It is a rare occasion that I have come across a news paper article that publishes the "other side" of the on-going discussion of the "GLOBAL WARMING" argument. Due to natures of the article, we decided to publish it and hope that some of our visitors may find it amusing. I certainly have enjoyed reading it... web news

NEWS FLASH ..... Stronger sun is blamed for global warming (May 2001 Sunday Times-England) by Jonathan Leake (Science Editor) SCIENTISTS have dismissed claims that taxing fuel will stop global warming, because new evidence shows it is caused mainly by the sun. The temperature rise, previously blamed on the burning of fossil fuels, results primarily from an increase in solar radiation, according to studies to be realised this week. The research, some of it by the European Space Agency (ESA), uses satellite and other astronomical data to show that earlier computer models severely under-estimated the sun's impact. The potential political impact is huge. Governments world-wide have accepted scientists' warning that they must cut carbon dioxide emissions and used them to justify tax increases and road charges. Scientist measured a global average temperature rise of 0.6C over the past century. This is predicted to exceed 2C by 2100. The rise has partly melted the North pole and Greenland and Antarctica ice caps and made British winters far warmer (See following article to dismiss this claim by the IPCC). The new studies say the main reason is a solar energy surge and a particularly big increase in ultraviolet (UV) light. This has coincided with a doubling in strength of the sun's magnetic field. Much of the data on the sun's role in global warming was gathered by the ESA's sun-watching Solo satellite. Paal Brekke, Solo's deputy project scientist, said the results could change thinking on climate. "Taxing carbon-based fuels may be good for other reasons but our evidence suggests it will not be much help in keeping the Earth cool, " he said. Global warming is caused by the Earth's atmosphere acting like the glass of a greenhouse. The air lets light through but prevents the heat generated when it hits the ground from being radiated back into space. The main cause had seemed to be the 30% rise in carbon dioxide levels since pre-industrial times from fossil fuel burnt by motor vehicles, power stations and other activities. The sun's role was considered secondary. Scientists previously calculated that the sun radiates only 0.7% more energy than 150 years ago, causing a tenth of global warming. Brekke and others say the models under-estimated the 3% UV light increase over the same period, generating extra ozone that locks more heat into the atmosphere. jonathan.leake@sunday-times.co.uk

Professor Arnode Hendry - Edinburgh

MELANIE PHILIPS (Comment, last week's Sunday Times) is surprisingly dismissive of cautionary policies aimed at mitigating the effects of global warming, which she suggests may be used to attack western capitalism. This seems improbable given that the pro-capitalist governments such as that of Britain appear to support such policies. Global warming is unquestionably taking place although the reason for the ultimate extent of it are not known at the present time. However, there seems little doubt that excessive discharge of carbon dioxide are doing nothing to mitigate effect and should be curbed. Phillips admits that there is a need to reduce pollution, conserve energy and adapt to inevitable change. To condone the profligate use of oil fuels is inconsistent with such aims.

Dr John Lewis -Cambridge

HYSTERIA: I second Philips's opinion. The global warming fad has all the traits of a religious movement: hysteria, cries of doom, demands that people sacrifice for a divine entity ("the Earth") and attacks on those who disagrees. As an ancient historian, I regonise that changes in sea, the evolution and passing away of species, the rise and fall in global temperatures, and even the movement of whole continents are normal when view over centuries. I also recognise that only science, industry and mass production can allow us to live as we do. The alternative is periodic famines and diseases wiping out whole populations. To shut down industrial civilisation will kill millions of people. History is clear on this point.

Maria Kielmas - Surbiton, Surrey

HUMILITY: President George W Bush did the world a favour when he dumped the Kyoto treaty and Phillips deserves praise for standing up to the myths of global warming. Europe's infantile tantrums about climate change make medieval obscurantism seem like the pinnacle of knowledge. The world's climate has been changing for the past 4.7 billion years of its known existence and will continue to do so long after humankind becomes just another geological formation. Climate change 300m years ago wiped out 95% of life on Earth, when oil companies has not ever been invented. Armies of self-serving politicians, pressure groups and pseudo-academics are exercising a form of emotional blackmail in trying to persuade us that we can alter Earth forces by paying more taxes, and lining their own pockets in the process. There is no doubt at all that the world and its corporations need to be pushed into some meaningful international potty training. But a dose of humility in the face of forces which no human can control would also be most welcome.

Adams Walesby - Budleigh Salterton, Devon

HIJACKED: At last, a piece in a sensible newspaper which starts to talk about facts and not no-existent science. Unfortunately, the global warming mob have managed to stage a take-over of good science and to bamboozle a large proportion of the world's politicians - just a lot of spinning, which is costing the world's coffers dear. It has become an industry just like compensation, race relations, equal opportunity activities, Aids and legal aid. No funds would be available for study or research unless there were a perceived threat; so create the threat and funds becomes available. How much research money has been spent by government with the relevant research organisations, almost inevitably governmental? And how much proof has been provided - none, because if a result is achieved then there is no further need for research ... QED.

Dr Wilson Flood - Dumfries

OTHER THREATS: To say that sections of the scientific community are being partial in their interpretation of the data would be an understatement. A serious omission in the debate is the role of the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapour - probably responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Yet the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) allocates it a minor role in one of its computer models as augmenting the effect of changes in carbon dioxide concentration. Quite how it does this is not clear as one substance absorbs infrared radiation quite independently from another. Remove this unproved coupling hypothesis and the predict heating effect of additional carbon dioxide is insignificant. In fact, the correlation between global surface temperature and carbon dioxide concentration is really quite poor. The fact that temperature dropped over four decades from 1940 to 1980 while carbon dioxide levels rose significantly is conveniently overlooked. A close reading of the IPCC report will show that predictions are pretty cautious with wide margin of uncertainty. The more hysterical sections of the worst press single out the worse case scenarios for their headlines. The IPCC notes that there has been no decrease in Antarctic sea ice since 1978 nor has there been any increase in the number of tornadoes, thunder days or hail events, all of which might have been expected. I suspect that predictions of world disaster due to global warming will prove unfounded. The real problems facing the planet are population growth, environmental degradation, dire poverty, antibiotic- resistant epidemics, creating sustainable development, plus the under-lying threat of nuclear annihilation - quite enough to be going on with in the meantime.

What the researchers says David Griggs - Director of Climate Research, Met Office and John Mitchell - IPCC co-ordinating lead author

THE LAST WORD FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH TEAM ("GOVERNMENTAL"): The evidence for a human influence on climate can never be totally certain. Rational decisions are made on the basis of our assessment of what is most likely to happen. That is why the latest report uses terms as "likely" (66% to 90% of being true) and "very likely" (90% to 99% chance of being true). The assessment of likelihood is based on a through evaluation on the global climate literature of nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed articles, by 120 of the world's leading experts, with contributions from over 500 more climate scientists and reviewed by 700 further experts - not merely the opinions of one or two so-called "independent scientists" who may or may not be familiar with this complex subject. For example, the IPCC reports states that "taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increase in greenhouse gases". Far from being "weasel words", they indicate an open and considered assessment of the likelihood of future climate change, in contrast to the unqualified statements made by the "green sceptics" and prophets of doom.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Principle constitutents of dry air: Oxygen = 20.9%    Nitrogen = 78.1%    Argon = 0.93%    CO2 = 0.03% (the most talked about gas on this planet)