WE LOVE MRS.COUDRIET!! even though she made us do this long ol projet!!! WE STILL LOVE HER!!!

Brittany @ Jordan, Collierville, Tennessee

"Climate change may lead to lush growth rather than catastrophic tree loss". Note the 'MAY' in this sentence. All those comments that are using this article as justification to continue our excessively consummate lifestyles should consider the wider impact of all our actions. The article also fails to address they key question which is whether the reforestation by a warmer, sunnier climate outweighs the deforestation caused by mankind. If the latter outweighs the former then we still have an issue. We should also be sympathetic to those whose lives have already been dramatically altered by climate change including farmers on the river Ganges, villages in the Tibetan mountains and farmers on the drought hit plains of Central China, many who now face poverty. Global Warming is accelerated by mankind and our CO2 emissions contribute; this is not disputed, the end result may be. The future for many is today already grim and these people are the most impoverished and the least able to cope.

Nigel Regan, London,

GW will have far more positive than negative effects on the planet.

Ron, WPB,FL, USA

I would tend to disagree with this hypothesis. A) rain forest have their own micro climates. The rain is generated from the humidity and moisture within the forest itself. If its sunnier the humidity will escape. B) the real problem is the cutting of the trees. It takes a hundred years to grow a solid forest so we will only know in 2107 if the climate change was actually better.

Jim Sacco, rochester, USA

This just proves that none of these scientists really know what's going to happen. All of this is speculation based on climate models which may or may not be predictive.

Patrick Curry, Irvine, CA

Is there a possibility that Planet Earth is simply in one of its many cycles? Who are we as the human race to think we have the power to alter the course of nature?? The ice caps have melted and refrozen before, on several occasions. Is there a possibility here that we have completely missed the point? I hasten to add that I do not work for an oil company and I do believe strongly in looking after our environment, I do however, think that the whole topic of climate change is subject to a huge amount of spin from people/bodies far more influential/powerful than me and that Mother Nature is far more powerful than them!

Sam, London, Greater London

The evidence for man-made global warming is conclusive. Scientists agree on it...and it kind of makes sense even to a layman like myself...spewing vast quantities of Co2 into the atmosphere is hardly likely not to have an effect. My main questions now are

a) If left unchecked will it result in catastrophe?
b) What can be done about it?
c) If there are things that can make a real difference is there the political will to do them?

AlanG, London, UK

We are still coming out of the "Little Ice Age" from the 1800s. And what about the increased solar flare activity since the mid-20th century, could that not have anything to do with it? Global climate is not and has not remained static at any period in history, why would it even now? Gov'ts and "scientists" have their heads in the sand... or in someone's wallet. Nonetheless, I am all for getting our air cleaned up a bit, it isn't right that 80% of kids here in Houston develop asthma.

Conrad, Houston, TX

Run for the hills! Global warming is causing EXTRA OXYGEN PRODUCTION - THE RAINFORESTS ARE TAKING OVER ALREADY!!!

Mika, Natal, Brasil

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.



"U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming," blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts."



The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

No one knows what is going to happen, the temperatures go and they go down..Al Gore is a private jet setting enviro-whacko hypocrit - my opinion

Barrett, Houston, TX

I wonder when the "scientists" will note that increased levels of CO2 will increase crop yields. That is because plants use CO2 like we use oxygen. The only piece I have read pertains to the purported increased virulence of poison ivy.

CyBear, Saint Paul, USA/MN

It's not so much that I dont believe in GW, it's i'm sick of all the pseudo scientists that claim without a doubt it's caused by man. There are dozens of models that show it's a natural phenomena.

spivey, dallas,

Another attempt to say this:

Trees give off carbon dioxide when not photosynth.. photosin... doing that thing with sunlight....

Also when trees die you get CO2. The absolute total of oxygen/CO2 emitted by trees THROUGHOUT their existence is I believe at best neutral, at worst in favour of CO2.

