Realist who confronts the woolly green romantics

JAMES LOVELOCK has a long and noble history of defending the natural world and brings a gust of robust realism to the woolly green romanticism which passes for international environmental policy.

He may or may not be correct in his contention that the world is already doomed as you reported (April 18).

If he is, then we may as well lie back and enjoy what time we have left. If he is not, then we must concentrate on protection of our natural heritage and the mitigation of the (usually overstated) effects of global warming.

Dr Lovelock’s most telling point is to challenge the hubristic folly that humankind is sufficiently omniscient and powerful deliberately to replan planetary ecology.

This foolishness is redolent of the philosophies of fascism and communism and the achievements of neither inspire confidence that they might work.

He also demonstrates, contrary to the oft-repeated pronouncements of grant-dependent academics, that the debate about global warming is far from over and is very much alive. That the earth has been in a medium-term warming trend for several hundred years is undeniable, but the trend is neither steady nor is it unprecedented as often claimed by certain discredited scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This being the case it is possible, but far from certain, that the small proportion of atmospheric carbon dioxide which is industrially generated is at least part of the cause.

The extent of the Antarctic ice sheet is actually increasing slightly, although not uniformly, and the depth of ice in inland areas of the Arctic is increasing. There has been no measurable global warming since 1998 and contrary to current myth, the warmest year on modern record is actually 1934 and not within the past 10 years.

Dr Lovelock is absolutely correct to pour scorn on computer models which entirely fail to fit the historical record. If one develops a model which accounts, say, for pre-1900 weather patterns it will not replicate contemporary evidence and vice-versa.

A model which does not fit the evidence is normally called incorrect or flawed in science. Yet these very models now form the basis of a wholly wrong headed international drive which, if implemented, must make our current economic plight little more than a short apprenticeship in disaster.

In particular the gross and misleading contentions of our politicians in all ‘green’ issues beggar belief. The low point must be the recent, misleading and frankly childish comments of Environment Minister John Gormley that the proposed new electricity supply channel across the Irish Sea is to enable the export of Irish wind-generated electricity to Britain.

This comment is typical of the misleading and overstated anti-capitalist cant which emanates from the Green party.

It is clear that wind power is expensive, inefficient and requires conventional power generation to back it up. It will never be a major source of energy production in any reliable way.

As Dr Lovelock points out, the only real answer is nuclear power generation and this is really what the new cross-channel grid is about, the importation of nuclear-generated electricity to Ireland from Britain.

Mr Gormley’s misuse of language, misdirection of the electorate and cynical bending of facts to support his own fantasies make him unfit for power. Perhaps he should resign and make way for Dr Lovelock ?

Jim Corbett

Tracton Avenue

Montenotte