Posted By J Knight It's just a re-hash of the head in sand doubter's case. Specifically, Hadley may or may not state that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998, but many other sources do. Secondly, the 'hockey-stick' was 'soundly discredited' by a panel of US Senators, it has since been stoutly defended and is not to be regarded as sunk without trace; as far as I know the methodology behind it and its findings still stands. Also, Mr Lawson, for all his education and keen intellect, is an economist, and by and large economists simply do not understand the natural world and its workings; if you doubt this dig out the thread on the BBC web-site about the day the worlds economies went into resource debt to the planet this year and see what the economist has to say about it; it's very, very frightening. Yes, we have had extreme weather in the past, and yes the climate always changes; but this is global extreme weather, and things seem to be changing very fast. while we were having frost fairs it was unusually warm in the Pacific, overall there was a balance; now there doesn't seem to be. Then there's the issue that Mr Lawson et al always fail to address. The night side of the Earth is about 93M miles from the sun, and has a mean temperature of about 285K, the dark side of the moon is also 93M miles from the Sun and has a mean temperature of about -271K; what's the difference? It's the atmosphere, stoopid. There is no doubt that the atmosphere is the biggest moderator of planetary surface temperatures (I could go on about Venus with its 600K temperatures, but I won't), and all the evidence is that changing the composition of the atmosphere will alter the way it reacts to heat. There is no evidence that changing the constitution of the atmosphere will not modify the way it responds to heat. So, is anthropogenic global warming happening? D****d if I know for sure. But most meteorologists (and Mr Lawson is again being disingenuous by portraying the existence of a a very small minority as being in any way a sign of a real difference in the balance of scientific opinion) and atmospheric physicists seem to think so, and for now I'll just wait and see. Of course, I hope they are wrong, John

Posted By mark limon my purely unscientifically based opinion is given that the United States and all the very fast developing economies are not going to do anything about it,why worry. Its just another excuse for the Labour party to tax us even more.

Posted By mark limon I could comment, but I fear I may breach AUG's! Jonathon I remember some person in the past saying something like "publish and be dammned" some duke or other I think. We have the right to express our opinions freely(ish)dont give up yours, :-)

Posted By mark limon Ive 2 words to say "millenium bug"

Posted By J Knight Rob, you don't read the Grauniad, I know, but your opinions do seem to come straight from a daily mail perspective, with just a hint of a famous radio presenter who I won't name. Please cite these 'studies' which dispute Global Warming. I have been abreast of this issue since it first reared its ugly head in 1980, and I do agree that the media scare-mongers and exaggerates; some would say that that's its job. However, so far I haven't come across any good science which has really dented the facts; the world is warmer now than it was 25 years ago, and its getting warmer faster. There's a lot of science that disputes this, but by and large its not good science. For example, one of the main 'studies' which disputed the consensus rested on the fact that satellite records from the 1970s to date didn't support surface temperature records; since satellites have a wider global coverage, especially of the oceans, this has been used to dispute the idea that the planet is getting warmer. However, a couple of years ago careful work demonstrated that the fault lay in the satellites, or more accurately in the calibration of their results; once corrected the records match terrestrial records, and warming is revealed. This hasn't been significantly disputed by anybody. Now, I have had doubts about all this from the beginning, mainly because its a huge claim and needs to be treated sceptically. I continue to hace doubts, as doubts are needed for any scientific understanding, especially of such a very comlpex issue. But it seems that every attempt to demolish the theories behind climate change has so far been fairly easily overturned, while the central observable tenets of the message have so far not been successfully challenged. And this I think is important; evolutionary theory is similarly difficult, often uncomfortable, and still disputed; but just about every advance in biology adds another brick to Darwin's theory, and knocks another hole in the edifices built by doubters. The same thing seems to be happening with climate change. So, in short, keeping an open mind is advisable, I agree, but it doesn't mean accepting any and every faintly reactionary opposing view in all cases, and just stating something in capital letters isn't always helpful, John

Posted By Descarte FYI we are at "solar minimum" at the moment, the period when solar activity is relativly low, however there is more than one solar cycle. Solar cycles are known to cause shifts in climate change ranging in scales of every 11 years to 150,000 years. Would be interested to see your source as I am somewhat involved in this subject I think there are 4 average and extreme opinions on global warming It is happening, Im building my new house on stilts It is happening but not going to affect me in my, my childrens etc lifetime It is not happening, its just another scare mongering tactic by the government, air and sea temperatures change all the time It is not happening, its all a bunch of tree hugging hippy crap Im in the second one, climate change has happened in the past and scientists are unsure of the transition between colder and warmer periods, though transition is occuring quite rapidly now, we do not understand all the factors involved be them anthropogenic or natural. Should we do nothing, no, should we take a measured and effective response coupled with common sense, yes. Is this going to cost a lot of money, Yes. How do we convince people we need to spend this money, scare the hell out of em.

Posted By Tabs Are we not missing a trick here? Regardless of whether global warming is happening, and is or is not attributable to emissions, would it not be good for all of us to reduce the use of fuels and improve our efficiencies? Using less fuel should cost us less long term, should mean the sources remain viable for longer, and should mean a cleaner atmosphere for us to breathe. I think it is naiive to assume that this government is only adding more taxes because of the green issue. They would find a way to raise taxes regardless ... so even if all the scientists announced it was all a hoax, we could still expect more taxation (taxes and death, eh?). Global warming is like having the parents visit. You have to tidy your house, you have to clean the cat, the kids, the carpet ... and if they don't show, at least everything is in order (for a few days).

Posted By Andy Walker I'm glad I made the posting as it sparked an interesting debate. As I stated I neither agree nor disagree with Mr Lawson, I'm keeping an open mind on the subject (until the water starts to lap around my ankles). Andy W