Letters to the editor for 26 April 2013

Climate alarmism

[Re: Reality is intruding on the extreme claims of climate change alarmists, yesterday]

It is popular to follow the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, and politically incorrect to question it. But there is no persuasive scientific case for aggressive action to decarbonise the world's economy. As Rupert Darwall highlights, since 1998 average global temperatures have flatlined. Perhaps the most inconvenient truth was pointed out by Peter Lilley MP, who said that “scientists would rather change facts than their theories”. Yes, there is a case for greenhouse gas emission reduction; we cannot know for sure that they don't cause climate change and should err on the side of caution. But rather than embracing overly-ambitious, unrealistic and aggressive plans to reduce emissions in the short term, alternative and economically feasible approaches are needed.

Nicholle MacLeod

What’s the problem with renewable energy? It’s expensive, causing energy costs to rise for consumers and producers, and thereby damaging our ability to compete. However, more perniciously the structures, incentives and subsidies built into the system are making the energy market less efficient. Successive governments have turned what was once a well-planned power system into one that barely has enough extra capacity to withstand a cold winter.

Bradley Morgan



0.3 per cent on GDP, off back of quite strong services growth. More volatile components grew less, so underlying growth quite good.

Better news on GDP than most predicted, but no growth over last six months. Economy flatlining, no growth plan and no healing.

Relieved that the press has rejected the Hacked Off and government charter, and come up with their own alternative.

Press proposing alternative Royal Charter on regulation – keeps best of Leveson, but free from political interference.