Where does the climate change truth lie?

One should not forget that scientific evidence is regularly used to further the causes of a lobby and to disguise either personal or commercial interests in scientific debate can be a convenient justification. I suspect some of the correspondence over past weeks and months has attempted to do just that.

Let’s also consider that there might be uncertainty in the minds of policy makers, both local and national, about global warming issues, the consequences and the solutions. Underlying current policy there may be a political fear of fuel security and reliance on finite fossil resources, and perhaps ‘green’ science is being used to promote these otherwise, less palatable initiatives.

Most of us probably use oil or gas for heating our homes and businesses and the availability of these fuels are known to rely upon international political stability and are vulnerable to world markets which are predicted to become more volatile.

Looking ahead this leads to electricity becoming the fuel of choice for the majority of consumers. It is familiar to us all, carbon clean at the point of use and can be delivered through existing networks.

So the issue, therefore, is where it comes from. For whatever reason, current policy at a local level for Pembrokeshire appears poorly thought out and this may be causing some of the debate over what is in our best interests. When a need for housing or industrial development is recognised the need is quantified, the means of provision is considered and a method of delivery is facilitated via development plans.

We have two new development plans, PCC and PCNPA, determining the policy for the next few years, but neither quantifies what is expected of Pembrokeshire relating to renewable energy generation.

In Pembrokeshire we already have a sizeable energy infrastructure and punch well above our weight on our contribution to national interests.

So let’s wake up and get a grip of this before the effects of this confusion leave us all irretrievably worse off. We need a reasoned debate on what is an appropriate contribution to the local and national good and a review of the current policies to ensure they are fit for purpose.

We need to determine how much renewable energy is expected of the county and how it can be delivered to best overall effect without getting side tracked by disagreements fuelled by personal interests.

Isn’t this the job of our elected politicians and highly paid planners? So where are they now in our hour of need?

MARK WILLIAMS by email

THE letters from Mr James and Mr Jessop in the Western Telegraph of April 24th, reminded me of Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.

At the High Court in London in 2007 it was ruled that this film, about the dangers of CO2 and global warming, was proven to contain so many critical factual errors and could no longer be shown in schools in England and Wales as a portrayal of fact.

Mr Jessop states that the Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi is to intensify global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This is the same country that contributes more than 20% of atmospheric CO2 and are planning to build another 400 or more coal-fired power stations.

Would Mr Jessop like to explain this fact to your readers? I doubt it.

Mr James is keen to point out that Prof Plimer is only a geologist and therefore not to be taken seriously, yet he is wanting everyone to accept his article written by the United States geological survey team.

They state that human emissions of carbon dioxide are about 130 times greater than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions.

How they can state this when only about 5% of the ocean floor has been surveyed for volcanoes?

I am still waiting for the infamous trio of James/ Jessop and Clegg to defend the faulty ‘hockey stick graph’ which leaked out from the East Anglian University climate change department, which proves lies about global warming. Also no comment from them about the 1200 coal fired power stations to be built in 59 countries.

If the UK were to sink below the waves next week our contribution of co2 emissions (1.8%) would be replaced in less than a month by India and China. How are they going to debunk the Oregan Petition and the reputations of 32,000 climate scientists who refuted any connection between global warming and CO2 emissions which Mr Olin of Goodwick mentioned in his excellent letter last week (April 24th).

No reply yet regarding the fact that the atmospheric CO2 content was as high as 4,000 ppm during past ice ages, compared to only 395 ppm now.

Since 1990 the total number of global weather stations which are used to determine the world’s average temperature have dropped from 12,000 to 5,000.

Included in this reduction are a total of 806 stations which have been removed because they recorded very low temperatures which did not fit in with the global warming theory much liked by the IPCC.

What about all the old people of the country who are going to suffer due to not being able to afford to heat their homes, because of arrogant people who think it is more important to shut down efficient coal fired power stations so as to save CO2 emissions?

DAVE BEVAN

Neyland

LEON Olin (Western Telegraph letters, May 1st) incorrectly claims that 32,000 climate scientists signed the Oregon Petition denying the link between human activity and climate change.

The Oregon Petition was open for anybody to sign, with jokers chipping in with names like Perry Mason (TV lawyer) and Gerry Halliwell (former Spice Girl). An investigation by the Scientific American magazine found that the so-called scientists were almost all people with no expertise in climatology and no record of research.

This petition is as discredited as the Leipzig Declaration, recommended by Richard Shepherd (Western Telegraph letters, April 24th). A Danish Broadcasting Company journalist found that 12 people listed on the declaration denied having signed it; of the remainder, many were not qualified in fields even remotely related to climate research.

If we briefly look at some of the other names put forward by Mr Olin to support his climate denial stance, it makes equally interesting reading.

Frederik Singer is a rocket scientist who, with funding from the tobacco industry, tried to claim that the link between smoking and cancer was unproven. He later gained further notoriety by making the wildly inaccurate claim that the ozone hole and acid rain were both caused by volcanoes!

Richard Lindzen also acted in his earlier days as a witness for the tobacco industry, questioning the link between smoking and ill-health, before playing down the link between human activity and climate change.

Patrick Michaels is a climate scientist who has admitted that he has received funding from the coal industry, while Dr Benny Peiser is a former lecturer in the Sports Department of John Moore University and is not a climate scientist.

By contrast, an opinion poll of practising climate scientists shows that 98% believe that human activity is fuelling dangerous climate change.

It should come as no surprise that the conclusions of these experts are accepted by organisations as varied as local authorities, the WI, the Welsh Rugby Union, farming and trade unions, and the International Energy Agency.

It’s not difficult to find some individual scientists who disagree with this overwhelming scientific consensus; it’s not difficult either to establish that the same deniers and doubters often have links to fossil fuel, mining and right-wing free-market groups which view environmental legislation as a threat.

What we really ought to be focusing on now is the development and implementation of cleaner and more efficient technologies that will cut emissions and enable us to reap the business and jobcreating benefits of the rapidly growing green economy.

In the process, we would also create greater hope for the future of our children and grandchildren.

GORDON JAMES

Llanfallteg