People only produce a teeny teeny bit of the CO2 out there, the biggest contributor being the oceans.

The sun is most likely the biggest cause of climate change, Mars is I understand also undergoing climate change, and I don’t think Martians drive round in 4x4s..

Paul, Milton Keynes, UK

Trees give off carbon dioxide when not photosynth.. photosin... doing that thing with sunlight....

Also when trees die you get CO2. The absolute total of oxygen/CO2 emitted by trees THROUGHOUT their existence is I believe at best neutral, at worst in favour of CO2.

People only produce a teeny teeny bit of the CO2 out there, the biggest contributor being the oceans.

The sun is most likely the biggest cause of climate change, Mars is I understand also undergoing climate change, and I don’t think Martians drive round in 4x4s..

Paul, Milton Keynes, UK

Science is based on FALSIFICATION not VERIFICATION (look up Karl Popper). Until the scientific community can falsify theories that explain global warming as a natural phenomenon, or can at least determine what proportion of warming is natural, then man-made global warming is no more viable a theory than any other that has not been falsified. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not a scientist but rather is a politician or lobbyist for the environmental movement.

Jeff T., Houston, TX,

I don't think that humans cause global warming. I would, however like to see our city air clean and to get off of the Arab oil tit. Also, we do pollute our environment and that needs to stop if we are to have places for the next generations to hunt, recreate and fish in. The sad thing is we have the technology to do this in a reasonable time frame, but we do not have the intestinal fortitude. I am a 52 year old Reagan Republican.

Robert , Port Isabel, tx

Is it warm in here or is it just me?

RJ, Harrisburg, PA USA

I just got done reading the 1975 Newsweek article about the coming ice age (which should be here by now), and that was after reading Paul Erdman's book about the population explosion (we are several billion short of this prediction as I write), and last weekend I re-read about the nuclear was that anihilated all humans on the earth a few years ago.

I am refreshed to learn that now we need take no corrective action regarding de-forestation in South America - it apperantly will self correct.

In looking through some back issues of Popular Science, I see that I should go to the store this weekend and get my personal transporter so I can travel across oceans in only a few minutes.

Science is so wonderful at making accurate predictions. Especially when there is a concensus!

Rafer Hoxworth, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii

Just wait until the ethanol lobby has its way. All the trees in Amazonia and the entire US Midwest will be felled to grow corn and switchgrass -- to abate AWG. Hurray!

Max, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

I'll buy the AGW hype when the eco-nuts stop exhaling and stop drinking Coke, Pepsi, Bud, and any other carbonated (CO2) beverages, because every time they breathe or crack one open, they are contributing to the "problem" - both here and on Mars, apparently.

matt m., Fishers, IN, USA

(1) There'sd been a bit of a warm-up since about 1990, following a cooler period in the 60s and 70s.

(2) The earth could be in a prolonged warming period, although there is no way of knowing this. It is also possible that we will have another cool down shortly.

(3) Mankind's activites contribute to some weather effects, such as warmer evenings in urban areas, and a tiny increase in "greenhouse" gases that amounts to less than 1% of the atmospheric total. These effects could conceivably have some long-term climate implications.

(4) When the earth warms, it is generally beneficial for life, including human life, on earth. When the earth cools, such as it did during the early Middle Ages, it is generally correlated with negative development.

Oh, wait, I forgot. Sheryl Crow and Al Gore have said that the science is conclusive - the earth is getting hotter, man is responsible, and the result will be catastrophic. So, sorry, almost forgot.

Paul, Ponte Vedra Beach, FL

A couple of observations: First, the hype around AGW will over time reduce the average person's respect for math and science and that is a bad thing. Second, I just looked at the manner in which USAFI evaluated my achievement levels on exams I took while I was in the Army (back in the 50's). They assigned percentile ranks much as James presented his achievement. Maybe his experience and therefore his frame of reference is similar to mine. Having said that I love the way you jump on each other.
Harry

Harry Taft, Deland, FL, USA

now wait a dern minute...... i thought global warming was caused by CUTTING DOWN all the rainforests!!!!!!!!!! if the democracks get the white house, global warming will suddenly disappear because they dont want to be in office when they tank the u.s. economy....

m katt, mansfield, ar

Actually, cause is not really important. No matter what the causes might be, we're not going to change our behavior. The world is going to be different from the one you're living in today. Maybe wetter, maybe dryer, maybe greener, maybe browner.... you'll adapt to it's differences or you'll join the dino's.

Ed, Haynesville, Louisiana

Not a Redneck (not a hippy either) is a good example of the Gorebal Warming crowd. They take a scientific consensus that " . . the Earth is warming and human emissions are a contributing factor . . " and twist it into ". . man-made Global Warming . .". Just like the above mentioned takes "Climate models have suggested . ." and twists it into " . . the forests will suffer as the region becomes drier . . " Perhaps 'Twisted' is an appropriate characterization.

Ray Huffman, SanFrancisco, USA

Global Warming is this generation's Chicken Little "The sky is falling". Future generations will look back and laugh at us just as we look back and laugh at the "The world is flat" generations.

Algore and his legions are fools.

Matman, Corona, CA

What about the 'Green' lobby pushing alternative Bio-fuels this can only lead to more primary forest being cleared to grow this new cash crop (not to mention resultant shortage of staples for food, price of wheat rising as land usage becomes in competition with alternative plant fuel sources).
The green buck people may destroy the Rainforests long before the Co2.

Simon, Leeds, U.K.

Ummmmm, All the other countries sign the kyoto agreement except for the states and Australia. All you people that dont believe global warming (mostly from the usa by the looks of the posts) , must be right. Our kids dont deserve the earth they'l grow up in because of this. But Im glad you all seem to think that its just normal with Ice caps melting at a faster pace than usual.

Should we just wait and see ??? or do something about it?

You people are ignorant to believe its not affecting us when enough scientist around the world are saying it will.

Hope you all are still alive to see the full affects, Oh wait arent you experiencing that all now with the number of tornadoes and Hurricanes over the us of a

Wake up and smell the roses ppl

sherwin, auckland, New Zealand

Let's face it, there is no way to win in the Farcical Global Warming debate. Who in the blazes programs their computer climate models,,,,,, The endangered Apes of Africa. Just a reminder, these "experts" are the70's 80's Newsweek New Ice Age predictors. As I have said before in these columns,,,follow the money trails. Have not the good souls in the UK not rumbled left-wing con job ? Should there not be a Public Trial of these "scientist" to try and recover the countless millions of taxpayer funds spent on this farce.

Robert Granville Lee, Bloomfield hills,, Michigan, USA

The AGW hype is clearly beginning to erode as time and faccts emerge.
AGW still has this amazing ability to claim all outcomes are due to AGW, no matter how disparate, buteven that is beginning to collapse.
I look forward tot he reviews of the rise and fall of AGW hysteria in a few years.

hunter, USA, USA

This is terrible! We are all going to die! Oh, wait, we were all going to die anyway. I need a celebrity spokesmodel to sort this out for me and tell me what to think. Quick! get Paris Hilton on the phone. She'll know what to do.

Rafer Hoxworth, Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii

It's to early to start the celebration...when it grows faster it needs more fertiliser...and the fertiliser (minerals ect.) comes from duststorm and dustclouds from Afrika....blowing over the ocean. Then we needs more duststorms too.

S.E.Hendriksen, Kangerlussuaq, Greenland

James, wow you graduated in the top 95%. That's quite an accomplishment. You beat out he other 5%.

Tom, SALT LAKE CITY, USA

Obviously they don'y know their head from a hole in the ground. The problem is that journalists and politicians are pushing this agenda, not scientists. Matter of fact, over 11,000 climate scientists say man-made global warming is not happening, and that CO2 levels are lower now than what has been normal for the planet. They also say that CO2 does not cause warming, but is an effect. But who listens to scientists when it is an inconvenient truth.

