We shouldn't give climate change-deniers a platform
Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I must take issue with the thrust of Richard Phillips’s letter regarding Lord Lawson’s climate change-denying appearance on the Today programme and the response of leading scientists to it. These scientists do not seek to suppress rational scientific debate but to prevent the populace at large from being misled.
The assertion that the opinions of Lord Lawson are “quite widely held in the scientific community” is nonsense. The proposition that the manner in which global climate changes are brought about is not “largely in question”. On the contrary the science is solid, reputable and very well-established.
I agree that science is “based on question”, but it is also progressive. Just because Einstein came up with general relativity did not render Newtonian physics useless – Nasa uses it all the time. General relativity works, but will be nuanced by the quantum physics now emerging.
Science is progressive, but climate change denial is actually retrogressive. It is espoused by those who seek to protect the profits of industrialists and financiers, which are based on cheap energy from fossil fuels. To do so they seek to suppress the scientific work of climatologists, glaciologists and so on by casting doubt on the inconvenient veracity of their work.
To paraphrase Phillips’ Marie Curie quote, “Everything in life is to be understood… and thus the consequences of unrestricted climate change to be feared”.
Philip de Jonge
Haslemere
Richard Phillips is completely wrong in his support for climate change-deniers such as Nigel Lawson. Global warming is not a matter of opinion but is a proven fact backed up by vast amounts of experimental evidence. It is simply a matter of putting up enough thermometers around the world and reading them.
The results show that 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded and that the trend in temperature is inexorably upwards. Saying that those who disbelieve such evidence deserve to be heard in the interests of “balance” is totally fatuous.
Would Phillips suggest the flat-earth brigade deserve a hearing? Should we listen to anyone who still claims that the sun goes round the Earth, or that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago? These theories were debunked in the face of overwhelming evidence a long time ago, and climate change denial is facing the same fate.
Sam Boote
Nottingham
A very democratic clock
Some have been far too critical of MPs for simply acknowledging the fact that Big Ben, a symbol all over the world of British democracy, will be out of action for four years. For something which did chime every hour, four years is a long time to fall silent and people will miss the familiar sound around Westminster. Have we really become so dull as to have to criticise MPs for spending an hour or so of their time enjoying this fabulously British landmark before it falls silent?
Lewis Chinchen
Sheffield
Big Ben falling silent. They speak of little else in the food banks.
Jack Liebeskind
Cheltenham
Not practicing what you preach
Regarding research showing that abstinence-only sex education does not work: there is a certain irony about Congress spending money to support the idea of abstinence.
Chris James
Highfield
Bruce Forsyth didn’t owe anyone a dime
I was astonished to read the letter from David Ashton earlier this week regarding Bruce Forsyth’s estate.
Firstly, I’d like to point out that no rules are being broken there. When I die, I will leave everything to my wife. She can then give this to whoever she wants. As long as she stays alive for seven years, there will be no taxes owed. I have already paid tax on my earnings. Hopefully Brucie did the same. Why should this be taxed again?
Secondly, Bruce doesn’t owe anyone a dime, including David. He was a talented, hard-working man. I have fond memories of watching Bruce’s shows throughout my whole life. From his short appearance in Bedknobs and Broomsticks all the way through to Strictly 45 years later, he was there in our house, making us smile. Bruce doesn’t owe us anything. We owe him a big thankyou and the respect to not judge how a grieving family deals with his estate.
J Crowe
Surrey
A purr-fect commentary
Did Grace Dent have an extra saucer of milk before writing her article about the Clooneys?! Meow!
Sue Breadner
Isle of Man
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments