So what happened to global warming?

May 16, 2008

An enormous iceberg (R) breaks off the Knox Coast in the Australian Antarctic Territory, January 11, 2008. Australia’s CSIRO’s atmospheric research unit has found the world is warming faster than predicted by the United Nations’ top climate change body, with harmful emissions exceeding worst-case estimates. Picture taken January 11, 2008. REUTERS/Torsten Blackwood/Pool (ANTARCTICA)So what happened to global warming?

It’s not just that it’s disappeared from media headlines this year – shoved off by the credit crunch and natural disasters, for example. It can’t be ignored that 2007 came and went as another very warm year – the 7th hottest on record since 1850 according to the World Meteorological Organization.

But it wasn’t a record. In fact that was 1998, a full 10 years ago — the year of an exceptional El Nino, a Pacific weather pattern which heats the whole globe. So is global warming not living up to the hype?

Two weeks ago Leibniz Institute’s Noel Keenlyside stirred an academic hornet’s
nest by saying that we may have to wait longer – a decade or more – for another
peak year, because a natural weakening in ocean currents may be cooling sea

Many scientists flatly rejected the idea, saying Keenlyside had over-estimated the effect. But some pointed out that a recent switch in a weather pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation could indeed cool temperatures globally.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year recent warming was
“unequivocal” and most of it “very likely” manmade. And almost all scientists in the latest debate, including Keenlyside, agree that any temporary cooling doesn’t alter that – blips due to natural effects are to be expected.

But how long is a blip? No-one knows.

It could be many years before there’s an El Nino as bad as 1998, scientists say. And in the meantime the doubts will grow, just as policymakers try to negotiate one of the most complex global treaties ever. A new Kyoto Protocol will affect issues of equity and poverty: in the case of poor countries the right to grow, for island states perhaps the right to exist, and for rich countries the right to compete on a level economic playing field.

Meanwhile one or two doubters are already saying the present lull in warming
casts doubt on just how far manmade greenhouse gases are influencing the climate. MIT’s Richard Lindzen reckoned that if it was as bad as all that temperatures would be rising faster.

What do you think?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

As a member of solarcycle24 I must put in a word for the Sun.
Cycle 23 is very long lived, 12 years against and average 10.5(ish), which is delaying the arrival of 24. This will lead, as it has done previously in the available record, to cooling. Whether this cooling will be large enough, or even soon enough, to derail the incredibly costly policies that some environmentalists are foisting on the rest of us is to be seen. Using current solar theory it would seem that the world is in for possibly 60 years of cool/cold – enough time to develop alternative technologies and for us to enjoy the tiny, tiny benign warmth, that we have “suffered” only recently, that the CO2 lobby claim is down to human fossil fuel use.

Posted by Jock W | Report as abusive

I think that the global enviromental change for the most part is a good thing… It starts making of take responsibility for dumping huge amounts of pollutants in the air, instead of just ignoring it as we have done in the past… But…

I also think we should also be seriously focusing as well on the solar cycle 24 issue. We seem to be stuck in the short term at a solar minimum, and we need to start putting together possible plans in the event that it stays there. Meaning, if the solar minimum remains where it is, then empirical evidence from history tells us that we will have seasons where harvests will fail due to wet and cold conditions. I am not saying this would or could occur, but not looking at or putting plans in place could mean that millions of people could starve some point in the near future…

Posted by Tim Jones | Report as abusive

[…] what do you think? You could always comment here, there, or both. addthis_url = […]

Posted by Reuters: What happened to Global Warming? | Malagent’s Domain | Report as abusive

The climate is being destabilized by pollution. That impacts food production, daily temperatures, and most important, rainfall.

If we stop polluting today, it would take centuries for the climate to even out. The truth is that all this pollution has actually masked the warming, and as we increase the airborne pollution, we coat the earth in a blanket that reduces sunlight by 10%.

Good luck.

Posted by Earl E | Report as abusive

This global warming issue is the biggest farce ever perpetrated by man.

Posted by Joe | Report as abusive

i think it is completely overblown. i am sure we have affected it, but if we head into serious global cooling, we may be VERY glad that we helped warm it a bit.

