Unsound science

I was present for Al Gore’s bravura performance at the Low Carbon Investment Conference, which majored on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) as a driver for the urgent development of renewables.

It was an emotional event. This was a conference for people who have bet the bank on renewables (or are considering doing so). They desperately need Al Gore’s message on CAGW to be true.

The rapid development of renewables has four main arguments. The first is energy security. We certainly need to ensure a range of reliable sources of energy for the present and future.

The second (and related) argument is geopolitical. It is wrong, for example, that we are so dependent on oil from despotic Middle Eastern regimes.

The third is efficiency. Your editorial lays out starkly that the development of renewables has some considerable way to go.

The final argument is the apocalyptic one articulated by Mr Gore. His compelling presentation was crafted to demonstrate that the “survival of our civilisation” is at stake. Perhaps that endgame may prove to be the case. But his mixture of facts, assumptions and half truths could hardly be described as credible evidence.

To this observer at least, his seems to be a science based on assumptions, models and predictions rather than evidence.

Al Gore is, however, absolutely correct that the Scottish Government is providing bold leadership in the dash for renewables. But it is a leadership whose vision lacks a sound foundation in both economics and science.

(Cllr) Cameron Rose

City Chambers

Edinburgh