Thank you, it's been at least 3 days since a "global warming" fairy tale article has appeared - I was wondering what happened, thanks for keeping up the fight against global warming. Citizens of the world! Support Big Brother in his heroic struggle against the elements! Warm baaaaaaad, cold gooooood, warm baaaaaaaaaaaaaad, cold gooooooood

Napoleon P., London,

Tom from Tokyo: So how did you get to Japan then? Rowing boat? Corn-oil powered microlite? Or was it a dirty great jumbo jet? Of course, maybe you bought some 'carbon offsets', and some here-today, gone-tomorrow internet outfit told you they'd plant a tree for you in Mozambique; maybe they even sent you a certificate to prove it!

If temperatures are rising at an unusually high level (not proven), and if man is to blame (not proven), then we'll adapt, as humans and other creatures always have. Look how far technology has come in the last 100 years – in another 50, if we haven't phased out fossil fuels we'll have worked out how to get excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. But this depends on not crippling our economy now.

And just a reminder – average global temperatures haven't risen above 1998 levels in the past nine years, despite ever-increasing CO2 emmissions. Still no proven link, yet the Gore-fuelled hysteria continues…

http://monkeytenniscentre.blogspot.com/

Mike McNally, Bath, UK

Channel 4's excellent documentary by leading climate change scientists "the Great Global Warming Swindle" should be required viewing for any one wishing to comment on the climate change debate. It is an enlightening and reasoned counterargument to the now (legally proven) flawed film An Inconvenient truth. Only when all the TRUE scientific facts are presented without all this doom-mongering, politically motivated hype are we able to evaluate the latest data in the correct context.

A Cambridge Scientist, Haywards Heath, UK

>"If CO2 is increasing faster than the models assumed, but temperature is only increasing as fast as they predicted, doesn't that mean that CO2 has less effect on temperature than the models assumed? And doesn't that then make the predicted increase of 6.4 degrees over the next century wrong?"

Generally GCM models are fed with CO2 levels not with CO2 emissions (which seems much less certain). (Carbon cycles can be added but this is mainly to investigate the carbon cycle effects rather than for predictions of temperature rise.)

So if temperature is only increasing as fast as predicted, this would mean the models are about right. If emissions are increasing faster than the scenarios then more warming might be expected but there is already a considerable range in the scenarios and a few years data doesn't mean emissions will always be rising faster than scenarios.

crandles, Mold,

Now, we really must change our entire way of life if we are to survive on this planet. We have to move from a culture of excess to a culture of sufficiency which has the creation of well-being rather than wealth as its main purpose. . And the irony is that such a culture can produce a much more satisfying kind of society. This generation therefore has one of the most awesome choices in history, utopia or catastrophe!

Stan Rosenthal, Lindfield, West Sussex, England

To Martin, London, I have studied Geology, and yes, global temperatures have always fluctuated, and always will.
However, this period of history is unique, because we have taken vast amounts of carbon from the earth and pumped it into the atmosphere, and CO2 traps heat. So this could well trigger a 6C rise in temperature this century (which wouldn't have happened 'naturally'), wiping out the human race. So the 'temperatures have always fluctuated' argument always seems misguided to me.

Personally i don't believe we can solve the problem by restraining ourselves, by not travelling and so on. Humans do not care about the future, they are animals, who satisfy their immediate desires. So the only solution can be a technological one, a form of global cooling, such as artificial cloud creation. If we warmed the globe accidentally, surely we can cool it on purpose?

Tony, Dublin, Ireland

Since midwives were relabeled as witches and their knowledge purged, the families who virtually own western civilization have enforced a mandate for growth. As the sacred cow we worship as The Economy increasingly reaches limits - resources more scarce, toxins increasingly prevalent - conflicts abound, even in responses to global warming. Perhaps the Luddites were more correct than is allowed to be appreciated. Some among the tenets of western civilization need revision. Growth needs be desanctified.

Teresa Binstock, Estes Park, Colorado / usa

It would be interesting to see the academic background of the commenters here.
I'd bet that there would be a high correlation between people who believe in the global warming religion versus those who don't, and artsy types versus people who did at least A-level science.

Freddy, London,

I think everyone should take a tip from me. Buy a unicycle and ride it everywhere.

ben, carlisle , england

u know, i think that's means we shouldstart a new civilzation on the moon, or mars for example, why not!!?

adams, leeds, uk

Be informed. Read Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers". That'll get you on your bicycle !

Dave, Knysna, South Africa

Emissions will carry on increasing until we have a major catastrophe. We're supposed to be intelligent but instead of facing up to the evidence, blame the other guys or just deny there's a problem. Conventional political processes will never deliver since no politician ( apart from Al Gore) wants to stand up and offer a programme of less consumption and unpopular life choices. Major corporates engage in green spin while individuals feel they can no nothing to help.

Ray Cobbett, Emsworth, Hants,

If climate change has any thing to do with the actions of people, why is the increase in the population of people never mentioned? The World's population is currently increasing by about 210,000 per day; equivalent to the population of the city of Southampton added every day. The total World population has increased more than three fold in the last 100 years from 1.8 billion in 1913 to the current 6.5 billion. Yet no-one mentions controls on population growth.

In countries such as France, Germany and Russia with a declining population the governments are trying even to increase the population.