Bruce, Asheboro, NC,

So now it's the rainforest's fault as well? First humans, then cows (no cows were first at one time, evil methane producers), now rainforests (supposed to improve or shrivel up, which ever comes first, but bring more of that nasty CO2 that's been around forever), how'd the earth ever survive before? Oh wait, we didn't have Al Gore back then...

Brian, Lakewood, Colorado,

Too hot?
Global warming.
Too cold?
Global warming.

More sun, higher temps = longer growing seasons = more food for the starving masses.

Ray, Tyler , TX USA

Weasel noted that "finally!" something positive had been ID'd about so-called "Anthropogenic" global warming.Sorry Weasel, but the article throws cold water on your hope by ending with "Climate models have suggested that the forests will suffer . . . "

So, they AGW crowd is still all doom and gloom -- even though the only thing to have found man's fingerprints on the current warming are computer models that can't accurately model clouds, let alone the entire climate.

Silly games.

Alex, Staunton, Virginia

I see, the term global warming wasn't working, now it's climate change because that term is less open to scrutiny and covers more made up atmospheric ills. Only a democrat would be arrogant and stupid enough to believe they can control nature and blame man. Why not just elimate mankind, then the planet will be healthy, Al Gore and John Edwards will be all that is left with their multimillion dollar, energy consuming mansions, and the rest of us can just fade off into the sunset (at least while it is still there).

djm, Coral Springs, FL

Coming ice age will solve that problem

Joe, Baltimore,

Climate models have suggested that the forests will suffer as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Reread the last sentence, then think about it. Warming causes carbon dioxide, co2 is the result of warming not the cause of gobal warming.

Lee Stockton, Troy, Ohio

I ask my "man created GW" friends a couple of questions they never answer.

1) What is the ideal temperature for the earth...Is it warmer or cooler then Now.

2) There has been warming and cooling periods since the industrial revolution...BUT...How is it possible that there were any periods of cooling during that time if it is man's activity that causes Warming. Shouldn't we just be getting warmer and warmer. (Note: It was warmer in the 1930s then it is now)

Roy M. Mattox, Oak Harbor, Washington

I would love to have an honest debate about Global Warming. Not name-calling, not posturing, just an honest down-to-earth debate. Isn't that what science is about? A debate, experimentation, formulating a conclusion, and then testing it different ways while still talking about it?

J. Haverton, Daytona Beach, FL

Every winter in the north country we would appreciate a little global warming. Who says that the current temperature averages are ideal? I know that there are millions who have been stupid enough to spend billions building where any climatic change will be a disaster for them. The climate will change. When it happens it will be bad for them. Too bad. How much we are causing the change is immaterial. The scientist cannot predict the impact of natural change and they cannot tell us with any certainty what is causing it.

Jim, Omaha,

If scientist can't predict, on a yearly basis, the number of hurricanes making land fall in the United States for the last two years with an accuracy of better than fifteen percent, why would anyone believe that they can predict long term trends in the weather further out in the future? Just speculation for monetary reasons.

CHARLES VAIRIN, Black Forest, Colorado

forests will suffer as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Excuse me, but plants LIVE on CO2, dear quoted scientists please do your homework before speaking.

William, Anaheim, CA.

History has clearly demonstrated that warm periods are good for human beings and archeology shows that virtually every warm period begets an explosion of new species as well. When the Earth was at its warmest (estimated to be about 9 degrees C warmer than today) the number of species dwarfed the number we have today. If that diversity alone is not 'good' enough, think in terms of how many new medicines we might have developed had humans lived at that time, or how many more we will develop in a warmer future.

Secondly, if warming harms rain forests currently in place, it will be more than made up for with the expansions of rain forests into more northerly climes.

Finally, trees extract carbon in the atmosphere and concentrate it as wood. It is a zero sum game. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more trees grow!

