While agreeing with his support of Clark Cross’s exposure of the wind farm lobby’s dishonesty in ignoring the Aarhus Convention’s insistence on public access to information, I think John Milne (Letters, July 17) displays intolerance approaching arrogance in labelling climate change “sceptics” intransigent. This suggests blind rejection of the theory.
Presumably he has considered arguments on both sides, so why does he assume that the same doesn’t apply to those who contest his view? That seems intransigent to me.
I would remind him that the original proposition was that the earth faced catastrophic warming which was a) without historical precedent; b) human-induced and c) CO2-driven.
All of these have been competently challenged, with his quoted “accumulating weight of evidence and scientific consensus too great to ignore” applying also to the “deniers’” argument.
Equally, the “precautionary principal” of future risk can be applied in reverse: what if Mr Milne’s acknowledged “grounds for legitimate debate” ultimately prove the warming enthusiasts wrong? The only effect of removing UK CO2 emissions in their entirety would be to leave us at a severe commercial disadvantage in world trade.
Tranent, East Lothian
DONALD Trump has to be congratulated for the £100 million he spent on his new golf course, which is great for Scotland and also for providing jobs in the Aberdeen area. I can also understand his objection to the nearby wind farm. But there is no way he will intimidate Alex Salmond, nor should he.
While wind farms are not easy on the eye, the residents of Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disaster areas would wish that was their only concern.
David Henderson Court
I wonder how many people are aware of the pressure being applied to local authorities by the SNP government to force through wind farm planning applications.
If an application is refused by a local council, and subsequently overturned by Holyrood, the local authority is faced with the substantial bill for costs. This none-too-subtle threat hangs over the planners as they deliberate. The threat is greater if one bears in mind that during one recent period, all but one of 17 wind farm refusals in my area (Perthshire) were subsequently overturned by Holyrood, no doubt at great cost to the council.
This is anti-democratic and speaks to the centralising mind-set of the SNP government.
Residents in rural areas need to be aware of the extent to which their elected representatives are being bullied and ignored by Holyrood, and I suggest they lend their support to Clark Cross’s campaign to halt the proliferation of subsidy-farming developments in our countryside.
Graham M McLeod
As one who disagrees with John Milne (Letters, 17 July), I am in good company. The others are the scientists who signed the Leipzig Declaration and the 32,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition. Will Mr Milne now tell where his consensus comes from?
Newton Stewart Wigtownshire