In his letter (November 26) Neil Craig said: "We know for a fact that no unprecedented warming is taking place." Sir David King, the UK's chief scientist, would refute that, saying: "The weight of evidence for climate change, and the causal link with greenhouse gas emissions is unarguable and the science is clear that this rise in temperatures will continue and accelerate."
Physical evidence is widely available. In this month's Geographical, the magazine of the Royal Geographical Society, the facts are that most of the world's glaciers are melting, accelerating their rate of loss, and many have disappeared. The reduced summer meltwater will translate to lower river water flows, affecting millions of people who rely on them for drinking and agriculture. The loss of glacier mass is transferred to the sea, forcing sea levels up, affecting those who live by the sea.
As the ability of the Earth to reflect the sun's heat is reduced through decreasing ice coverage, combined with reduced vegetative cover because of continued deforestation and increased desertification, combined with increasing methane emissions from Siberia, carbon dioxide release from our own peat bogs and continued man-made emissions, it becomes possible to glimpse the looming catastrophe not many years from now as the Earth's temperature begins to spiral out of control. Yet many are not persuaded by the arguments.
So, do we do nothing and see what happens? Unfortunately, that's not an option because the earth is warming and we have to plan contingencies. Do we take the risk and not bother to reduce emissions? That's not an option either because oil prices are going up. Or is it best to minimise the risk by setting tough reduction targets for emissions, because surely by doing that we're encouraging man's innovative capabilities to find more sustainable energy sources and means of transport? Why not be united in encouraging world leaders to take drastic measures in Bali because in the end that will be good for all of us?
Paul Shaw, 20 Argyle Way, Dunblane.
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 hereComments are closed on this article