22 September 2006
As the current director of the Scientific Alliance, one of the groups named in your article on climate change (Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial, September 20), I have to register my concern at the increasing intolerance of normal scientific argument by the scientific establishment.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made a political synthesis of the work of many hundreds of expert scientists, and implies that the science is settled. Far from it: there is very considerable uncertainty about the influence of various drivers on global climate. Science is not democratic. Science doesn't work by consensus. Science calls for an honest evaluation of theories in the light of all available evidence. Theories stand or fall on the basis of interpretation and discussion of the evidence, not attacks on the integrity of those you may disagree with. The Royal Society is indeed taking an unprecedented step: it is seeking to close down debate, which is deeply disturbing.
The Scientific Alliance has never received money from ExxonMobil. And we will continue to encourage rational scientific debate, whoever chooses to fund us and whatever the official view of the Royal Society.Martin LivermoreScientific Alliance
Your story claims the George Marshall Institute issued a report stating that global temperature increases were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels. In fact, on page 9 of the November 2004 report, we state "We know, with a high degree of certainty, that ... increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will have a warming effect ...". It might have been instructive if you had read the entire report and the extensive bibliography supporting it.Jeff KueterGeorge Marshall Institute
Read the original letter to ExxonMobil and you will find that it only complains that Exxon publications have given a misleading interpretation of the evidence supporting human-induced climate change, and that the company continues to fund organisations that sponsor such views. It goes on to request information about ExxonMobil's funding of European organisations who "have been providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public".
Specifically, there is no warning in the letter to Exxon to stop funding climate- change denial, although the threat to do so in the future may be implicit. The Royal Society letter recognises that ExxonMobil funds 25 US-based organisations that offer an "acceptable" view of climate change but identifies a further 39 that "misrepresented the science of climate change, by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change, or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge, or by conveying a misleading impression of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change". Surely these are matters of scientific judgment? Why is the scientific content produced or used by the 39 organisations wrong or biased, and who determines that this is the case? Many judgments on climate-change science are based upon the source of funding. The reality is that the "consensus" climate-change lobby is sponsored to the tune of billions (much of it from the public purse). The climate debate is no longer; instead it has devolved into the practice of smearing opponents, calling into question the motives of anyone funded by the oil industry, and stifling legitimate discussion.Dr Alan KendallSchool of environmental sciences, University of East Anglia
George Monbiot wrongly suggests that Friends of the Earth is advocating allowing carbon dioxide concentrations to increase to 450 parts per million (Comment, September 21). The report he refers to, written by the respected Tyndall Centre for Climate Change and commissioned by Friends of the Earth and the Co-operative Bank, clearly suggests that the government should be aiming to do its part in keeping global concentrations as far below this level as possible.
The report demonstrates to politicians that change is possible, that the solutions to climate change can be implemented. The report was commissioned as part of The Big Ask Campaign, which advocates the introduction of a new law requiring successive British governments to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by at least 3% year on year. This is not about pulling punches but about setting the framework that will allow us to achieve the emission reductions that we need.Mike ChildsFriends of the Earth
George Monbiot writes (G2, September 20) that "If we had [£20,000] it would be better to pay someone to put a wind turbine on a mountain." And hence destroy the affective power of some last remnant of our wild landscape in Britain? A true holistic approach would acknowledge an aesthetic dimension in our necessary dealings with nature, and not simply endorse another act of vandalism against it. Our mountains are a rare, precious resource. Of course we need "sustainable energy"; but we also need the spiritual and aesthetic sustenance that the presence of undespoiled nature can bring. There is a balance to be struck here. I find it sad that an important proponent of our sustainable eco-pieties should so glibly and selfishly consign the integrity of wild Britain to such destruction.Jim PerrinPowys, Wales
Many of us believe that the real villains of the piece are so-called environmentalists who object to the only realistic, economic non-CO2 -emitting technology available - nuclear power.Toby ManningNewtown Linford, Leicestershire
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1878553,00.html
