Scrutable

Large-scale reconstructions covering part or all of the 1st millennium and 2nd millennium have shown that recent temperatures are exceptional: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 concluded that "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years."

Publishing letters like the one from D Dean denying climate change is highly irresponsible. It suggests controversy where none exists. All the scientific evidence gathered shows this to be the case. The scientific consensus is agreed - anthropogenic climate change is real and threatens to harm us of we do not curb it, and soon.

Climate change deniers cherry pick (often misunderstood) data while ignoring the bigger picture. It is rare in science to have something as complex as the climate to have such an incredible consensus and that is a testament to the decades of work by climate scientists.

By all means debate what our response should be, debate the legal, political and social aspects of climate change but do not debate whether or not it is real. It is. All the evidence we have says it does and the longer we spend debating whether or not it is happening, the less time we have to adapt and reduce its inevitable consequences.

Fishnut wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 9:53 am Thanks

I'm trying to go for a "bigger picture" approach as it's impossible to succinctly refute every idiotic point.

This is my first draft which was hastily written in the car on the way to the vets (I'm not driving!). Comments, corrections etc much appreciated

Publishing letters like the one from D Dean denying climate change is highly irresponsible. It suggests controversy where none exists. All the scientific evidence gathered shows this to be the case. The scientific consensus is agreed - anthropogenic climate change is real and threatens to harm us of we do not curb it, and soon.

Climate change deniers cherry pick (often misunderstood) data while ignoring the bigger picture. It is rare in science to have something as complex as the climate to have such an incredible consensus and that is a testament to the decades of work by climate scientists.

By all means debate what our response should be, debate the legal, political and social aspects of climate change but do not debate whether or not it is real. It is. All the evidence we have says it does and the longer we spend debating whether or not it is happening, the less time we have to adapt and reduce its inevitable consequences.

Publishing letters like the one from D Dean denying climate change is highly irresponsible. It suggests controversy where none exists. Historical temperature fluctuations have indeed occurred, both up and down, but the scientific consensus is agreed that the current upward trend is due to human activity. Anthropogenic climate change is real and threatens to harm us of we do not curb it, and soon.

Basic fact-checking would reveal the serious errors in D Dean's letter. For example, any textbook will confirm that the planet's atmosphere is composed almost entirely of nitrogen and oxygen, rather than "95% water vapour" - the true figure is at most 1%. The hottest parts of the planet are deserts, so to suggest that increasing temperatures globally will lead to a "greener planet" is clearly false.

Climate change deniers cherry-pick (often misunderstood) arguments while ignoring the bigger picture. It is rare in science to have something as complex as the climate to have such an incredible consensus and that is a testament to the decades of work by climate scientists.

By all means debate what our response should be, debate the legal, political and social aspects of climate change but do not create spurious debate whether or not it is real. It is. All the evidence we have says it is, and the longer we spend debating whether or not it is happening, the less time we have to adapt and reduce its inevitable consequences.

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:29 am Wait, what, you're seriously answering that letter?

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:33 pm So what? Why would it matter if one confused old white man changed the mind of another confused old white man?

lpm wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:45 pm So what? When do they vote? Would their vote be changed? What magical powers do votes have?

People who like Katie Hopkins also vote. We don't hear much about Katie Hopkins any more - because more people have learned to just ignore her confused hatreds and have stopped debating what she says. Newspapers these days don't print stuff that just disappears into a void with everyone ignoring it.

If this silly letter generates controversy and fills up a page next week and it gets entertainingly debatey, then the newspaper is guaranteed to print letters like it every month or two. It's a Darwinian process. Delingpole wins because he's so good at generating enraged responses, unknown thousands of Deliingpole-wannabes die out because they get ignored.

Woodchopper wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:13 pmAlternatively, if misleading claims aren't challenged, people assume that they are true.

Martin Y wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:19 pm Writing to the paper saying "this person is wrong; there is no controversy" is not perpetuating an imaginary controversy.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:18 pm I don't know how relevant the references to "clickbait" are - not all local newspapers are online, or at least get most of their readership from paper copies. If that's the case here there is less risk of amplifying stupid/dangerous views and people by responding.