Climate change 'isn't caused by us'

The IPCC has no evidence and relies on the output of climate models that according to the information in table 2.11 of the 2007 report cannot possibly be accurate.

What evidence does Dr Fankhauser have, if any? Surely he knows that opinions aren't evidence and that scientific truth isn't determined by votes.
John McLean - Melbourne, Australia

The governments of every single nation agree, after reviewing the evidence, that climate change is a serious issue, worth spending lots of money on, and worth restricting growth in major industries for. Now some organisations, funded by those very major industries, keep mounting ideologised disinformation campaigns, smear scientists (DeSmogBlog is a good read) and try to undermine international action. Nearly every scientist working on climate change agrees that it is really happening, and happening because of increases in CO2 emissions that trap heat, and that these increases are caused because of the extra CO2 added to the natural cycles by burning fossil fuels. Failure to act will prove fatal.
Nick Fraser - London, UK

opinion is not scientific fact ...the emails prove nothing ...it is irresponsible journalism to run headlines designed as propaganda ...I suspect greed is behind it all
curtrock - pacifica/USA

I woud not take this person too seriously. First, look at who is funding him. Follow the money. Second, science is not done by what a person "believes", it is done by creating hypothesis and testing them with experiments and observations. What experiments and observational data has he used to test his hypothesis that humans have had little effect on climate? Third, look at who profits from adapting to climate change (regardless of what causes it) the way that he suggests. Follow the money.
Sean - Springfield/USA/IAC

Thank God for Professor Singer, who has reminded us as a "voice crying out in the wilderness" that there is this thing called science, which is not based on hysteria or politics aka Gorification, Obamafication or Oprahfication, but instead upon data. Frankhauser appears to be a common shill.
Dr. Jerome Kale - Reno, Nevada, USA

"The debate about what is causing global warming is far from over." The main reason for that is that people completly ignore the existence of hundreds of thousands of Aliens motherships in our Earth's atmosphere at altittude of 20 - 50 miles. These spaceships use the free energy of gravitational, magnetic, electrical fields for their movement in the sky. But to do that they have internally to create electromagnetic fields with high voltage and high frequency, which one way or another interact with our ozon layer. To prove their existence I went to UFO PA MUFON conference. Jonh Ventre, director of PA MUFON, did a great job in organizing this UFO conference. People who saw AFOs (Aliens Flying Object) in the night sky under my guidance, including 5 UFO field investigators (Michael A. Melton one of them) from PA MUFON, Jonh Ventre, well-known Ufologists,etc - at UFO conference (Montgomery county community College on 10/09/2009). Be one of them. Details in my article "Aliens live in our Earth's atmosphere"
Ilya Stavinsky - park ridge, nj

the earth has gone through periods of cool and hot for centuries as evidenced by the fossil record. what will you fools be talking about when the earth returns to a cooler cycle?
cv

["I am not worried about climate change, not at all."
"The only thing I am scared of is politicians who in their zeal to 'save the climate' will introduce policies that will ruin the economy."]

Why would anyone trust a scientist that is worried about the economy? Scientist should stick to science ... right?


Mike merrifield - Seattle/USA

"What is truth?" asked jesting Pilate, and walked away without an answer.
Dudley Cox - B.C.

Any field biologist will tell you that species are moving...in Arizona there's a desert, running up to about 1800 meters in elevation, where it becomes bushy, Juniper-spotted grassland to about 2300 meters, where it becomes Pine Forest. In the past five years there is a 'layer' at the bottom of the Grassland and Pine Forest where the upper biome is dying and the lower biome is moving in. This is evident to anyone who drives along a highway in the Southwest United States. There are anomalies that are the 'new-normal'...theory is great, but theory can go out the window-global warming is demonstrable fact, and the only way these ideologues find a way around this is by pursuing alternative theories they will never be able to, in fact, demonstrate. See Above. Professor Singer, and his ilk, don't argue for or against facts, they argue ideology...and there's has failed a thousand times in as many years. Flat-Earth-Societies have always been the downfall of their civilizations. Expect this one to be no different.
Lucas Thompson - Arizona, USA

True scientists do not distort the facts, manufacture data, or hide data that does not match their agenda.

The recently released documents pretty clearly indicate that at least some of the proponents of global warming have been lying and are not worthy of the title "scientist."

It is time to step back and re-evaluate the entire global warming scenario, demanding release of all raw data and the computer models so we they can be independently evaluated.

Destruction of evidence or refusal to share data and models can and should be taken as an admission of wrong-doing.
Dan - USA

The bottom line: You can do all the research you want but in an eco system...like earth...what we put in, what we take out, what we contribute affects it. Would the climate have changed anyway? More than likely...let's say definitely. Have we helped speed the process? Well, let's see. Air polution causes respiratory problems. Foilage cleans the air. So, if there isn't enough foilage to clean the air...we could plant more. Except, I live in Southern California where... there's no water for more trees or more people. But there are lots more cars for everyone. Our pollution here is primarily caused by our driving. Hence, we have contributed to the demise of our ecosystem. Forget the term "global warming." Own up to our contribution to the deterioration of our environment. Oh...and by the way Dr., we haven't figured out a way to keep our pollution to ourselves either. It seems to go where it pleases. Isn't that curious?;)
Janice Rooths - Riverside, California

The fact that those that govern us have so readily jumped on the "Climate Change" philosophy should be enough to make everyone at least suspicious. The fact that there are a multitude of scientists who are on the other side of this issue should give everyone pause. It is again, an issue of "follow the money".
Terry - Wisconsin, USA

All these scientists who profess to know exactly what is going on with the Earth right now need themselves to be analyzed. Many of these scientsts work for the World Bank and are actually using some shakey science to prove global warming. There are lots of scientists who believe the warming is caused by the sun, which makes up 99% of the mass of our solar system. When the sun changes, all the planets in our solar system change too. By the way, I don't hear these World Bank scientists talking about toxic waste in our soil and water, species going extinct, deforestation, or all the millions of pieces of plastic that end up in the bellies of baby animals around the world. We all need to listen closely to these banker\ scientists and make sure we are not being suckered into paying more to these theives because we are scared. Don't let fear take over, read and re- read the evidence for yourself and make your own decision.
Tiffany - Santa Cruz, CA

GOOD LUCK WITH THIS,WE'RE ALL COUNTING ON YOU!
JP THOMPSON - USA VT.

The Climate Change debate may not be 100 percent our doing, but we certainly do not help with land clearing methods we use so we can raise more beef to clog our bodies with refined foods. Sure if there were more trees in the amazon the carbon being put in some would be absorbed.
We have enough different avenues in technology to power our lives without using old ideas that pollute our lands, poison our water, and fund nations for their resources we would rather not be empowering with that grip on our lives.
Has any one scientist or politician every exaggerated some facts to make their point, of course they have. But this does not change the fact that when you look at the globe as a whole we need to do our part to curb our outputs of carbon, methane, and other powerful gases that allow more intense summers to evaporate more water into the atmosphere causing it to heat up even more.
Obviously a better account of volcanism needs to be factored in which probably lead to our cooler than normal summer this year in the US, of course 100s of thousands of jobs lost less cars on the road might have had a slight hand in it too. But I believe the atmosphere is too complex and big for all of that to be true.
George Meleski - Ohio, U.S.A.

These guys are sick. "Ladies and gentlemen, the theater is NOT on fire, please return to your seats and don't mind the smoke".
Mike Meade - Ohio, USA

If you do the math you will see that all the people in the world would fit into a small area as well as all the cars and industry. The entire area would be about the size of one volcano and the area it affects. The release from one volcanic eruption releases huge amounts of gases which contribute to global warming. There are several volcanoes around the world that are continually emitting these gases as well as the eruptions that occur in other volcanoes. That is not even mentioning the earthquakes that occur on a very regular basis which in turn also cause the emission of gases many times. In Africa there is a lake that is famous for the carbon dioxide that is continually released. These are all naturally occuring releases from this planet. What humans contribute is a lot by our standards but is very small compared to what this planet does.

Scientists also are very concerned about the magnetic field of this planet is changing much like what happened to Mars. The magnetic field protects the earth from the harmful radiation from the sun. If the magnetic field deteriorates substantially then the radiation will do great harm to this planet. When you combine the radiation increasing from the sun and the natural occurances of this planet then global warming will be the result and that is what is going on now. As the magnetic field further deteriorates then warming will be more severe.

We could spend all the wealth that is on this planet and not change what is naturally occuring. There are some things that we simply can not do much about and global warming is one of them.
Tom French - Maysville, KY USA

I am no scientist but in my humble opinion the extreme melting of polar ice is definite undisputable proof of global warming. Ice that has been there for centuries is melting very quickly. I recently saw a report of chunks of polar ice floating around australia. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong but this seems pretty obvious to me. The real question is "Is man a contributing factor is this all part the earths normal cycle in which it seems to have warmed and cooled many times over the millions and millions of years that it has been here?"
Richard DiNardo - Massachusetts USA

The interesting thing to me is that all the carbon being "released" in the atmosphere obviously was in the atmosphere at one time in the past. And in plants and the biosphere, returning the CO2 back to the biosphere would seem to be an acceptable thing to do. If an entire coal seam was laid down over millions of years it was locked away from the biosphere and all we are doing is returning it back to the biosphere where it came from.
Michael Banach - Baltimore, MD USA

We need to get to the bottom of this issue, lives hang in the balance. Warming has stopped, is it stopped for good, reaching a trigger point or what? No more suggestive opinions, Doctors--get busy! This is why you make the big bucks.
Ron - Elk, PA

Every single country agreed that Y2K was a problem that could have drastic consquences. Bird flu was supposed to wipe out 10% of the human population. Nuclear war was supposed to kill all of us before 1980. Now it's the human contribution to global warming... *yawn*

You sheeple can get all excited and blast my comments with your scientific fact all you want. The fact remains that history is littered with "facts" proven wrong and "incorrect opinions" or "heresy" proven as truth.
Richard Held - USA

If you still believe in global warming I have a bridge to sell you
WICKLIFFEMAN - wickliffe oh

What on earth is this inane article about? "Wow, this just in! Fred Singer says..." 95 percent of this article is devoted to the opinion of a single scientist? "Condemning tens and tens of millions"? What about the hundreds of millions that will have to do without food and water if the overwhelming scientific consensus opinion is correct? It's disheartening to see articles like this. The world needs leadership and resolve in order to solve a problem of this magnitude. Instead we get a steady stream of garbage like this article. It's origins are clearly questionable.
Stephen G. Davis - Laguna Hills, USA

According to NASA and the overwhelming majority of fully qualified experts, the hottest years on record occurred during the past ten years. It has not become cooler. The warming does not increase on a regular, linear pace, it has dips and spikes, but each spike is higher than the previous one, and the bottom of each dip is higher than that of the previous dips. Now, fossil fuel corporations know that they stand to lose a great deal of money in the near future, their greed is very short-sighted, because what humanity stands to lose if nothing radical is done very, very soon, is infinitely greater than what the fossil fuel industry is set to lose.
Vierotchka - Switzerland

The money is on both sides so the statement of "follow the money" would lead you to both publicly funded (by the taxpayer for politicians) and privately funded groups. The people screaming in our ear about Global Warming are the same ones that were screaming about Global Cooling in the 70s. On the other hand, it is our individual responsibility to take care of our environments. Don't rely on any government to provide a blanket solution to any problem. There just too inept.
Mike - Ohio

oh good. now I can go back to driveing my old smokey chevy. since we can't effect the environment, I guess I can pour that anti-freeze on the driveway. Why bother treating sewage? I'm so glad to find out we make an unmeasureable impact that I think I will cancel my garbage pickup and just dump it downtown. Noone will care now.Nuclear waste? Harmless.......
alaskan1st - America

Debate? Doesn't that normally consist of 2 qualified people presenting opposing views? I don't see the mention of a single respected climate scientist in this article.
Russ Beal - USA

I don't see that the presenters are denying effect, they are dissenting regards cause and questioning the sanity of addressing a fantasied cause. As for who profits, who will profit when science rides in to rescue the terrified victims? Science is who, or should I say scientists who have come up with "solutions." As for the smoke in the theater mentioned in one comment, what if it is just part of the show, what if this is just more of Mother Nature's Awesome Magic Extravaganza? And to dismiss Fred Singer as "one scientist" is just a tad shallow, if you're going to referee you should know something about the game.
W.J. Elvin - Chesapeake Bay USA

In regards to climate models:

http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/

http://www.grist.org/article/observations-show-climate-sensitivity-is-not-very-high/

Think about it this way, even if you don't fully believe in the results of computer models, the very fact that it is not possible to construct a computer model following all the laws of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and logic in which human carbon emissions DO NOT effect the atmosphere should tell you something.

Talk to real climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/

How to talk to climate change skeptic:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
John Patterson - SSF, USA

We need to stop everything that is pending in order to have an honest reasessment. The perpetrators should be punished.
John D. Froelich - Upper Darby, Pennsylvania

This just in, scientist are now 91.800% sure there is a problem. Here is the proof:

certainty *= 1.0200;
robin - canada

I used to be a Climate change believer
until about 3 days ago. I decided to do a little research of my own. What I found was disturbing to me, If you would like to see what real scientist think about global warming watch a video "The Great Global Warming Swindle" it is a documentary starring the co-founder of Green Piece, and several of the scientist that actually worked on the IPCC report, well shortly till they disagreed with Dr, Mann. It will open any ones eyes to what is going on. When I first saw it I was ready to disregard it as Energy company propaganda, but I like to view both sides of a story so I watched it. It is the most profound documentary I have ever seen, It really opened my eyes, and more people really need to know the truth. Even if you watch it as a sceptic like I was at least there scientific data can easily be checked, which I did.
Donald McBee - Elkins WV

We humans still in the 21st century continue thinking we are the center of the world, and the world revolves around us. It amazes me how people who are scientists, naturalists, etc, who love nature, and try to understand it, are so intrinsicly anti-natural. Entire species disappear all the time before humans were here, and after, and the universe keeps its course. There were dynosaurs, they succumbed, and other creatures evolved... why do they think it has to be any different with humans? The only way we can stop interacting with the environment is if we dissapear, or we stop producing anything, b/c even when we lived in caves, we changed them. As a friend of mine says, "if you really want to save the planet, don't use any paper when you go to the bathroom... no! don't use water either... you polluter!!!
Richard Grant - Maine, US

A recent report built on the 2006 FAO report finds that meat production actually accounts for at least 51% of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. This new report, by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of Livestock and Climate Change, may be accessed at: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
Humans consume over 380 million animals a day – over 140 billion a year – requiring an enormous amount of water, food, and land. The livestock sector impacts our environment chiefly through deforestation, pollution of our oceans with pesticides, chemical fertilizers and excretion, and greenhouse gas emissions in the form of methane and nitrous oxide. Sources: http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html
http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm
What this new report means is that the single most effective action individuals can take to save the planet is to reduce or eliminate meat and dairy consumption.
If a significant number of people in the world adopts the simple but most powerful practice of an animal-free diet, then we could reverse the effects of global warming in time to avert the impending catastrophic events. This will give us the time needed to adopt longer-term measures such as more green technology and clean energy sources that will further decrease the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. In fact, if we continue with our current rate of meat production, all other green efforts will be cancelled out in effect, and we will lose the planet before we have the chance to implement any effective green technology. Saving the planet and our future begins on our plate.

concerned citizen777 - Ottawa, Canada/personal

so self gain is the motive for any scientist who questions a popular consensus?
politicians and media getting behind blatant manipulation of data like al gore did should then also be questioned.
those who claim all private sector industry is evil should look what chinese and soviet government run industry has done relative to the well being of their citizens.
barry - toronto

It's a stark but simple choice: we act or we don't. If we don't act and Singer is right, no problem If we do act and Singer is right, there may be some economic loss. If we do act and Singer is wrong, we minimise the harm. If we don't act and Singer is wrong, we suffer dire consequences: war, famine and death on an unprecedented scale. It's a matter of prudence to act.
Peter Simons - Ireland

To say that "people should be suspicious of any science where there was a consensus" obviously means that the learned Prof must have some whizz bang ideas about what pumps blood around the body, how plants manufacture carbohydrates from inert gas and why the earth is a sphere! Is he in the pockets of oil magnates to come up with such remarks as the effects of human activities on the climate?
Robert Dunn - U.K.

