Hot air on climate change
From Tristan Gooley
Sir: I find myself among the weary majority who share a genuine concern for the environment and a mild revulsion at sensationalism on the subject. David Cameron in his article on Green Conservatism (4 November) is guilty of such sensationalism. Most of the article is a wad of trademark Cameron waffle, but there is one substantial sentence that hangs precariously and unsupported: ‘Hurricane Katrina in the US claimed over 1,800 lives.’ If we can agree that hurricanes predate the use of fossil fuels, what exactly is his point?
This sort of careless statement in this context does no more to further the debate or improve the environment than the line ‘Krakatoa was a jolly bad thing’. The reason Cameron avoids substance becomes clearer by the day; style causes less of a storm.
Tristan Gooley London SW6
From Nick Stonier
Sir: Paul Johnson’s musings on climate change provide an excellent example of how this subject is beset by a rapidly evolving mythology of unproven hypotheses and disproved theories (And another thing, 4 November).
Even though I’m sure the 2002 source he cites comes from an eminent climatologist, the view that the Yucatan event was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs is old hat. The latest theory is that this event would have been nowhere near devastating enough to eradicate the entire species and that the (much larger) crater necessary for such an event has yet to be found.
Four years is an eternity in climatology. In 2010 we’ll probably be blaming farting dinosaurs, rather than cattle, for the one or so degree Celsius rise in mean global temperature which has occurred over the last 100 years.
Nick Stonier
Kirkintilloch, Glasgow
Previous page
