BBC News Updated every minute of every day

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 12:49 GMT 12:49 UK

Please tell us where you have published your recalculation of the greenhouse warming effect of CO2 to supercede that first done by Arrhenius 100 years ago and performed with greater accuracy since. Has it been peer reviewed?

Svante Arrhenius

Repeating the physical properties of CO2 and hoping that will explain the earth's climate works is just silly.

harry portsmouth

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 12:46 GMT 12:46 UK

If the raw data substantiates the opinions of the so called "vast majority" of scientists why would they try so hard to keep it from the public domain?

It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck.

jon sanderson, osterode

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 12:08 GMT 12:08 UK

In the light of the 'Hide the Decline' escapade..
Anne, gt yarmouth
--

I have already tried to put the "hide the decline" statement in context. It is an entirely valid to substitute post-1960 temperature records that come from thermometers and that are accurate, for tree ring proxies for temperature post-1960 that are known to be inaccurate.

Would you prefer scientists to use data they know is wrong? Google SkepticalScience if you want further information.

Roderick Spode, Sidcup

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 11:58 GMT 11:58 UK

"Take two greenhouses - Fill one with normal air fill the other with the higher concentration expected in 50 years of CO2. Put all the climate change denialists in the higher CO2 one and wait for summer"
Anon
Your analogy is logically faulty - The worlds climate is nothing like a greenhouse in behaviour! Air movement/convection/cold air circulation etc does not happen inside a greenhouse! Besides, CO2 levels would still ONLY be 0.04% of the air - have little or no impact!

The Ghosts of John Galt, Ghost Town

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 11:49 GMT 11:49 UK

Give up BBC, the cat is out of the bag. Your own lack of ojectivity reporting on golbal warming (er I mean Climate Change) gives YOU no credibility on the issue.

douglas roman

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 11:48 GMT 11:48 UK

We all know where this MMCC unstopable juggernaut is leading, to a world government and a world tax system. And a little thing like 'evidence' is not going to stop it.

Alex Jones fall of the republic

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:54 GMT 10:54 UK

"It's no different when it comes to climate change, and whilst "scientific experts" can throw out all the statistics and test results they like, the truth is we still know relatively little about the factors involved.

Ben McGowan"

Should policymakers set policy based on the things we do know, or abdicate taking responsibility and avoid making decisions because of those things we don't know or don't know that we don't know?

Howard Wolowitz

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:47 GMT 10:47 UK

"Do not fall for the lies and spin of the mystics of science!"

Then present the proof for the anti-thesis. Show the evidence, hypothesis to explain it and the physical principles it depends upon. Then let's base policy decisions on which is the most robust explanation: the most economical in terms of assumptions, is based on accepted principles and makes the most testable predictions. If you do that, you'll find MMCC meets all these tests, alternatives don't.

Sheldon Cooper

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:43 GMT 10:43 UK

Like the Rio & Kyoto summits whose targets for reductions in Co2 emmisions were badly missed, Copenhagen will be no different. The climate bandwagon has been hurt by the emails covering up of data manipulation. The climate fiasco is a giant socialist conspiracy for so called, social justice paid for by the developed world to the developing world. Beware of John Prescott, Al Gore and their ilk.

At The Court Of King Caracticus

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:42 GMT 10:42 UK

"Anyone who thinks that humans can affect it is just flattering themselves."

In the 19th Century a lot of people like you resisted the investments in sewerage, clean water supplies and many other health-care initiatives because they refused to accept the increasingly clear science that bacteria and germs were behind many illnesses and spread by water. Some still believed the "miasma" or God spread diseases, not human controllable factors.

Sheldon Cooper

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:34 GMT 10:34 UK

If a scientist stands before you and demands a leap of faith in order to accept his/her theory, then you are being asked to suspend your own rational judgement and accept the irrational belief systems of others without validity! Such a science is not a science at all, and those who preach such science are merely mystics, with no more rational objective authority than a mystic preist, a witch doctor, or a fortune teller! Thay are all mystics who would demand surrender of the rational mind!

The Ghosts of John Galt, Ghost Town

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:29 GMT 10:29 UK

"I personally am not willing to change my life for the planet.
I oppose any and all actions that wil harm my standard of living.
I will urge my members of congress not to subject our nation to these wackos.

Paul, Phoenix, Arizona"

And this is why "carbon taxes" are necessary: to incent compliance from the pig headed. Alternatively, the truly pig headed will pay for their pig headedness and end up subsidising the responsible (that would make a change!).

Howard Wolowitz

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:28 GMT 10:28 UK

"The whole "climate change" (no longer called Global Warming?) issue is being used to frighten people into accepting a worldwide tax and, ultimately, a single government for the whole world."
Mrs Pontipine, the Ninky Nonk

.....with a 'Bilderberger' controlled oil and multi-national fueled Central World Bank at its center, running us all (ragged).

Jean, Hague, Netherlands

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:23 GMT 10:23 UK

Reply to Svante Arrhenius

I do not need to publish - 0.038% is the 'official' amount of CO2 as a percentage of total atmosphere! Its really quite insignificant isn't it?. If you want to know the true nature of 'climate change' dogma (mystics science) then research 'Ozone hole' as a case study! We all stopped using CFC's to save the planet right? - but China, India, Russia and most of Asia etc are STILL using CFC's - so where is our Ozone hole gone?

The Ghosts of John Galt, Ghost Town

Added: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:23 GMT 10:23 UK

"The whole "climate change" (no longer called Global Warming?) issue is being used to frighten people into accepting a worldwide tax and, ultimately, a single government for the whole world.

Mrs Pontipine, the Ninky Nonk"

But I thought you conspiracy theorists thought a world government already existed: the "Bilderberg" Group

Anon