“Wouldn’t it be wonderful to believe that the science is unsettled, that all that carbon dioxide that we are pumping into the atmosphere really has no effect, and that we do not have to worry about the future.
It would be entirely possible to put together a similar programme, with a string of credible former academics, to argue that smoking does no cause cancer, that HIV does not cause AIDS, or that black people are less intelligent.”

I can see were your going with this statment but the last part about “black people are less intelligent.” turned me off. I dont understand how comparing the people on that show to racists helps your argument

20 years ago we we’re talking about a new ice-age, didn’t happen so everyone changed their tune to global warming, everyone was pleased about that so suddenly it’s climate change.

Climate Change is the product of a strong global economy. People didn’t care about it when they had other stuff to care about, and we can watch it dissappear as a public or political issue as the new CC of the Credit Crunch takes headlines and becomes the new apocolypse chosen by the BBC.

Climate Change is not an issue, problems arise when climates begin to stagnate. That is a real sign of danger and problems in ‘the environment’

‘The environment’ is spoken about these days as if it is an entity that first of exists, and not only that, can die.

‘We’re killing the environment’ said the teacher to the impressionable class of children.

It was once said that just because the sun has risen everyday since the beginning of time, is no proof that it will rise tomorrow. This does not seem immediately relevant but it is an example of how we cannot know all the variables in certain issues. Climate change for me is one of these issues.

I’m not a religious person but I believe Going Green is to some a new religion, the perfect religion where you don’t actually NEED to do anything, anything you do is a bonus, and if you don’t stick to it no one cares, and there are no consequences.

If the climate is changing, and it is, obviously, there is nothing we can do. If you live in Bangladesh, at the apex of three rivers, you’re gonna flood, so move. Or, since it’s going to take f*cking years for anything to happen, perhaps some kind of wall is in order?

I haven’t read all the comments or even the entire article, but I saw a youtube video critising another for giving BAD tips for going green so decided hysteria needed to be averted.

Carbon is trapped in the earth in many ways, through life, limestone, and many other mechanisms. The greenhouse effect is maintained and regulated in many ways, through water vapour, dust, and various gasses. It is clear that the climate is changing at present, like it has throughout the history of the planet, what is not clear in any of the evidence I have yet to see is why. The fact that I continue to see sensationalist papers from proponents that claim to finally develop a solid link between humans and climate change tells a lot. The fact that when these papers are read they fail to establish a solid link is more interesting still.

I find myself, at least at the moment, a sceptic. I am not biased enough that some good science might persuade me the other way, but at the moment the evidence I have seen clearly makes me feel that we are not responsible for current climate changes. Nevertheless, if we are, I have faith with the ingenuity of man. We are already seeing people with technology to trap large quantities of CO2 at the bottom of the ocean. If atmospheric CO2 levels become a genuine problem, I think we can fix them – without resorting to communist ideals by making Carbon more important than money, and then rationing it to the proletareat.

[Dear Dave- I often refuse skeptic e-mails, but I accept this one because it is thoughtful. I'm afraid that it is also wrong. All my reading of the science is that the positive feedbacks from climate change will greatly outweigh the negative. I would also say that it is simply not true that positive feedbacks do not exist in nature- the rapid transition between glacial and inter-glacial climate regimes are exacerbated by positive feedbacks until the climate reaches a new equilibrium. This is exactly what will happen with climate change.

And once again, I say that when a self styled scientist is deliberately opposing and criticising the well founded opinion of his peers it is entirtely legitimate to question his motivations and personal background. This is a personal blog and I make no bones that I don't like these people, so of course it reads as an attack, but you will find plenty of very moderate and well balanced opinions on wikipedia and http://www.realclimate.org. As for Martin Durkin, I think he is a disgrace as do many professional journalists.

Your last two lines contain two key arguments for people who do not want to face up to climate change: that technology will save us, and that there is a leftist political motivation. Sorry to say, neither are correct- they are excuses for not taking immediate action- George]

I think scientists on both sides on this issue should have televised debates on this subject. This would surely weed out some of the junk science we all have heard.

While the evidence presented by the advocates for carbon dioxide led global warming and climate change sounds very convincing, I have not looked at the actual studies and the actual science. The arguments from this C4 programme fall into the same category for me. I have not seen the studies nor the acutal science. When I look at the tremendous population growth and resource use (a few simple mathematical calculations easily gives an alarming picture), it makes sense to me that greenhouse gases may lead or contribute to global warming and climate change, but I am still not absolutely convinced. I want to know all the HARD science and all the models that are being used.

The reality of scientific study is that we tend to find what we are looking for. We set up experiments to find relationships, but more often than not, the experiments are set up in a way that are biased toward a result, whether the scientist is conscious of it or not. And the peer review process is far from perfect. If the bias is subtle, peer reviewers do not catch it. In many modern, complex studies, this is the case.

Psycologically, people react to what is presented to them. Much of the information presented leads the populace to a market to satisfy their feelings of guilt. If we look at the past four decades this is more than evident. Marketers pick up on a single point and push it into the cultural psyche with bias, with the intention of making money. One only has to consider the effects of bran in the products in the US market in the 90’s as a single case. Another case was with Y2K. Doesn’t anyone remember this?

I found this C4 programme while searching for carbon offset information. It was clear to me that the schemes behind carbon offsetting are money makers for someone. So we are back in the trap of someone cashing in on the guilt felt from biased marketing.

While I was reasonably convinced about carbon dioxide emissions (and other “greenhouse” gases) contributing toward global warming and climate change, I am now back to a skeptical position and WILL look in more detail at the science behind both sides of the debate.

If you want to argue with me or try to convince me that your position is right, you better have real numbers and exact information about the studies that give the numbers. I will not listen to the emotional, biased arguments of those of you who do not know what you are talking about except for how you feel.

I, for one, do not want to spend the rest of my life paying someone or sacrificing my lifestyle and integrity for others who want to make money off of me by using alarmist tactics to sell products. I also do not want my children to have to inherit a dangerous world to live in nor to have to take on the responsility to try to fix problems created by their ancestors. I can happily carry on with my life with my head in the sand were it not for these two motivations. So now I want to know the truth, not the emotional, illogical, and often ridiculous, arguments of campaigners for biased points of view.

For those of you who have contributed on the side of real information in this discussion, I thank you. For those of you who have made statements about another person, ridiculed another’s beliefs, or have just downright insulted someone, I ask you to take a look at your own biases and at what you ACTUALLY KNOW about this topic. Do some more research. What you are doing by making biased statements is only adding to the problem because your responses only detract from the credibility of your argument.

I HAVE watched the programme. I saw it on YouTube, and it made me feel quite ill. My blog doesn’t say I haven’t watched it, it says:

“…if you’ve never heard of the programme, didn’t see it, or aren’t bothered about it in the least – hooray!”

Just thought I’d clear that up. Although hopefully people have moved onto more interesting topics than this by now.

Dx