Thomas Farish, Los Alamos, NM

Finally, published positive features of increased earth temperature. Plant land and animal life seem to flourish enough in the artic during pre-historic times to produce plenty of oil reserves. If it was good enough then, why isn't it now?

Robert M, Rapid City,

Finally - someone pointing out that higher carbon dioxide levels will cause plants other than poison ivy to grow better. Carbon dioxide is deliberately concentrated in greenhouses to accelerate plant growth.

steve sikora, columbus, ohio

When Dinosaurs romed the earth the CO2 was 8 times higher than it is today abd the earth was never more lush with growth. It's amazing how easy it was to convince people that the second most important gas after oxygen (CO2) is bad for us. Without CO2 we would all die and the more there is the better plants grow. The gas they aren't honest about is methane, that's because half of all thearth's methane comes from "WETLANDS" the very thing they are promoting. People not knowing science allows them to manipulated very easily.

George, Sat. Bch., FL

Wait! Wait! I thought plants consumed CO2 and produced O. More plants = less CO2? Science is changing daily!

Scott Mc, Cypress, USA / TX

It is nice to see someone highlight a potential benefit of global warming. Another benefit of global warming from a plant physiology standpoint is increased efficiciency due to higher CO2 concentrations. The increased efficiency in plant physiology comes from 2 sources: 1) increased CO2 means plants to less work to extract CO2 from atmosphere (C02 necessary for plant growth), 2) plant open stomata less (openings in vascular plant tissue to allow air into leaf vesicles) which result in less moisture loss from plant tissue and is good thing for vegetation especially in arid climates.

We can discuss additional benefits besides plant physioligy such as:
1) beneficial warming of great northern land masses.
2) opening of formerly ice-clogged shipping lanes.
3) ???

Jason, Baltimore, MD

whole discussion is pointless as business & gov't in the region are busily turning the rainforest into building lots and grazing for beef cattle

Linda, Albany NY, US

"The 1% that doesnt are scientists on the take of Exxon etc. (if you don't believe me look it up). "

Completely ignoring the fact that pro global warming scientists get far, far more money from governmental entitites that want to 'prove' global warming so that they can justify more and more power to the state.

Raul, Seattle, USA

David, in answer to your question "How does a forest give off hugh amounts of carbon dioxide?"

When trees are growing, they take carbon dioxide out of the air. Once they reach their full growth, they no longer remove carbon dioxide, but can actually start contributing CO2 because of their own "burning" of their energy resources.

I've seen studies showing this. So far, I haven't seen any of the tree researchers say that the best way for forests to help prevent global warming is to cut them down after they reach full growth and plant young trees which will capture more CO2.

Richard, Ridgecrest, USA

Did anyone else see that Brother Al Gore held a global warming fundraiser in Australia last week? He somehow bamboozled 1,400 fools to folk over of $A25,000 per head. That works out to $A35.000.000. Where will that money go? The article, in The Australian, didn’t say they focused on what the Bro said. One, that the Artic ice cap will gone FOREVER in 23 years. Not 22, not 24. Nope 23. He continued with his usual rant that we only have 5 years to save the planet, meaning we better worship Brother Al right now. One great chestnut was that the Bro branded Australia and the US "outlaw states" for not ratifying the Kyoto treaty. He leaves out an inconvenient fact. That Clinton/Gore had nearly 5 years to ratify the treaty and didn't even bother to bring it before Congress. I could go on but it's much more fun to speculate where that cash went. My bet is he brought a large sack, stuffed the cash inside and headed straight to his Hummer where he taken he taken to his private jet.

Erick Blaiir, Los Angeles, USA

Where is all of the data on solar cycles? This is being completely ignored. Yet solar cycles match up with global temperatures better than any CO2 cycle does. The CO2 cycle also fails to explain the Medieval Warm Period, when temps were 5 degrees warmer than they are now. This was around 800 AD to 1200 AD, no factories or cars around back then. It is just a ploy to get funds from the government. Just like the reaction to global warming will be a fund sucker from the government. When they get next weeks weather right 100% of the time, then I will listen to them on what will happen in a decade.

