JOHN Palfreyman (Letters, October 10) takes issue with Geoff Moore (Letters, October 9) on climate change, but he should ask why environmentalists' past warnings have proved to be scaremongering.
Al Gore's 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth warned that sea levels would rise by 20ft in the "not too distant future" so when will we see the remaining 19ft 11.75 in? The film said polar bears would soon be extinct but today have a thriving population. The Maldives have not vanished below the waves. In fact the Maldives have nearly completed a giant new airport runway capable of handling the Airbus A380 jetliner, the world's largest passenger aircraft.
Other climate predictions categorically stated there would be an Ice Age by 2000, global cooling would cause a world war by 2000, rising sea levels would wipe entire nations off the map by 2000, global warming would cause fewer hurricanes or more hurricanes and laughably, after our recent deluge of snow, in 2000 scientists said "snow will soon be a thing of the past".
Meanwhile the world's population escalates.
Clark Cross,
138 Springfield Road,
Linlithgow.
JOHN Palfreyman says that Geoff Moore does not understand the process whereby scientists agree that man-made global warming exists. I can advise him that the process is variously known as peer group pressure, social anxiety, or fear of rejection.
As with the Salem witch trials, the judiciary individually knew that witches did not exist, but to have said so would have meant exclusion from the processes and privileges associated with their position.
What is happening to scientists today is the same. Fear of rejection, or of loss of funding, compels compliance.
Malcolm Parkin,
15 Gamekeepers Road,
Kinnesswood,
Kinross.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel