evidence of the warm epochs of the past. The fact is that Al Gore can trade in his ladder for platform shoes... And it goes without saying that the title of his film has lost all credibility, since his warmest years and warmest days are no longer either inconvenient or truth.

David Rochlin, Ione, Washington State USA

i had a chance to speak with the director of NOAA's gobal warming team at the california's state fair exhibit (great exhibit) about global warming. The trend is obvious, but the data suggesting that "global warming" is actually "human induced global warming" is much less obvious. All carbon emissions caused by man since the start of the industrial revolution equals about 1/3 of a year of volcano co2 emissions each year. We're a very small contributor at best. Yes, the system is sensitive and reducing our carbon footprint is a good thing, but my intuition is that between the "green movement" and politics of researchers wanting to scare up grant money, we're not hearing the real story.

My personal intutition is that 50 years from now, we'll look at this with the same humor as we look back at y2k.

Steven , El Dorado Hills, CA/USA

The fact is we dont know with full certainty. Those that offer polar positions are no better than those that choose to ignore the issues in their entirety. If there is an argument at this time, it is that we are better to err on the side of accepting that humans do contribute to environmental degradation and, that the cost of doing nothing is potentialy catastrophic.
It is also terribly discouraging to realise how entrenched our lifestyles are and also, that the drastic changes required by all is likely more than we are prepared to give. I doubt that all but a few realize the extent of change needed and the global scale of cooperation necessary.

zb, Winnipeg, Canada

I don't expect much from NASA, Bush admin has quitely been dissecting it, breaking it by budget decreases. Meanwhile, Haliburton announced in 2001 it was entering the space sector, odd, also in 2001 buying up helium 3 fusion reactor patents. In 2002 Bush announced US is going to the moon by 2014, oddly Russia and China have both said they are ALSO going to the moon for the helium 3 that is there. Helium 3 has been successfully used in fusion reactors at Univ. of Wisconsin. The last astronaut to walk on the moon has formed a company with the professor from Univ. of Wisconsin, you guessed it, to ALSO get to the moon by 2014 to mine it. H3 is worth 3 billion / pound, over 100 million tons on the moon. It is estimated that one shuttle trip alone to the moon that can fuel the entire US energy needs for 1 year Oh yeah, thanks to War on Terror and Patriot Act II ? Haliburton's patents on Earth's future energy solution will never expire. We've all been sold out.

Debbie Dallas, Boston, MA

People cannot predict the future, and that is what at most is the worry. We cannot predetermine if climate change is really going to affect the future dramatically, just like we cannot predict that it won't.
Inaction however, is not an option, whether or not it exists, pollution does. It may not be our lives that are affected, but the lives of many others around the world are at stake. We cannot allow pollution to contribute anymore than it does to health, to famine, and to the balance of the diverse eco systems around us. We once thought cigarettes were ok, but now what?

Zachary, Ottawa, Canada

Boxorox do you just willfully misread things like this all the time. The statistical chnage is 15/1000 FOR THE US ONLY. The global impact is a tousandth of a degree. Negligible indeed. You are justy plain negligent.

Evan, Victoria, Canada

Reportedly,

The American government has known about Global warming for almost 50 years. I heard on the BBC in England and Discovery Channel here in the U.S that the U.S has been doing tests on how to slow down global warming, like flying planes that release certain chemicals in the form of a jet stream. The streams reportedly made up of chemicals that can help deflect the suns rays. Even, the use of mirrors as contemplated way back in the 60's and 70's in space to deflect some of the suns rays.

I feel sorry for my son's generation and his kids down the road.

Collin, Salt Lake City, Utah

Listen,

I believe in global warming. Even the American government has finally accepted it. And to all those deniers out there: "Just to be safe, wouldn't we want to try and solve the problem instead of testing fate." I'm just saying.

TJ, Vancouver, British Columbia

Global warming can never be confirmed or denied, but common sence tells us that the sun is the main culprit relative to it's size and impact on earth historically. Some people just need to feel guilty for having it so good it seems to me.

Many more things can be done to improve the plight of man on earth other than worting about a few degrees. Let's face it, it will cost trillions to make a negligable effect on temperature whereas this same money spent on hunger or poverty can have a tremendous effect on mankind, let's get our head strait and quit worrying about things that we can do so little about..

Jeffery Johnson, Baton Rouge, LA

"The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling"

- Chicken Little

Jon, Sheridan, Wyoming

I just wonder what this story would have been like had the error been the other way. Would it have been
a) no big deal
b) global warming worse than previously thought

William McIlhagga, Ilkley,

PS... The Methane from all the cattle on earth traps far more heat than mankind's emissions of CO2!!!

Ed, Avila Beach, USA/CA

People People. Regardless of what you think. Put away politics, economics and even moral reasoning aside. Think about. Just think about it. Who has more to lose here? What, the scientests? researchers? climatologists? activists? How many millionaire scientests does anyone know? People, these scientests are just giving you they're findings. They're not trying to start a conspiracy. Now, think people. Think really hard. Who has more to lose? That's right, the energy sector - oil and gas, coal, Shell, Haliburton, Exxon. Our society is built around the burning of fossil fuels and other polluting resources. Those are the people who stand to lose billions, not some scientest or research student from the local University. Besides, even if you refuse to listen to the science than aren't you just sick of the pollution given off by fossil fuels. Every echo system, and I mean every system in the world is in decline. People can't breathe in China. The oceans are dying. Things are not good

Mark, Edmonton, Canada

One study, out of MANY, was slightly flawed and such flaw was recongized and corrected (the strength of peer reviewed science). That naturally means that the earth is not heating up at all, despite pretty clear evidence that record highs are being recorded at an increasing rate, and that humans have had no impact on the environment. I mean with what, the US alone burning almost 21 MILLION barrels of oil per day, or put another way, 870,660,000 gallons of oil PER DAY, I am sure that has all had a negligable impact (source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption). That doesn't even take into account coal...

Come on skeptics, even if you don't accept global warming doesn't it make sense to cut that reliance on oil (and thus unstable foreign powers) and coal (with its dangerous and destructive mining)? Not to mention the new economic opportunities presented by developing better energy sources. What is the obsession with status quo?

Josh, Memphis, TN

It does not surprise me to see people arguing against human-induced global warming based on this statistical mistake, but it defies sound logic. It is true that temperatures have changed for a long time because of differing amounts of radiation from the Sun, and from internal dynamics of the Earth. What is different now is that human industry is pumping large amounts of gases into the atmosphere, whereas this has not been the case further back in history.

On the Moon, which is approximately the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, the lack of atmospheric insulation results in high day-time temperatures of about 120°C. At night the temperature drops to approx -150°C. The thin atmosphere does not trap much heat, leading to wide fluctuations. Putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the Earht’s atmosphere will result in more heat retention – regardless of what is said by those who consider it in their economic/political interest to keep the industrial status-quo.

James, London, England

The climate fanatics try to cover their tracks and sway the general public by saying, 'Oh, it's just a few hundredths of a degree ... doesn't really matter.' Well, in fact, it really does matter. Those few 1/100s is 0.15 degree which is at least as much warming that has been recognized taking place on a decadal scale. This revision of the data set represents a full decade of warming that did not actually take place. The AGW denial that this is important remind me of gluttons who are dieting and accuse the scale of not measuring their weight correctly. Somethig like 'Oh, the scale says I only lost half-a-pound last week, but I know for a fact that I'm 5 pounds lighter.'

Global warming is not caused by humans. The Hockey Stick is more like a golf club now.

Boxorox, Annapolis, MD

Mike, Nashville, Tennessee

Please give us your definition of peer reviewed. This should make an interesting subject. False assumptions, make poor research everyday. Many peer reviewed articles in the New England Journal of Medicine are regularly contradicted by other peer reviewed studies.

Bob Burk, Chowchilla, USa, CA

I have not seen any of the skeptics denying the 'science' of green house gas emissions (CO2) and the relation to trapping heat energy. Regardless of the 'cause' of the warming- if we are creating tons of emissions at an ever increasing rate we can only be making a bad situation worse.
PLEASE someone with a scientific background PLEASE tell me that CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT trap heat!
thanks

george, mashantucket, ri usa

I'm glad someone is trying to get us back to the real issue of how to react to global warming. I take seriously the input from Jim Hansen that we may be approaching a "tipping point" such that the time horizon to disaster may be shorter than preivously thought. And so I am pushing for study of a global form of geo-engineering such as emulating what happens when there is a large vocanic eruption to reduce incoming solar flux by about 1 1/2 to 2% and re-balance the earth's energy interchange with the universe. Such study leading to possible deployment has been endorsed by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone in 2006 and by Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb in 1997 The IPCC, environmental groups and much of the media does not want to talk about this "lest the public continue to pollute" but as above - if the time horizon for disaster is short we need a short term solution while we contineu to change the world's energy base.

Sol Shapiro, Aurora, Colorado

"... I'll keep reducing, recycling and reusing and watching my greenhouse gas emission, ..."

You do that. But stop trying to force your unscientific beliefs on the rest of us.

Freddy, London,

Lewis Smith writes :"The wrongly calculated temperature statistics have left Nasa with egg on its face, but should have little long term effect beyond handing global warming-deniers a propaganda coup." I believe you global warming alarmist should be labeled at the propagandists. If you take NASA's numbers, graph them in Excel, you see up and down trends and I suspect that if we had real numbers going back hundreds of years we would see similar trends.

Bob Burk, Chowchilla, California

Funny that no GW skeptic articles are ever published in any peer reviewed science journals. I therefore conclude that AGW skeptics are exactly like those who tout halocaust denial or biblical creationism...utter kooks who don`t deserve to be taken seriously at all.

Mike, Nashville, Tennessee

so, the news is that denialists are still denying the evidence?? No news here, move along.

I'll keep reducing, recycling and reusing and watching my greenhouse gas emission, because the NASA records weren't as wrong as the denialists are....

Beth, Santa Monica, CA

Climate change is just one of a series of processes which combined are termed ‘environmental change’. These include land degradation, excessive water use and over population. If you live in one of the developed world’s cities you can deny all these. After all your food arrives shrink wrapped on plastic trays, water out of a tap and the electricity is hardly ever cut. If you live, as I do much of the time , in a 'third world' city you become very aware of declining groundwater, dust blowing in from the desert and the municipality’s struggle to provide basic facilities for the constant stream of migrants.

Adrian Moon, Bridgwater, UK

Gullible warming is certainly still happening but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize if the warmest year on record was before the main rise in CO2 then the causes are still questionable. The good people at NASA are not the only ones with egg on their face. The people who have been out there insisting 98 was the warmest year on record have been lying. Or is that an inconvenient truth?

If you can provide links to actual science either way please visit www.gulliblewarming.com and leave a comment or send me an email. I have no problem recognizing climate change but remain skeptical as to the causes.

Tom, Billings,

Never let facts or figures deter people who insist the sky is falling! Here in ther US, the sky is falling crowd uses their "facts" to fight atomic power plants, wind power plants, coal power and almost any kind of power generation except solar power. That will make for rather cold and dark winters.

Ray Reddick, Gurnee, Illinois

Global warming may be taking place, but not for the reason the Anthropogenic Global Warming fanatics claim. There are simply too many other possibilities and unstudied mechanisms to draw any conclusions.

Start worrying about something which matters, not this politically motivated red herring.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

"an increasing number of above averagely warm years in the past decade". What does that mean?

Steve, Beaconsfield, Canada/Quebec