Difference of opinion over CO2 levels no excuse for righteous indignation

Sir, – The righteous indignation expressed by Nick Cole against those with whom he disagrees about the causes of climate change, who he insists on referring disparagingly to as “deniers”, does him little credit. Sadly he is hell- bent on finding grounds for disagreement when there are none while simultaneously persisting in turning a Nelsonian blind eye to certain unfashionable and inconvenient realities.

No realists have ever disputed that CO2 levels have increased since the industrial revolution and that other beneficial gases create our life-giving greenhouse effect. Nor do they deny the reality that hydrocarbons are a finite resource and that we must proceed in developing viable alternative technologies. On this much we are in agreement.

It is however a pragmatic reality that we should continue with the judicious use of fossil fuels in order to facilitate that transition. For example this is already under way with the continuing development of graphene as a material with a myriad of applications which may include the replacement of plastics and even steel. Nuclear fission which replicates the awesome power of the

Sun may still be over the horizon but like so many technological advances of recent times, such as air transport and information technology it will become a miraculous reality that will ultimately render many current inefficient renewable technologies obsolete. So there are just a few positives for alarmists to ponder.

It is peculiar that while Mr Cole concedes that “questioning beliefs is indeed part of the scientific process”, he simultaneously supports the arrant nonsense of the grossly over-hyped 97% scientific consensus.

Interestingly he appears to concur that “CO2 is a distraction” which is a very odd comment considering the ongoing obsession with net-zero carbon. He also argues against using historical references to climate as a basis for evaluating the current situation but this is precisely what computer models try to do using a process called Hindcasting. However, the simulations they create consistently fail to match observed trends but instead create the results they are designed to produce.

We must agree to differ. Neil J Bryce.

Kelso.