Global cooling theory is nonsense

IN his letter (April 21), Dr Colmán Etchingham correctly points out that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists are not independent insofar as they rely on funding for research.

It is true that research is often funded to produce a required result and if the result is ‘wrong’, the research is quickly buried.

However, this is clearly not the case with the IPCC.

What possible motive could governments have for exaggerating global warming?

Quite the reverse — the IPCC has watered down its conclusions in response to political pressure.

Governments are in a lose-lose situation. If they tried to implement the policies needed to combat global warming, such as banning cars, they would be quickly squashed by business lobbies, the electorate and the media, and if they do nothing, except silly gestures like banning incandescent light bulbs, they will be criticised and attacked on all sides. On the other hand, ‘doubters’ like Bjorn Lomborg and George Bush are funded by oil companies, car manufactures and other business interests which have a clear interest in sowing doubt. The spindoctors have even admitted as much.

People know who to trust, although they may not fully understand the scientific evidence of global warming.

Al Gore thinks global warming is caused by ‘thickening’ of the atmosphere and few of the doubters are properly qualified.

It is nonsense for Dr Etchingham to talk of “the threat of global cooling”. Ice age cycles are over tens or hundreds of thousands of years: global warming is taking place over a few decades. Dr Etchingham may see himself in the heroic mould of Galileo, but to me he is like a flat-earther of the medieval church who will not accept the science of the IPCC.

Michael Job

Rossnagrena

Glengarriff

Co Cork