Question the sceptics
Sir: Let’s set aside the fact that the article by Matt Ridley and Nicholas Lewis, ‘Breaking the Ice’ (19 February) — to which you oddly gave cover prominence — was outstandingly the most boring thing I have come across in The Spectator for over 30 years. What, exactly, is the point of this self-confessed ‘group of amateurs’?
I am not a scientist, but I was for some while responsible for developing Conservative party policy on climate change. Nerdy quibbles about the extent or location of melting ice in Antarctica don’t get us very far. The various embarrassing, though not devious, cock-ups by the University of East Anglia, or in the Intergovernmental Panel’s data, don’t alter the trajectory of mainstream scientific opinion.
I recognise that dispute is endemic to scientific enquiry. I know that there is no absolute truth in these matters. But should responsible policy-makers base their approach on the views of amateurs, or on mainstream scientific opinion?
Even if the climate change sceptics are right (and believe me, I hope they are), is it really a good idea to continue to be economically dependent on imports of oil and gas? Is pollution a good thing? Does anyone at all think that fossil fuels are going to get cheaper? Will we be more socially and economically secure if we continue with business as usual?
What is the point of the climate change sceptics? And who is paying them?
Peter Ainsworth
Via email
Sir: Lewis and Ridley’s thoughtful piece on Antarctic temperature renews the concern that there really is something going on in climate science, to do with the presentation of data rather than the data itself.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in