The need for population growth is usually explained in terms of 'to ensure that there are young people to look after us in old age'. So, how big should the population be allowed to grow? At the current rate it will be about 14 billion by the end of the century.

Frank, Winchester,

It sounds as though the Prophets of Doom are angling for more billions of dollars to pursue their mystical creed.

They are beholden to the flawed Al Gore and his equally flawed film for the fantasies they repeatedly chant in the false claim of scientific "consensus".

It is almost beyond belief that a respected journal such as The Times can support an environment reporter who subscribes to the Global Warming creed without offering an alternative viewpoint.

However much the faithful chant "the debate is over", Lewis Smith should realise that is totalitarianism.

Gordon Hastings, Adelaide, Australia

Another story along the lines of "if the data don't match the model predictions, it's the data that's wrong" instead of the model". Humility in the face of incomplete knowledge is evidently not the strongest point of some climate researchers. "We found that nearly half of the decline in the efficiency of the ocean CO2 sink is due to the intensification of the winds." Really? How do they know that, how do you measure that? Why should the wind having anything to do with it, and then be detrimental? Current concentrations of CO2 and bi-carbonates in seawater is at less than 5% of saturation level (At PH 8 and 20 C and 1 bar). There is ample capacity in the oceans to absorb CO2 in spite of what these doomsayers claim.

Ed Zuiderwijk, Cambridge, UK

World temperatures seem to have fallen a little since 2000. How does this tie in with increased CO2 in the same period?

Edward Welsh, Lampeter, Wales

This means the models will be tested sooner than we had thought. CO2 levels are skyrocketing. The models will either be proved right or proved wrong pretty soon.

No way can anyone deny this as a definitive test.

Michael Slay, Washington DC, USA

"Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today."
The only trouble is, today IS tomorrow...........we're doomed (as Fraser would say) Doooomed. And the sooner the lie is exposed the sooner we can start to prepare our children for the onslaught that is self-evidently to come. Our politicians, the world over, are guilty of the biggest crime against us in the history of mankind. They must all be removed and a consensus of global scientific and engineering expertise must be allowed to take things into their control: capitalism and pursuit of wealth must make way for humanism and the pursuit of survival

Guy Stevens, Zurich, Switzerland

This is not to mention all the greenhouse gasses emited by those obese burger munching Americans..

James (11), Singapore,

Isn't it remarkable how much of this global warming alarmism emanates from such a small number of institutions ? The University of East Anglia - particularly Phil Jones' Climate Research Unit - and the British Antarctic Survey seem to be responsible for a good 80% or more of these scare stories.

Freddy, London,

Well, I never. This report comes out just at the time that we find that the Government is being advised to scale back its renewables target, because they will be appallingly expensive. Can we all admit that this is a political campaign, not a scientific one ?

Freddy, London,

Cary,

They are excluded because they are 'An inconvenient fact'

John, Glasgow, Scotland

The evidence I'd like to see, Tom Hamilton, is evidence that all this CO2 is significantly affecting the climate. Temperatures haven't risen for 9 years. The antarctic just experienced record sea ice levels as the arctic was experiencing record lows. Hurricane frequency and severity show no trend with regard to CO2. It seems that the climate is simply changing as it always has. That being the case, why would we want to take action that will harm the global economy, which will hurt the poorest first.

Paul Buddery, Queensland, Australia

Go study geology. Climate change has been happening for millions of years. The present evidence connecting carbon dioxide increases with temperature rises is scant and politically motivated. Nobody wants to pay huge taxes and go without the luxuries that fossil fuels bring. There are way more important issues that could be tackled regarding the environment. Like why is it that 40% of supermarket packaging cannot be re-cycled? Do people re-cycle in general? Why have plastic shopping bags? Why not make all new building codes require solar heating and adequate insulation etc. etc.

Martin, London, UK

If CO2 is increasing faster than the models assumed, but temperature is only increasing as fast as they predicted, doesn't that mean that CO2 has less effect on temperature than the models assumed? And doesn't that then make the predicted increase of 6.4 degrees over the next century wrong?

William McIlhagga, Ilkley,

What more evidence does Hutton need that we need to take action now?
Suppose a large asteroid was predicted to strike Earth next year. Hutton's answer would be to Not Do Anything, on the gounds of cost. We'd all die.
There are too many John Huttons scattered around the world--every country has more of its fair share of them--with reasons for not going greener despite the overwhelming evidence that taking no action now will be not only lead to irreversible damage, but will also be incalculably expensive as far as effects and damage of global warming: how short-sighted can you get Hutton? Do you have any idea what you are playing with?

Tom Hamilton, Tokyo, Japan

Cary:

Answer: The "flocks" of cows and sheep.

Gary Geoffrion, Cleveland, USA

The civilization as we know it is based on hydrocarbon fuels. That is not going to change anytime in the near future. At this point in time all the efforts to change that are just like spitting into the wind. No one wants any of the sacrifice or efforts to change things wants it to affect them. I don't believe that mind set will change in my lifetime.
In the mean time everybody hold their breathe for 60 seconds. Just think of all the CO2 that won't be expelled into the atmosphere.

Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA

Around 1400-1425 Greenland supported flocks of cows and sheep, and the north coast of Russia was navigated and mapped. What caused that huge amount of global warming? This sort of historical data is usually excluded from the official figures on which estimates are based.

Cary Hamer, Chengdu, China