Posted by mark | Report as abusive

Everyone needs to understand that the science does not support a heating of the Earth.
Al Gore will not take up invites for a debate on these issues, why?
Just follow the money. He comes out with a movie stating what he believes is our last chance to head off this doom and gloom heading our way.
When he lost the Presidency several years back, he went into a sort of sabbatical. I figure this having been one of the biggest failures of his life he suffered a breakdown. He gained weight and grew a scaggly beard and gave lectures to Vanderbilt students.
He more or less reinvented himself and decided he wanted to become one of the richest people he could be.
People need to know why someone with a zinc mine on his farm and flys everywhere on his private jet would be concerned with our lives being ruined by the ecology??
Just follow the money people. He is not that complicated.

Posted by Carey | Report as abusive

“The climate is being destabilized by pollution. That impacts food production, daily temperatures, and most important, rainfall.If we stop polluting today, it would take centuries for the climate to even out. The truth is that all this pollution has actually masked the warming, and as we increase the airborne pollution, we coat the earth in a blanket that reduces sunlight by 10%.Good luck.”
If you earth and peace loving, enviros that are needlessly scaring the crap out of our kids, really cared about anything BUT yourselves, you would stop taxing and banning things and making everyone else pay for your selfish do-gooding based on a non-existent crisis.

Ask any kid what life will be like for them or their kids later on a melting planet ravaged with storms and drought causing untold world suffering as promised by Al Gore, NASA, EPA and the UN. This is the first time since ancient sieges where an entire generation of young people now coldly accepts the possibility of suicide in their future.

25 years of Climate change is clearly just weather, a green Da Vinci Code, political and a media perfect storm that reminds us that yes, a civilized society can be so twisted, it thinks we are stronger than nature itself.

We are living longer than at any time in history and it is obviously not the environment that is killing us.
So get ahead of the curve because history will laugh and cry at humans changing the temperature of the planet.


Posted by mememine69 | Report as abusive

There is an almost perfect correlation between the solar eruptional activity and the Earth’s climate.
Right now the Sun is in an extreme low activity, prompting a free fall in the global temperature.
There is a reason that the agenda driven Gaia-climate scientists never mention indirect eruptional solar variations as a possible cause for climate change.
The moment they acknowledge that this can cause climate change their theory and argumentation collapses and the truth will be revealed to the world.

Posted by Per | Report as abusive

The assumptive myth that Cycle 23 was exceptionally long, and/or that Cycle 24 failed to arrive ‘on time’, deserves nothing more than a shrug. Cycles last 9 to 14 years, overlap, and frequently present short periods of dead spots. The only recent special event was the La Nina cool spike. It just shows existing processes continue to influence global patterns. The German model is a north-atlantic weather forecast. The real special issue is GHG buildup and its influence on climate. After the political fingers are worn out, the real questions are – how bad will it get, how soon will it get bad, and how long will the bad last. The article has a buried hint – the decision, for now, is to let loose the fullest measure of GHGs and see what happens.

Posted by owl | Report as abusive

Unfortunately, those of us in the public will remain lost about this issue, and most people will just follow their political leaders in their opinions. For that matter, scientists may be just as lost. When an issue becomes as politicized as this one, it is very difficult to know which scientists are above the political fray.

In a general sense, science is just not up to understanding the weather yet. They cannot predict future weather with any greater certainty than psychiatrists can predict the personalities of people when they grow up. Too many variables and unknowns. I suspect there will come a day when predictability is possible. Not yet. With all their satellites and experience, meteorologists can’t reliably tell us the weather next week and sometimes not even the next day. What can a climatologist do looking ten years into the future.

Go ahead, find a book that supports your prejudice and learn only that side of the argument. Half the people you meet will agree with you and who cares about the rest. I, for one, can only wait, sitting on my fence, in blissful ignorance, until their is some bedrock of knowledge. I suggest everyone else, not a climatologist, do the same.

Posted by David Eisenberg | Report as abusive

This man-made global warming fraud is motivated by totalitarian lust for power among collaborators from radical environmentalism, collectivist-altruist-socialism, and the UN rat’s nest of dictatorships. They all aim to destroy the last remnants of Enlightenment values and principles under which their own life-threatening irrationality is rightfully condemned.

Vaclav Klaus put it best at the 2008 Climate Change Conference in Manhattan, NY, “It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.”

It is time for the second Enlightenment-based intellectual revolution to throw off the shackles being crafted for us by these eco-totalitarians.

Posted by Metaphysician | Report as abusive

Those who work to advance the theory of global warming seem to me to have a very arrogant view of mankind…they have grossly exaggerated man’s ability to significantly affect the temperature of the planet.

