Climate change deniers have no answers to the crisis facing our world

Sir, – It is disappointing that climate change deniers are so set on trying to prove there is no such thing that they fail to consider the wider and long-term issues.

They ignore facts and consequences that are inconvenient and rely on prehistoric assumptions about our planet from when there were few animate beings, still less human beings in existence.

We witness with increasing frequency the effects of such global warming, from global sea level rises to increased numbers of severe weather events.

Deniers continue to argue that it is all part of a natural process. Almost certainly it is depending on what is considered natural, but they refuse to factor in our contributions of increasing significance in the process of spreading industrialisation and environmental exploitation.

They ignore the obvious and undeniable fact that some time or other there will be no exploitable reserves of hydrocarbons to wastefully burn for energy.

The deniers’ stance is to argue minutiae and in effect propose we just carry on as we are.

They fail to provide any answers to the conundrum of what we are going to do about energy when these hydrocarbons inevitably run out. Moving away from a carbon-based energy infrastructure is winwin regardless of what is causing climate change and the sooner we do that the better.

It is a fact that Co2 in the atmosphere is increasing faster than the environment can sequester it.

And even if greenhouse gas science is proven to be unfounded we will still end up no longer burning hydrocarbons for predictable and practical reasons.

Instead of wringing their hands and arguing that we are not to blame for warming, why can none of the deniers come up with credible mechanisms to move away from fossil fuels as soon as possible and practical?

If nothing else they need to think through and answer the question – what if they are wrong about greenhouse gas emissions?

I would be more than happy to debate Roger Revelle’s conclusions quoted by Neil Bryce but this is not the forum for that, particularly as there is no explanation of what “signal” is being looked for, when compared with the statistics and circumstances historically and now. It is only necessary to look at atmospheric composition, environmental conditions and human activity to see there is, in fact, a visible correlation. The majority of the world accepts the evidential link between fossil fuels and warming.