Exchanges - Letters to the
editor
15 March 2007
Windfarms no way to save planet.
SIR
- As 10 years have passed since I was
denied a voice in the House of Lords,
may I seek space to pose an alternative
to the unparalleled acts of rural
vandalism being perpetrated by wind
farms?
European leaders now recognise the
efficacy of low-energy light bulbs in
combating global warming, so the
Government has good reason to switch the
subsidy of taxpayers' millions away from
monstrous wind turbines. of spasmodic
and doubtful benefit, into making such
bulbs more price competitive, ensuring a
much greater and more immediate impact
on climate change.
No one
dares to confess how long it takes wind
turbines to recoup the carbon emissions
caused by their manufacture and by
providing for their transport, site
preparation, access roads and
transmission lines.
It must
he obvious to the greenest-of-green
protagonists that wand farms are the
least reliable and cost-effective way of
saving the planet, compared with tidal
power, better insulation, warmer
clothing, slower driving and low-energy
light bulbs.
The Duke of Buccleuch Bowhill, Selkirk
SIR -
Before our political leaders jump in to
be first to lead the world in green
solutions to global warming, they would
do well to wait and see what the major
polluting countries will do first. Their
output certainly would make a
difference, whereas our minuscule output
would hardly show.
It
would certainly take a great leap of
faith to think that both China and India
would follow our example, to the
detriment of their own growth in the
modern world.
Our
businesses would he the first to suffer
from adverse competitiveness, and our
exceptionally highly taxed citizens
further punished.
Alan Kobinson, Aycliffe, Co Durham
SIR -If
David Cameron wants to reduce flying by
putting more tates or. the passengers,
then why doesn't he at the sane time
loudly oppose the Government's dash for
airport expansion, especially the extra
runway at Stansted? Forked tongue comes
to mind.
Tom Collins Stanstead, Mountfitchet,
Essex
SIR
-The
Climate Change Bill will be the longest
economic suicide note in history.
Stephen Priest, Wokingham, Surrey
March 3rd
Warming conspiracy
SIR -
Martin Livermore (Comment, March I) seems to
suggest that there is some kind of sinister
conspiracy to shut down the debate on
climate change and declare CO2 emissions as
the only guilty party. This misrepresents
the position of reputable scientists and in
particular the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, which brings together over
2,000 of the world's leading scientists.
The IPCC
has looked at all the available evidence,
including that related to the influence of
solar irradiance.
Its
conclusion is that, while other factors do
play their part, human activity was "very
likely" (greater than 90 per cent sure) to
be responsible for most of the observed
warming in recent decades.
In a system
as complex as the global climate we cannot
predict with certainty what will happen in
future.
However,
the risks are potentially so high and
evidence that COz emissions are interfering
with the climate is so strong that delaying
action to reduce our emissions until we have
absolute certainty would be foolish.
It is time
for scientists, governments, businesses and
individuals to focus attention on what can
be done to allow the world to adapt to the
inevitable impact of global warming and on
what can be done to stop the situation from
getting worse.
Lord Rees of Ludlow President of the Royal
Society London SWI
March 6th
SIR - I am
sorry that so eminent a scientist as Lord
Rees of Ludlow (Letters,, March 3) feels the
need to criticise my questioning of the
apparent certainties about climate change.
My
suggestion is not that there is a sinister
conspiracy at work in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, merely that the
majority of the scientists involved are
wedded to a single, currently fashionable,
hypothesis and blinkered to the possibility
that there may be other plausible factors at
work.
The Royal
Society's motto is Nullius in verba which,
in their own words, means open,
unprejudiced, uninhibited inquiry and
unstifled debate. The sooner the scientific
establishment abides by this, the better the
chance that we will begin to understand the
world's climate.
Martin Livermore Cambridge
March 6th
SIR - Lord
Rees rightly says that the IPCC report
states it is "very likely" that the global
warming of the past few decades is the
result of human activity. But deeper in the
report it says it is only "likely" that
current global temperatures are the highest
in the past 1,300 years - a period well
before the release of CO, into our
atmosphere. The qualification "likely", very
or otherwise, coming from a collaborative
report of more than `2000 scientists,
clearly shows the fundamental scientific
uncertainties in human-influenced global
warming.
In
the debate it is important to stay close to
the raw data because they also show the
scientific uncertainties.
Figures from the United States National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
used by the IPCC show that there is no
upward trend in global average temperatures
since 2002. Since then, the yearly
temperatures are statistically flat, with a
scatter of about 0-05C.
During this
time, the global concentration of CO2, has
been increasing. It is uncertain whether the
annual global average temperatures have
peaked or will rise again.
Dr David Whitehouse Farnborough, Hampshire
.jpg)
.jpg)