I am not a scientist and have never heard of solar cycles 23 and 24 until today. It has always seemed common sense to me that of all the things that might effect the temperature of the earth, the sun is responsible for 99.999% (or more) of the temperature effect. It also seems common sense to me that the amount of heat emitted from the sun would not be 100% consistent; rather it would vary given the nature by which the sun generates heat. This would then logically lead to periods of time on the earth where its temperature would be warmer or cooler than the average…as the heat emanating from the sun varies, so does the earth’s temperature. I would guess that solar scientists have studied this for decades; and perhaps solar cycles 23 and 24 provides the evidence of a correlation between the sun’s heat emissions and the earth’s temperature.

If one takes the perspective of our entire solar system and understands the immensity of the sun and its power, it seems so absurd to me that someone can think that infinitesimal man and his civilizations on earth could have any impact at all on the temperature of the earth.

Scott Stivers

Posted by Scott Stivers | Report as abusive

Let’s not forget Al Gore, one of if not the biggest scam artists in this debacle, has made a considerable amount from Occidental Oil, not to mention the many billions a year his Energy Trading company makes from carbon credits alone. The problem I have with this article is it, like most others, just forces this opinion that there’s a consensus amongst scientists that global warming is credible, while introducing a single skeptic presented as a rogue. Whenever anyone opposes the former-Global Warming now climate change theory, they are private. Meanwhile, 9/10 times those pushing the nonsense are Governments or UN. Nothing is gained from the skepticism, in fact, it’s likely to cause problems in the scientists career and personal life. Take the protest at the UN meeting where they were heckled and harassed by false environmentalists.

Posted by Fritz | Report as abusive

Lets all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is going on. It’s ok to be in denial, it a form of self preservation. It’s absurd not to think that infitesimal man and his civilizaitons on earth could have any impact on the temperature of the earth. Ok there is oposing evidence regarding temperature at the moment, but what about the Earth itself. Anyone with basic year 6 or 7 science / year 8 biology and/or parents conscious of the environment around them, would understand that continually putting pollutants in the air and water will eventually cause problems because they sooner or later ‘will not go away’. Look at any big city on the horizon and you will see the orange haze of pollution. Then there is the land clearing by man. If there is no plant to hold the topsoil, believe it or not it will get blown or washed away. This is called land degredation cause by infinitesimal man’s interference. Permanant damage done by the absurd actions of infinitesimal man. But that’s only the real hard evidence version of it all. There is the other version of denial many people choose to accept because it’s is too fearful/ hard to comprehend, too time consuming, too expensive, (it’s not happening in my back yard so it’s not my problem attitude), for them make any effort to try and fix it. While the people not affected stay in their nice little houses in the unravaged land and don’t see where their rubbish, CO2 they expel or poo actually goes, why should they believe what is actually going on then. The Earth is a living being and doesn’t take kindly to ill treatment. The Earth is trying to tell us ignorant humans something and we all need to stop and listen.

Posted by Conscientious Observer | Report as abusive

Sorry but it just isn’t accurate to say that 2007 was the 7th hottest year since 1850. I don’t care what the World Meteorological Organization says. Nobody knows what the world’s temperature was in 1850. How did they measure the temperature at the poles? In the middle of the oceans? In central Asia, Africa, North or South America? There is simply no way to accurately know what the earth’s temperature was before 1979 when satellites first started measuring it. In the last 29 years, 2007 was the 4th warmest.

Posted by Sean | Report as abusive

Conscientious Observer writes:

“Lets all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing is going on. It’s ok to be in denial, it a form of self preservation. It’s absurd not to think that infitesimal man and his civilizaitons on earth could have any impact on the temperature of the earth. Ok there is oposing evidence regarding temperature at the moment, but what about the Earth itself. Anyone with basic year 6 or 7 science / year 8 biology and/or parents conscious of the environment around them, would understand that continually putting pollutants in the air and water will eventually cause problems because they sooner or later ‘will not go away’.”

Hmm.. so you are trying to convince people who are skeptical of the claim that CO2 (not a pollutant).That it is the main driver of warming.Being in denial?

Did you actually read the article at all?

There is nothing about pollution in it at all.It is about global temperature changes or lack of one.It also mentioned a paper about no warming for another decade or more of cooling.That would mean at least 20 years of cooling.

The question should really be asked is:

Why is there a prolonged cooling trend,when that should not be possible with the continued yearly increase of atmospheric CO2 levels?

Posted by sunsettommy | Report as abusive

Firstly, the statement that 2007 was warmer than average and one of the warmest since 1850 is incorrect. The winter of 2006-2007 was warm, 2007-2008 was much colder than the average, as shown by the first snowfall in Baghdad in recorded history.