Scott, bridgewater, va

James, based on your comment I am not the least bit surprised that you indeed graduated in the top 95 percent of your class. So, were you in the fifth percentile? I do believe you meant to say top 5 percent or the equivalent, 95th percentile. For some reason, I have a hard time you were in the top 5 percent. Someone who was actually in the ranks of the top 5 percent wouldn't make a mistake like that.

Matt, Richmond, VA

There is a list of Things Caused By Global Warming at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm but lush growth of the Amazonian rain forest will have to be added.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Just an FYI in answer to David from Tampa's question: AS I UNDERSTAND IT: The CO2 is released from the decay of vegetation. This is more pronounced in more northern and southern climates where the leaves fall every year. This source of CO2 is alone more than we humans put into the atmosphere. AS I UNDERSTAND IT... I could be wrong

Virgil, Griffin, GA,

Yes! Jack, you're right. Trees take in carbon dioxide, and give off oxygen. We do the opposite, creating a cycle between us and plants. Who wrote this article?

basic high school science ex-student, Asheville, NC

This is obviously wishfull thinking. Everyone knows (ie. Al Gore Jr) that ONLY man can release significant levels of CO2, unless of course they revise this to suggest that since it is from Nature, there will therefore be no negative consequences. When will we give up on this hoax?

David, Wadsworth, Ohio

I agree that human beings have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 285 ppm to about 340 ppm, and that amount is increasing due to the burning of fossil fuels. My concern is the idea (stated boldly here) of "catastrophic" changes. I've been around long enough to read about catastrophic population growth, ozone depletion, death of the oceans, mutagenic changes from genetech - it seems every year of my life is marked by some expert somewhere telling me about the impending catastrophe. Perhaps I'm desensitized to hysterical media babbling. My concern is that talk which starts with "catastrophe" silences reasoned debate and rational solutions.

Paul, Galena, AK

The Great Global Warming Swindle is unravelling faster than you can say "Medieval Warm Period"

Just substitute alarmist slogans like "the ice caps are melting" for more accurate statements of fact such as "the ice caps are still retreating" and you get the picture

slgbett, Cardiff, Wales

Only the most extreme prognosticators on the global warming bandwagon are forcasting a 1 degree average increase (plus their 50 foot sea level increase). However, from what I have read, a 0.2-0.3 degree increase will provide more usable water and more oxygen producing plant growth - both good for our daily lives.

Naughta Weasel, Houston,

Consensus is not science. Remember that there once was a consensus that the world is flat. When you hear "the debate is over" regarding global warming, it is simply the Flat Earth Society trying to silence those who dare to disagree with their cult-like group-think.

D. Carr, Norristown, USA

"this article is proof that new data is emerging all the time."
This article, two paragraphs long, and vaguely written is scarcely the smoking gun. There are debates about it and 99% of them rule in favor of global warming. The 1% that doesnt are scientists on the take of Exxon etc. (if you don't believe me look it up). I love how 'coolintexas' managed to only get through the first paragraph (or maybe just the headline?) of the lengthy TWO paragraph article. If he/or she had made it to the second one it states, quite clearly, "the forests will suffer as the region becomes drier and will release huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."
Enviornmental naysayers should be forced to live next to chemical and industrial plants they so think are angelic., Which should be fine with them since they believe that the only thing that these places belch is potpourri and rainbow colored water.

Not a Redneck (not a hippy either), Houston, Texas, USA

Blah, blah, blah . . . it must be a slow news day.

Michael, Prague, Czech Rep

what about all the planets in our solar system are also warming ie mars has lost it polar ice caps,The media sure has been keeping that one under wraps.

