I really can't give you the name of the program, because I got in a bit too late for that, and the info on Text-TV didn't display the title in English. But, it was a BBC/CBS (maybe, it was a co-produced program of US and UK anyway) program about the climate change.

I posted earlier about the heat records of the 20th century being in the thirties. This program discussed that. Remember also: At that time, the Depression was going strong. It were less release of CO2 to the atmosphere at that time than later in the century. The 70's showed us a gas crisis. Less CO2 released into the atmosphere, yet the temperature rose. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is measured in parts per billion (or perhaps million. I don't accurately remember this), anyway, the number they stated was 0.00534. I guess per cent, of the Earth's atmosphere is currently CO2.

If you compare the measuring of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century to the temperature, you will see two graphs that are widely spread apart. Back to the example of the 30's and 70's.

Apparently, although I don't remember all of how it came to be, it's Margaret Thatcher's fault that we believe in man-made climate change today. She worded herself in such a way, because she didn't want to lose her position as Prime Minister, as to set off a scientific wave of people researching the correlation between CO2-levels produced by man, and the temperature.

What is it then that's causing the climate to change? The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is one of the two trapping the heat. The oceans are vast amounts of elements, and they need time to heat up and cool down.

But what is causing our planet to heat up in the first place?

Astronomy. Europe has seen what's called the Little/Small Ice Age, where the Thames froze solid. I believe that was in the 1600's. They didn't have the devices to measure the CO2-lever in the atmosphere, but they did have something else: Telescopes. Which they used to look at the sun. Why? Because they believed that sunspots, massive outbursts of radiation and energy from the Sun, had a correlation to the climate. If we are to believe the evidence presented, I am convinced. In the thirties and seventies there were a lot more sunspots than in other times of the century, despite the CO2-levels released was lower than before. In the 1600's, sunspots was almost non-existent. And the release of CO2 would have been like it was when the Romans grew grapes in England.

A hint for all those wanting a scientific grant to do some research: Say your research is about something and it's release of CO2 and the impact it may have on the climate. You have a better chance of getting it, even if you prove that it has nothing to do with the climate.

Also, take a look at how the icecaps have been behaving the last twenty years. They have shrunk, grown, shrunk, grown extensively, shrunk somewhat, grown, shrunk some more, grown again, shrunk again, and on and on. The amount of ice on Greenland will probably stay the same. The highest temperature recorded on the glaciers of Greenland is -16 C. Doesn't ice melt at 0 C?

Off course, it's never a bad thing to switch to hybrid cars. You do save money for yourself, and you will most likely make astmatics and others with respiratory diseases happier. But the point is, we are not in control of the climate change in any way. We do not contribute to it, and we can not stop it. Unless we devise a global shield to protect us from the Sun. But without it, we are dead anyways.