Heat sources

Published on 20/07/2012 00:00

I have taken a bit of stick over my views (including from Dr Stephen Moreton and Colin Weatherley, Letters, 19 July). Here are some of my sources: Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT is the most highly regarded climatologist in the world and was presented with an award as such by his fellow climatologists.

Professor Patrick Michaels, of the University of Virginia, is world famous for his work in climate research. Prof Michaels was removed from his post as state climatologist because he would not compromise his integrity by withdrawing his claims.

If your readers think that Dr Moreton and Mr Weatherley know more than my two world-famous climatologists, it is up to them.

Robert Pate

Minnigaff

Newton Stewart

Stephen Moreton once again fails to add anything tangible to the debate, choosing rather to try to hide the fact that global-warming theory has not been demonstrated in reality by making wild statements about the scientists with whom he disagrees and then making a totally irrelevant comment implying that all 60 million scientists he claims to be in the world are involved in the global warming debate.

Further, in decrying those who disagree with his religious-like belief in global warming theory, he claims that they are funded by the oil industry.

That old canard has long since been discredited.

In the real world, the oil industry is far too busy trying to meet increasing worldwide fuel demands set by others to bother with the dwindling number of warmist scientists who seem quite capable of self-destruction.

GM Lindsay

Whinfield Gardens

Kinross

It IS all very well to decry the signatories to the Leipzig Declaration, but the fact that they are not all climatologists should not make it any less relevant than the outpourings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is headed by a railway engineer.

Most of the pro-global warming lobby has no connection 
or qualification in a relevant subject and much of what is put forward as scientific fact has been shown to be not so or even rubbish.

There is a lot still unknown and unproven on both sides and no-one knows the full picture so to be dogmatic in either direction is likely to be proved foolish when all the facts are known.

This, however, does not stop the huge lobby of heavily vested interests from pushing their pet projects and our easily duped politicians from lapping it up in the hope of garnering votes.

In the meantime, every step the UK takes on the path to green heaven is cancelled out many times over by the “developing nations” such as China.

Unless they change their ways, we are only crucifying ourselves and our trading ability on the altar of global warmists.

No one denies that we are abusing our natural resources and our grandchildren will pay the price but let us look at the whole picture.

It appears that we as humans are incapable of seeing holistically and without prejudice or financial greed.

The simplest way to see if human-created CO2 is causing the problem would be for everyone to kill the person standing next to them, thus cutting in half the world’s population and drastically reducing the amount of CO2 pushed out into the atmosphere both from exhalation and industrial processing.

This may sound drastic, but it may not be any less stupid than expecting wind power to keep Scotland’s lights on.

Ian Ross

Eden Lane

Edinburgh