Having watched the programme in question; whilst some of the arguments against AGW were interesting, the lack of explanation for the recent warming (1975-2007) was a huge ommission. I think it's easy to confuse the past with the present on this one. I think that there is good evidence to support solar radiation influencing global temperatures up to 1975, the graphs that were displayed last night were quite impressive. IMO solar radiation drove climate change at this time. However since this period the correlation falls away quite badly, so is there something else now driving climate change? Put it this way, pre-industrialisation the world displayed a pretty stable carbon balance for hundreds of years. Suddenly man begins pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now I know that as a percentage of the total amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere this may be small but it's this extra CO2 which is causing atmospheric levels to rise. We know CO2 to be a greenhouse gas so isn't it reasonable to expect the planet to warm? Just because it may not have been the precursor to warming in the past does not mean it cannot influence now or in the future, thanks to man's intervention. What also concerns me is the fact that as oceans warm, they release yet more CO2. This positive feedback mechanism feeds CO2 levels even higher and so on. If the programme had been able to satisfactorily explain the recent warming (other than AGW) then I might have been swayed but as it stands I'll keep my feet just inside the AGW camp. TCBTS