Floods are examples of extreme weather, not evidence of climate change
HAVING received predictable responses to my letter from the expected sources (Ali Ross and Alan Barr, Herald, 25th May), I am disappointed that neither goes beyond mere repetition of rhetoric such as “overwhelming scientific evidence” (without giving any) and reference to oft-repeated statements from the IPCC.
None of the perfectly valid points I made in my previous letter are properly challenged or even acknowledged — the attitude of the real denier, i.e. a refusal to examine all the causal factors in the analysis of a science such as climate change.
This is a wholly unscientific approach which reveals their serious lack of knowledge and understanding of the whole issue. I repeat, this is a science and parroting the same one-sided dogma over and over again does not constitute evidence.
My use of the words “brainwashed schoolchildren” seems to have upset the above correspondents and I make no apologies for it.
Young minds have been swamped with flawed propaganda that atmospheric CO2 is the only cause of climate change and its alleged disastrous consequences (which will almost certainly be wrong). The minds of primary school children are not equipped to grasp the complexities of Earth’s climates, which makes them easy prey to “single issue” indoctrination and, worse still, that we as a nation can somehow control climate change.
The teachers who fed their pupils with this nonsense and encouraged strike action should be ashamed of themselves.
Ali Ross makes the mistake of stating that I am more likely to have been brainwashed — a risible opinion, to say the least. For the record, my understanding of meteorology and climatology has accumulated over 60 years of keen interest and extensive study along with a successful and rewarding career as a geography teacher. It is the knowledge thus gained which leads me to challenge the politically-driven and self-righteous beliefs of the “warmists” whose argument goes no further than contradicting all opposition and ignoring any evidence that does not suit them.
I repeat what I have previously said, that too many think they know everything about climate change while knowing little or nothing about climatology itself. They even have the temerity to dictate to us, as individuals, how we must lead our lives in order to “combat” global warming. As if we could.
Ms Ross seems to think that Exxon’s 982 forecasts for CO2 emissions, while correct, are otherwise relevant. They are not, since we all fully accept that atmospheric CO2 levels have indeed risen to 0.04 per cent.
Previous forecasts concerning the effects of global warming, such as the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels and the shrinkage of the Antarctic ice-mass are relevant however, insofar as these predictions have all been wrong.
Finally, since Ms Ross mentions them, the Cumbrian floods of 2015 and 2009, along with last summer’s heatwave and the cold winters either side of 2009, were all recent examples of extreme weather, which often occur in the latitudes. They are not evidence of climate change, despite the warmists’ claims.
I deny neither global warming nor climate change, but I do question their alleged cause, which is taken for granted by the warmists, and some of the incomplete or false evidence used to support them.