For two days, your leading letter (26 and 30 June) about the Scottish Parliament's insane decision to cut Scotland's use of fire by 42 per cent and GNP by a probably greater amount is supportive, while all the others on the subject are opposed.
Dr Guy Johnson is correct to say that 1998 was warmer than 2000, though I don't see how this strengthens alarmist claims. He is certainly correct to say that alarmists now contend that this was unusual because of El Niño, but they said the opposite a
t the time.
In any case, he is wrong to say 1998 was the warmest year in recent times. Best evidence is that 1933 was. The US authorities have acknowledged this, though the Met Office has refused to release details that would allow a similar check of its figures so we must rely on the best available, which say
after 76 years of "catastrophic warming" the climate is cooler. Of course, much of history has been warmer than even 1933.
The influential American writer H L Mencken once said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." "Catastrophic warming" is yet another "hobgoblin" being pushed by power-drunk politicians with absolutely no interest in the wellbeing of their constituents or even in the survival of western civilisation.
NEIL CRAIG
Woodlands Rd.
GlasgowDr Guy Johnson describes those who are sceptical of "climate change" as "deniers" (Letters, 30 June).
There is no such thing as a denier of "climate change" since the earth's climate is not and never has been static.
The real "deniers" are those who promulgate the idea of man-made global warming, since the proposed solution to this "problem" is government omnipotence and state planning, ideas that, when they were put into practice in the 20th century, were totalitarian and genocidal.
To propose repeating these measures as a way of controlling the earth's climate is to deny their catastrophic nature.
BRUCE CRICHTON
Victoria Road
Falkirk, StirlingshireThe Scottish Government is bringing the word "target" into disrepute. The Oxford Dictionary defines a target as "a fixed goal or objective". I believe climate targets are a tool to generate headlines. They have little chance and possibly little intention of achieving them.
Existing targets have failed to prevent an increase in the number of large 4x4 vehicles on Scottish roads. They didn't prevent the government sanctioning the M74 extension. Why should we believe they will succeed this time?
N WALKER
Princes Gardens
GlasgowWhether or not global warming is a reality, or can be countered by legislation if it is, there is no argument against taking action to reduce atmospheric pollution and other environmental damage, and to slow down the rate at which the planet's finite resources are being used up. If our government's so-called Climate Change Bill will have this effect, then all power to it.
DERRICK McCLURE
Rosehill Terrace
AberdeenThe full article contains 520 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
