Thank you Alan Willoughby, Graeme Matheson and my old adversary Frank Smead for responding so promptly to my letter of 25 June. Mr Willoughby says it is a pity I didn't provide some convincing evidence that the science of anthropogenic global warming is correct. It is equally valid to say he does nothing in his letter to prove it is incorrect. Nor do the other two writers who I hope to have the opportunity to respond to next week. I didn't set out to prove the correctness or integrity of the science. That comes from the weight of evidence derived from a wide spectrum of scientific field and laboratory studies presented in the form of innumerable painstakingly peer-reviewed research papers. This is where the 'integrity” comes from.
And, yes, even climate scientists (and I) are well aware of the natural climate variations over the aeons but they point out that, in contrast, the warming trend now underway is not only unusually rapid but it has no natural explanation - only the soaring level of proven greenhouse gases.
I recommend to anyone seriously interested (as we should all be) an extremely readable and well researched book written from a completely neutral perspective in which the two authors examine all the evidence they can muster directly from scientists representing both sides of the argument. That book is 'Poles Apart: beyond the shouting who's right about climate change?” written by economist guru Gareth Morgan (who one might expect to be naturally sceptical about any such a theory) with researcher and writer John McCrystal. The reader will learn a surprising number of invaluable facts on how the atmosphere works, the ongoing science to better understand it and the two opposing arguments - knowledge that is sadly lacking in the many tirades published as letters to the editor. And the conclusion eventually reached by the authors? 'The science is practically irrefutable. The evidence [for anthropogenic climate change] isn't overwhelming, but it's certainly mounting.”
Peter Otway, Pahoia.