Bagpuss's link is a lamentably typical example how journalists abuse scientists for one-sided propaganda. They (some journalists) care for headlines and not for truth. In the climate debate, too often the loudest get the headlines. And in the public debate, all the "could's" and "if's" disappear.

I have not seen the TV-film, but it seems to be entertaining at the expense of being extremely one-sided. A government warning "the following is for your entertainement, if you want to be informed look for other sources" should have preceeded its airing.

Global warming is real, and human activity contributes to it. How much is still a question of debate. As a Green voter, I understand the motivation of alarmists to paint the future in the darkest possible coulours, but as a scientist I am appaled by the extremists at both sides of the debate.

The graphs I have linked to show that what happens now is still very small compared to events on which we have no influence. If you read Foolestroupe's link you'll see (whether you are convinced by the the particular scenario or not) that any supervolcano explosion or asteroid impact will have a much larger influence than all our activity could ever have.

At the British coastline one can see a "high water mark" some dozen feet above today's sea level. Sea levels have been dramatically higher and lower than today in earth history. What we do now is a small push in one direction. But it is worth considering whether we want go on pushing or not. Using other forms of energy or reducing energy consumption is also a worthwhile aim for reasons that have nothing to do with climate (health, oil reserves, political dependencies etc.).

I wish we'd do more to prevent CO2 increase but I'm not much worried about global warming. These processes are so slow that we have enough time to react. A German climate scientist said recently at a conference that we should react until the end of the century which is a long time. Any thermonuclear war that is not strictly local during that time might have a larger impact on world climate. This is a scenario which worries me much more.

One should never forget the difference between data and model predictions. The data show a temperature increase which is still not really big. The bleak warnings come from model predictions and I have learned not to trust such predictions. Within the last decade there have been many conflicting predictions what global warming would do for Europe. After a series of predictions that the gulf stream stopping would put an icecap on the Northern half of Europe (which would let the sea level fall by the way), the now newest has Europe getting hotter. Sorry, but when I am reading these largely differing predictions in quick succession I just can't take the newest of them as serious as the authors would like me to.

There are good reasons to think about our way of energy production and to change it, but there is no reason for any panic.

Wolfgang