T Spencer, seattle, Wa

There was an experiment done in the biodome where they raised CO2 levels in their "Rain Forest" climate room, and measured the effect on plant growth on a large scale. Initially growth was sped up, but eventually growth was slowed or even retarded due to toxicity in the plant from the elevated levels of CO2 at the roots. So it's not having your cake and eating it too, its just that the biology and metabolism of plants are a lot more complicated than you can imagine from this two paragraph article.

Jason, New York,

How does a forest give off hugh amounts of carbon dioxide?

David, Tampa, FL

I propose to perform a ₤1M study that says global warming will reduce global flea populations. Then, next year I will propose to perform a ₤1M study that says global warming will increase global flea populations. However, since I do not have a PhD in marketing I am not a true climate scientist…

Jeff, London,

Wow, how long did it take for this to come out.. It is amazing to me that it takes so long for common sense to begin to break through. I was also pleased that there is scientific evidence that men and women are different, as if that needed to be qualitatively or quantitavely verified. Having degrees seems to mislead people into thinking they are intelligent. Often, they are mutually exclusive. These folks are good at regurgitating information but not applying the overall knowledge in creative, productive ways, which is intelligence. Al Gore will never be more than a political hack with idealogic fearmongering based upon what is yet, immature science. Oh well, it was only 30 years ago we were in a mini ice age? We will wait for the sun to radiate less in the next few years and bingo, another mini ice age caused by, what else, excessive plant growth. Please retain the cows, we will need their help.

Dwayne, Plymouth, USA

Is it just me or is the "global warming" crowd trying to "have their cake and eat it" too?? I mean after all I graduated in the top 95 percent of my class, but since plants need water, sunlight and CO2 to live, doesn't it make sense that melting ice caps and higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would equal more plant growth?? Wouldn't that be a good thing for the planet??

James, joplin, USA

scientists should continue the debate on global warming. this article is proof that new data is emerging all the time. The "concensus" on man creating warming is not at all. I want a robust debate about it, not consensus.

coolintexas, austin, usa/texas

Well, finally! One of the things that makes AGW seem like such a con job is that the proponents usually cannot come up with a single, solitary aspect of our lives that would be improved if the climate averaged a degree warmer.

Nothing? Really?

S. Weasel, Boston, US

I am going out to buy a gas hog SUV this weekend so that I can do my part to save the rainforests!

Bear, Glendale, az

An increase in vegetation is only logical if the earth does experience an increase in temperature and carbon dioxide.

Most 4th grade students already know from their elementary science classes that carbon dioxide is plant food and that warmer temperatures make things grow better.

Back in the 70's when these same scientists were predicting global cooling, they warned of catastrophic decreases in food production. When they changed their predictions to global warming, they still warned of catastrophic decreases in food production. Is it possible they are beginning to realize that their opposite predictions cannot produce the same result? Or are they perhaps beginning to understand that the predictions of global cooling or warming themselves are suspect at best?

Allen, Celina, Ohio, USA

The global warming hysteria is going to die off when people start realizing how the "green movement" is using this issue as a way to raise money. The only reason this issue is alive is that academic, bureaucratic, and government employees are making a nice living rehashing the same old carbon dioxide story, which is to put global warming as a human induced disaster. It is not so. bigbluecarbon.com

J Wark, Boulder, CO

Yet another surprise response of the ecosystem to global warming. How many more scientific discoveries that counter the global warming alarmist predictions do we need before we realize that our understanding of global warming impacts are not valid?

David, Atlanta, ga

Oh my gosh a difference of opinion concernign "global warming" ? Where's Al and all the team coverage to help us survive this potential catastrophic ......Oh wait a minute , this might be , it coult be , it is ... The Natural Way in which the planet Earth in its reaction to cyclical climate change adapts and is actually improving. OH the humanity ..we need a consensus of celebrities .

jack fisherkeller, Lagrange, illinois

Perhaps if people stopped cutting down the rainforest, this might be good news...

Raymon, London,