Honest answer on climate change call

Dear Editor Findings from wellfunded university team investigations frequently hit the headlines.

Most of them seem to come to the same conclusions as ordinary folk using common sense and experience.

Meanwhile, many share my frustration with the two versions of man-made climate change presented to us daily in the media. The more insistent version churned out in a constant Goebbels-like propaganda campaign by the BBC tells us that we are all doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels and polluting our environment with our filthy cars and wasteful and dirty heating and lighting arrangements.

The non-believers tell us that the whole theory of man-made climate change is based on false science and that any climate change taking place is just part of the cycle of which has been going on for millions of years. They agree that we should cut down on pollution, but not in the precipitate way which the zealots of man-made climate change advocate - thousands of windmills, the closure of all nuclear power stations and those fuelled by fossil fuels and the acceptance of stringent controls on our use of fossil fuels and power in general in the future. Both sides trot out their evidence to back their point of view.

What I should like to see is a genuinely objective investigation of all the facts involved in this everlasting controversy. A team of eminent scientists should be brought together, funded either nationally or internationally, to gather and sift all the evidence, weigh it up carefully and come to an objective and balanced conclusion concerning climate change: is it manmade or not?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our Westminster government held back a fraction of the money now given over to other less important research and devoted it to finding an honest answer to this vexed question? It would be such a relief just to learn what the real facts of the case for man-made climate change are.

Either way, such a definitive scientific statement would silence the BBC on the subject. If Auntie were found to be right, then there would be no more need for her constant harping on about the subject. If she were proved wrong, then even our biased BBC would have problems continuing the campaign when faced with scientific fact. George K McMillan Perth