The solar cycle does coincide much more closely with temperature than CO2 levels. If you examine any chart of CO2 levels and temp going back for a period longer than 100 years or so, it’s clear that CO2 levels rise after temp goes up, not the other way around. CO2 is increasing despite the fact that temp is decreasing, demonstrating that our climate is still far too complex to model and that CO2 is unable to overcome natural climate forcings.

Air pollution, according to the IPCC models, is actually a very good thing since without it’s dimming effect we’d already be facing catastrophe. But since CO2 levels have been up to 20 times higher than they are today, and temp was only 7C higher than today, the entire IPCC house of cards will collapse under it’s own weight.

Posted by M Davis | Report as abusive

It’s no farce ! Or did you say that just to get a rise ? When we are all coating ourselves with SPF morning noon and night, or bailing out our basement cause the creek keeps getting higher or having to go to Baffin island to get in a little cross country skiing I want to meet the person that said it was a farce. You aren’t the same person that said ” Peace in our Time ” were you

Posted by ceeg | Report as abusive

Clearly, global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). It exists mainly in the human mind and is manufactured from two sources – careless data acquisition and dubious data processing.
Mother nature continues to be the biggest denier of the global warming scam. Yes the globe is warming and has been sense the last ice age. I consider that a good thing. It’s a natural cycle and man has nothing to do with it. One thing that all of the none political scientist agree on is that the climate has always been changing. Never in the earth history has the climate stayed the same. We need to stop wasting money on the global warming scam.

Posted by Robert G | Report as abusive

I think every one here needs to take a breather and read the following paper. e.doc

This is the very straightforward physics behind the “greenhouse effect”… it’s well established and nothing new or startling.

Next, after carefully reading the true story behind how the green house effect works, ask yourself, ” Did I actually understand any of that?” If your answer is “no”, then ask yourself, “Then what is the basis for my current beliefs on this subject”?

In reality, few citizens are equipped to understand the science behind global climate, so everyone depends on someone else to “interpret” it for him/her. So who do you end up believing? The most quoted? The most popular? The most famous? The head of some large, well-known organization?

In the end, the public generally has no ability to understand any of it, and no ability to sort out the science of folks like Fred Singer, Dick Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Willie Soon and a host of other general experts in the field, and often choose to believe the scientific illiterates like Al Gore and Bill McKibben and others who have no scientific background but are very “popular” writers on the subject.

Trying to discuss global warming at the root science level with someone like Al Gore would be like trying to discuss the working of an automatic transmission with a chicken.

Yes, I’m an Atmospheric Physicist, but who in heck would believe me over the opinion of a science illiterate who has won an Oscar or sold 100,000 copies of a book….?

Posted by Jim Peden | Report as abusive

Hi everyone, I am an AGW denirer, My name is Forrest. I suppose that my denial comes from 15 years of caring and examining all the applicable data that has been avaialable to me, a love of math, statistical analysis, etc and so on.

I love being compared to people who believe the earth is flat, and think it is lovely that so many have taken pains to see that my judgement and ability to understand complex issues are so easily dismissed because I do not agree with their statements.

I love the earth and the enviroment, I ride an electric scooter ( because it is cheap ), and believe that people should be responsible for themselves.

I also believe that the Earth, by all accounts has warmed over the last hundred years. Most notebly if you examine the last 29 years you can see that the earth had warmed.

I also can see that in the last decade it has a cooling trend.

I suppose I need to go on a 12 steps program… I need to accept a belief in a higher power ( ‘Scientist and AL GORE’ ) and turn my life over to that higher power… Maybe then and only then I will be able to shake off this horrible, horrible problem of denying AGW… If only I could shut my brain off… Hmmmm… how to do that… Maybe I just need to watch “An Inconvieniant Truth” a few more times that would do it for me…

Posted by Forrest | Report as abusive

I started out “believing” in Global Warming because the media and scientists said it was “fact”. My sister asked what I thought about GW so I decided I should research it for myself. I am not a scientist, but I am an engineer and make my living trying to understand data and how to control it. After all of my study, I have concluded (like so many others) GW is nothing but a political movement with no compelling science and no direct evidence that man is the problem. Everything is a theory with nothing but antidotal evidence (if you can call the polar bear that) to support it. The computer models are a joke. If a model can’t reconstruct the past, how can we trust it to predict the future? They tune the model outputs to support their underlying theories!

