Climate question

Dismissing people with opposing views as “sceptics” is a sign of weak argument.

Chris Huhne resorts to such arrogance in his superficial approach to climate change arguments (your report, 26 September).

I have no scientific training, let alone specific climate knowledge. Nonetheless, I believe I know more about the subject than Mr Huhne, a claim I base on his failure to acknowledge the absolute mass of evidence against the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

However, more significant than actual pros and cons is the fact that the case for human- induced global warming is riddled with inaccuracies, selectivity, distortion and outright lies.

Why is there a near hysterical reaction to the effect of carbon dioxide in particular, when it makes up only 3.6 per cent of “greenhouse gases”, the major one being water vapour at 95 per cent?

The whole campaign smacks of a theory being formed, followed by a search for confirming evidence while ignoring any to the contrary; a typical political, not scientific approach.

Robert Dow

Ormiston Road

Tranent