At least one of the scientists who was interviewed for "the great global warming swindle" complained to the UK broadcasting regulator that his views were mis-represented by the way the programme was edited, and the regulator upheld some of these complaints - see http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114/issue114.pdf
Richard Green - Birmingham, UK

It is surprising to read Lawson stating that we have the means to adapt to both colder and warmer climates; I hope he does not mean air-conditioning! But seriously, the new argument against climate change mitigation is "warmer is better"; he states for instance that food production would improve! And health as well! But on which basis, by Jove? All the models show dramatic damage to crops in crucial areas, like US Middle West and China's plains. Is he able to prove the opposite?
I am afraid we are going to live interesting times.
Andrea Viceré - Urbino / ITALY / UNIURB

Why are we condemning tens and tens of millions in the developing world to unnecessary poverty, malnutrition and premature death and disease." I'd like to know?

Let us take some of the poorest regions on earth: African Sub-Sahara. It has an abundance of... heat, light wind and space. With international support, it would not be all that difficult to either establish H2 production - subject to
- piping some seawater into the region
_ utilising the vast renewable energy potential to electrolyse it, stepping-down the current to the 2.3 ev necessary to produce Cl(g) H2(g) and O2(g), using carbon-based electrodes, rather than Pt) - all three are commercial products that could earn foreign cash for the region. What's more, it would give lovcal governments the opportunity of developing a Fuel Cell-based electrification network, local and returning, as a byproduct, absolutely pure water, that can be used for everything, from surgery to drinking.

Alternatively, the model developed by the Desertec Industrial Initiative http://www.hardrainproject.com/newsfeed.php?n=36 could offer a nett export to Nations with these resources, while also providing them with the opportunity for

A) electrification of their Country
by Fuel-Cell stacks returning:
C) Pure Water as a byproduct.

These disingenuous comments by non-scientists, like Nigel Lawson and Lord Monkton, entirely sponsored by other, equally non-scientific bodies and commercial interests tied-in with fossil fuels, are dishonourable.

I should like to see the climate models that, according to Mr Lawson, support his outrageous statement about China. For my part, I don't think that this giant of industrialisation is doing anyone any favours pumping CO2 and other, far more noxious emissions into our global atmosphere, least of all our children and their descendants.
this debate take place on the Real Climate website, http://www.realclimate.org/ with real, live Climate Scientists.

Otherwise, if you can't bring data and equations to prove your hypotheses, please show the better part of wisdom and keep quiet.
Gea Vox - Bristol, UK

The only way you could possibly get confused about whether the CO2 in the atmosphere is manmade or not is if you completely ignore the data. A brief few seconds looking at the plots make it utterly obvious that it is manmade. The concentration in the atmosphere follows the historical human CO2 emissions starting the invention of the steam invention and the large scale us of coal. (http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c1/page_6.shtml). Even the amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere matches the amount we have produced to within 60%. This data is not in the least controversial.

And Singer’s choice of just showing the last 10 years of historical warming and ignoring that last 150, is very dubious and makes you wonder about his objectivity. You cannot just cherry pick the data that fits your prejudice, it is irresponsible.
Steve Bennington - Abingdon/UK

Hi!
I believe 'climate change' is a natural process that the earth goes through every so many millions of years. I don't think it is man-made.
That's my opinion anyway.


Davina - U.K Essex

we totally agree maan, i mean everyone is making a big deal outa nothing hAHA, XX LOVESYAA
FELICITY - devon :)