From Nick Palmer, Jersey
Climate Action Network spokesman
YOUR correspondent, Peter Anthony Troy (JEP 11th August), claims that the ‘whole (global warming) theory has come under increasing suspicion because, as CO2 levels continue to rise, temperatures have failed to follow suit as the IPCC’s computer models predicted they should’.

It is beyond the scope of this letter to correct the three major errors (in only 28 words!) in Mr Troy’s statement, which clearly show that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes by the climate change ‘denialosphere’ movement which, unfortunately, is muddying the waters and fooling people.

As we approach the ‘last chance’ Copenhagen climate conference in December, perhaps the easiest way of clarifying the real situation is to look at the words (not cherry picked, I promise) of the chief scientist of a ‘Big Oil’ company and those of the most credible global warming sceptic in the world.

If these people do not doubt that increasing CO2 causes warming, that the Earth is actually warming and that we are most probably responsible, then why should anyone listen to the tidal waves of deceptive propaganda?

Steve Koonin, BP’s chief scientist (since 2004) at Energy Trends and Technologies for the Coming Decades (March 2007), said in his presentation: ‘So, climate change and CO2 emissions, my take on this. The basic facts. CO2 is going up and it’s going up largely due to fossil fuel use…

‘The global temperature is clearly going up as well. This is the official NOAA record over the past 120-some-odd years. Strong increases. it’s pretty clear the climate is changing. There is a plausible causal connection between them. You can do the back of the envelope numbers and it’s about right…

‘The temperature is going up in concert with the increase in greenhouse gases.’
Later on in the lecture, he says: ‘Despite the scientific uncertainties that might remain, and they’re becoming smaller as time goes on, precautionary action is clearly warranted. This is not a good thing to be doing to the climate system.’

Richard S Lindzen, who is the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and is probably the most prominent dissenting voice in the credible scientific community said, in his presentation to Facts or Faith?, a conference on global climate change held in Stockholm in 2006:
‘Nevertheless, for the most part I do not personally disagree with the consensus (though the absence of any quantitative considerations should be disturbing). Indeed, I know of no serious split, and suspect that the claim that there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more than setting up a straw man to scoff at.’

What is truly agreed, albeit with some controversy, is that:
1.– The global mean surface temperature is always changing. Over the past 60 years, it has both decreased and increased. For the past century, it has probably increased by about 0.6°C, ±0.15°C. That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.

2.– CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase should contribute to warming. It is, in fact, increasing and a doubling would increase the greenhouse effect, mainly due to water vapor and clouds, by about 2%.

3.– There is good evidence that man has been responsible for the recent increase in CO2, though climate itself, as well as other natural phenomena, can also cause changes in CO2.

Where Lindzen departs most obviously from the climatologist consensus is that he claims that the warming will be at the lower end of the scale and will not be a problem.

Certainty of temperature rise prediction cannot be achieved because the science is necessarily unfinished and will remain so, short of science finding a time machine to go back and repeatedly redo our experiment on Planet Earth’s climate using different green house gas emissions scenarios.

Humanity has the dilemma of the punk in Dirty Harry: neither he nor Callaghan knew for certain whether there was a bullet left in the Magnum.

Do we believe the minority, like Lindzen, who claim that there is virtually no dangerous bullet or do we believe the vastly larger consensus of peer-reviewed climate scientists who say that there is not just one bullet left, but many; some more dangerous than others?

Remember, we only get to run the climate Russian roulette experiment once; there is no reset button.

Do you feel lucky? Well, do you? The punk survived, but how will you face your children if you make the wrong decision as to who to believe?