I do believe Global Warming will be a disaster for the planet. But it won’t be from climate change, it will be from the extraordinary measures our governments are going to take to “control” it. I guess that is the most amazing thing about this entire debate. Even after spending trillions of dollars, no one really expects it to make any real difference; with the exception that a lot of people (like Al Gore) are going to make massive amounts of money. Of course we all know who will pay for it.

Posted by Larry | Report as abusive

The latest and greatest comments concern La Nina (making things cooler) and El Nino (making things warmer), but these events have been going on for thousands of years, at least long before there was any Industrial CO2 to cause any problem. This and many other natural events are much more likely to cause any climate change than the slight increase in the non-polluting CO2, a gas that is absolutely necesarry for life on our planet.

Posted by NoOne | Report as abusive

I want to thank Jim Peden for providing the link to the ClimateChange.doc paper. Like Larry, I am an engineer also. I happen to work in the nuclear energy industry which has much to gain from the acceptance of the CO2 driven AGW hoax. I have been a “denier” for some time and don’t really care if the fraud of global warming is finally exposed and the nuclear industry takes a dive (again). I hope it doesn’t because nuclear power really is a great way to go, but that’s another fight.

I didn’t really examine the paper in detail, but the important facts are there. If this could be distilled into something that the general public could understand, along with a few graphics, then maybe Algore and his ilk could finally be exposed for their lies. I recently had the opportunity to work on infrared CO2 gas detectors, and what I learned about CO2 energy absorption makes the truth of the paper’s conclusions painfully obvious: any level of atomospheric CO2 above a minimal amount, well below the current level, will NOT cause any perceptible change in global temperature. If I understand the science correctly, the IR wavelengths that CO2 can absorb will ALL get absorbed by CO2 and water vapor over a certain mininal distance and therefore are completely filtered out within that distance. Due to the conservation of energy, changing the concentration of GHG will only change the elevational distribution of any temperature changes but will not alter the overall temperature change.

Posted by Tom L | Report as abusive

I would echo what Forrest has said. I am an engineer also, and as such seek efficiencies in everything I do. I also started off believing in the global warming hype. After much study myself, I have also concluded that what we have been witnessing is nothing more than natural variation from a multitude of factors. Most to complex to model. I reject the overblown CO2 sensitivities and lack of meaningful variables such as the sun spot cycle modelers have used to scare the populace. I believe what we have seen is the hijacking of a noble branch of science. Unfortunately, it will probably take years(perhaps a generation) for climatology to recover as a science that will be seen as credible. The global warming alarmists have done us all a disservice in more ways than just financial.

Posted by Ranger | Report as abusive

I am constantly amazed that this topic hogs up all the headlines. It seems as though the debate of whether it is man made or a natural occurance, warming into the future or cooling is purely academic in nature, when the real topic of discussion should be that you cannot go anywhere in the world anymore without seeing, breathing, feeling, tasting and hearing pollution all around you – and the effects of it is astounding. Whether or not there is global warming, we are doing a terrible job of managing what resources we have left.


Posted by John Gudenkauf | Report as abusive

Let me first say that I am a former science teacher with a degree in Biology who is now a school district superintendent. I am very concerned about the indoctrination of our children with any political viewpoint. I believe that a good teacher does not push children one way or the other, rather teaches them to think for themselves and learn how to collect and analyze data. Yet the propoganda piece of movie magic that Al Gore put out is in nearly every school and pushed by most science and elementary teachers. (Thanks, non-analyzing, left-leaning mainstream media!)

I believe as many do that nearly all of the AGW hype is for political purposes. Al Gore has been shown to be a charleton both in his lying and misrepresentation of facts in his film as well as his contradictory lifestyle.

That said, if these enviropolitical activists really analyzed their arguments, there is a serious conflict. For years they have complained that we are cutting down too many trees and not protecting our existing forests. More CO2 in the climate coupled with warmer temperatures would make for better growing conditions for our forests and farmers. CO2 is not – NOT – a pollutant. It is a critical ingredient for photosynthesis!

Fear! It is what the left uses to try to gain power and marginalize opponents. Live free of fear – support freedom.

Posted by Jeff | Report as abusive

Political… If your conservative, you are suppose to think anyone concerned about the environment is a whaco, If you are liberal, you are suppose to embrace “green” and global warming initiatives.

I dont think we have enough data to decide either way about global warming. We do have enough data to support being good stewards of our environment – for us and for our kids.

