What nonsense!

How can anyone say "THE UK's real impact on global warming has been hugely underestimated" when the assumption that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide cause warming is yet to be proven?

Read the IPCC Summary for policy-makers very carefuilly. Not even that group of government appointees is prepared to show certainty.

Resorting to a "consensus" is total nonsense because consensus has never resolved a scientific hypothesis and nor should it.

Reject this dimwitted self-flagellation !

Unfortunately there are already too many reputations and funding tranches at risk, too much potential for new taxes and a rich opportunity to 'attack' the US at stake here.

JDM is right - read the report beyond the 'executive summary' and ignore the shrill cries of so many jumping on a bandwagon for disappointing motives.

If you really want to help - turn down the central heating and stop the school run.

Are we to assume, then, that only the quantity of emissions by the UK has been under-estimated and every other country's estimate is spot-on?

hi guys and dolls couldn't resist to jump in with my veiws.global warming may be happening however the goverment don't seem to be doin anything all bar cashing in £££££.if it is happening and the climate is getting warmer most of the world won't need their central heating on,so this is a natural cycle.mallory your right lose the school run,it's not only bad for the planet it's a pain in the back side as i live next door to school and also it would help to get the kids fitter and improve the obesity problem.the goverment need to make solutions to global warming affordable,if it's really happening

I was reading at the weekend and, it seems, that 50% of the CO2 produced in New Zealand, and 90% of the total methane output is from ruminant livestock, mainly sheep.
So, global warming is caused, to a large degree, by sheep. I understand the NZ Govt tried to introduce a law where-by farmers had to pay a tax because of this. But the bill failed to be passed....unlike the wind from the ruminants !

get this,a few weeks ago central news was doing some reserch at the northpole,so giving his presentation he made a quote "we have planted six tree's to compensate the fuel used to make this trip" so if these tree's compensated the trip they will go on compensating,so does this mean if you plant six tree's your doing your bit for global warming?ok then, i have planted eight tree's last year alone and have plans for four more this year so can i now keep my 4x4 without anybody moanig?or is it just ok for central to do this.

JDM- please stop spouting your usual bilge. In science, you never really prove anything, except in a strictly mathematical sense.

As for this report, it is unhelpfully unclear on whether it is counting emissions according to the country they are emitted in, or by the company emitting them. IF the latter, then that cannot strictly be said to be adding to the UK output.

According to a recent Parliamentary answer 97% of CO2 is natural & 3% manmade.

A very little base to put such a large catastrophe on.

Appologies all but I think I may have missed the boat on this one. What exactly is it that we are being told causes Global warming? So far this year I have read/heard about G.W. being caused by CO2 emmissions, CH4 ( Methane, sorry if chemical formula is wrong!) and most recently something about ions from outer space.
Now if G.W. is due to CO2, then as 97% is natural there is not a lot we can do about that, wait a minute as well as taxing all the drivers etc to death perhaps we should also be taxing all the humans, animals, cows,sheep, dogs, cats etc, after all don't they breathe out CO2 in their exhaled breath. ( maybe I've stumbled onto the NEXT HIDDEN tax from tax central in westminster and I've inadvertantly let the cat out of the bag!)
If Methane is the problem, then the solution is simple, tax farmers ( no I'm not anti farmer ) for evry time their cows, sheep or pigs suffer from flatulence? :)
However, should the answer lie with the ionic problem from outer space then the answer is simple, tax the life out of all visiting Martians :)

Neil, I think you'll find that all CO2 is natural, insofar as it doesnt appear out of nowhere in a flash of light.
;)

But anyway, your fragmentary quote does not give enough to be going on with. It may be out of context. What is pretty much settled is that most of the increase of a third of CO2 in the past couple of hundred years is our fault, which is a lot more than 3%.

Scotslass- the Earth is kept warm by a blanket of various gases. Water vapour is the most important, then CO2, methane and some other trace ones like hydrofluorines. (fortunately we have reduced our emissions of them)
The problem being that the amount of CO2 has risen by a third or so due to our use of fossil fuels, meaning that the CO2 in the atmosphere is keeping in a bit more heat, resulting in the current rise of around half a degree.

No Guthrie that is just what isn't settled. It is possible that warming releases CO2 & that therefore the warming causes CO2 not vice versa. I wouldn't stand by that theory myself but the fact is that we know so little about how climate works, including warming, that what we really need is serious research by people who, unlike the IPCC, don't write the conclusions before the research is done.

This is the Parliamentary answer on the 3% of CO2 being unnatural :-)
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-much-co2...

can someone explain to me why if global warming is scientifically set to rise by 0.5 of a degree every year or so,why have we had such a large rise this year.as i rememer at the end of 2005 it was very cold,this year has been extreemly warmer far more than the 0.5 predicted.

Guthrie, bilge? On what evidence?

You say "In science, you never really prove anything, except in a strictly mathematical sense."

So does that mean that the removal of oxygen to prevent combustion is is only true in a "strictly mathematical sense"? That the earth revolves around the sun is only true in a "strict mathematical sense"? That two fish cannot have an elephant as offspring is only true in "a strictly mathematical sense"?

That you can in fact prove that CO2 causes warming "in a strictly mathematical sense" and we can ignore the absence of any evidence?