Proof needed on CO2 emissions
ROB GREGSON must surely have known whilst writing the article you attributed to him on 26 July, that by failing to address any of the challenges I put before him, and largely regurgitating what he had already said, he would not even begin to change my view, which is that it has not been proven that CO2 emissions are causing a climate emergency. (As I think Rob may recognise though, I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, but we can’t successfully address a problem without first identifying the cause).
Rob has taken the easy option of dismissing views opposite to his as ‘theories’. Of course he regards a claim as a theory if he doesn’t, or cannot, for whatever reason, look at the evidence. Rob concluded by advising Stretch Kontelj and I (and presumably others who have a similar view) to get on board with the science. I hope then that Rob copies me in when he writes to the approximately 1,000 climate scientists who have publicly disputed the ‘CO2 crisis’ claim, showing them where they have got it so badly wrong. Along with your readers, he can find out their names and qualifications by searching:
https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/400467/original/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
‘Open letter to UN Secretary-General: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists’
‘UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears’
‘An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC)’
‘James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’’
I would also urge Rob, if he has information to the contrary, to write to the Global Warming Policy Foundation and also to former Greenpeace chairman Patrick Moore after reading the text of the latter’s speech to the GWPF entitled Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
Rob has again steered clear of the influence of cloud seeding and weather modification programmes which have been going on for decades. Why? Because, I suggest, he’s just as in the dark as the overwhelming majority of us.
On a separate matter but still on the subject of ‘airy dismissals’, I was somewhat alarmed to read your report that, in 2018, sales of liquid milk fell by 2.8% and the States had glossed over this with the words ‘due to changing consumer preferences’ without any substantiation. As a milk retailer I’m bound to raise the possibility that it just might be down to the changes to the distribution system. But whatever the reason, it needs to be addressed, because during the eleven-year debate on what to do with the dairy industry, several reviews were commissioned which strongly indicated that a drop in sales of liquid milk by 4-5% would tip the industry over the precipice. If the farms go to the wall, then presumably there would be even more green land at the mercy of the apparently independent-from-government planning authorities.
MATT WATERMAN
Flat 2,
3 Burnt Lane,
St Peter Port,
GY1 1HL.