Yes, there may be those who dont practice at all what they preach, but that doesn’t releive any of us our responsibility to the planet that we all (democrats and republicans) drink, eat, and breathe on.

To me, it isn’t political, it is common sense.

Posted by Dave Barry | Report as abusive

I had no idea the anti carbon tax lobby would attack this article with such abandon!

In reality though, as a response to the original article, I think that the lack of AGW in the media is due to the fact that there are much bigger stories (rev Wright and Bittergate) that have been hogging the spotlight this year. Of course thats the same conclusion you came to.

I think there’s also tremendous work done to confuse people. Oil companies (As per Exxon Mobil) spend huge amounts of money funding the extremely partisan “global warming debunking” groups.

In the end, denial of AGW requires denial of many prominent groups, including NASA (which has the largest concentration of climatologists). Ultimately it stems from a couple of things though, lack of immediate and obvious consequences being the most prominent. The other, being what was mentioned so many times already: the weather.

While it is neat to say things like “we couldnt measure the temperature or Co2 levels of the atmosphere in the 19th century” it’s really a lie. There are several ways to test both, most notably measurements of ice. Ice that is decreasing at an ever increasing rate in the arctic.

In the end though, refusal to reduce CO2 emissions do not carry any positive potentials. From the melting of the arctic ice, to the exponential release of what was formerly frozen methane gas (a greenhouse gas) to the acidification of the ocean, one of our greatest food sources.

In the end, continuing production of CO2 on a large scale serves only to benefit those who produce it on such a large scale, energy companies who thrive on oil and coal.

Posted by Travis | Report as abusive


I never thought about it that way….

Posted by Jessie | Report as abusive

people around the world is detroying the environment with trash!!!!

Posted by Joya hekkanen | Report as abusive

What is wrong with us? Do you not remember back only 30 some years ago it was going to be an ICE AGE that was going to destroy us? I am so disgusted with the insane ignorance of most “regular” people and our so called “savior government” who have fallen so far into this, what one of our most well know and respected climatologists Dr. Phil Gray has called “The Greatest Hoax Ever Puled On the American Public” Global Warming. Not only is it insane but the “culprit” put forth by the ALGORE cult “CO2″ is one of the necessities of life itself. If they want to start taxing CO2 they better hook up every living and breathing organism on the planet because that is where most of it is coming from.

As for the Nuclear Power proponents I just ask what do we do with the waste that is deadly for 10,000 years? That is not figured into the cost of the electricity produced. Also every Nuclear Plant is a Deadly Terrorist Target and the cost of Protecting those plants against that terrible threat has never even been discussed to my knowledge.

Posted by Craig | Report as abusive

If humans are causing the global warming with the use of burning fossil fuels over the last century or two, what caused the reduction of the ice age over the last 30-40 thousend years before humans were burning fossil fuels?

Posted by Fred Cull | Report as abusive

It astounds me that so many people decide that global warming is a myth and that it is all just natural causes and that there’s hype about nothing.

I am a trained earth scientist. I have looked at the data. I always have an inclination to look at matters coldly and flatly and decide on the evidence presented.

What I find most disturbing is that there is PLETHORA of evidence to support the fact that the earth is undergoing climatic change and this evidence is overwhelming in the fact that it is human casued!

The earth has undergone climate change before, and yes ice ages have come and gone, but have also taken 10,000 years and more to make that change. The earth has also seen warming before, and yes, some of it due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and yes, the CO2 has been as a result of natural causes, but again, this change occurred over tens of thoudsands of years, not hundreds of years! The difference is, that in the long past, species has had time to evolve (although 10,000 years is extremely quick in the eyes of evolution, a timescale of 100s of years to evolve to new conditions is CATASTROPHIC!).

The facts are staring us straight in the eye – a global AVERAGE (not everywhere!!) of 1 degree centigrade would cause huge problems – a 4 degree change in 100 years – which is what we could see – would mean vegetation extinction as they have not got enough time to grow and migrate with the temperatures. Less vegetation means less CO2 being converted back to oxygen, meaning increased temperatures, meaning increased species extinction meaning less vegetation meaning less CO2 being converted to oxygen – get the drift?

It’s simple – there is no conspiracy. The scientists have not got it wrong. The climate is changin, and the earth will change with it, and we are at the verge of the larges, greates extinction event ever! Forget the great extinction events of the past (such as the permian triassic event) – this now includes our own long term survival, as human beings.

Ignoring this fact is at our own peril!

Posted by Alan | Report as abusive