A Place to Stand

Scotsman letter. This is the letter as submitted. Fortunately the quote was given in full in the paper edition. They have dropped half the 3rd last paragraph, the 2nd last paragraph & the last 2 sentences but none of these change the meaning:

"May I congratulate Bill Jamieson on his article today (22nd Feb) pointing out the incongruity of alleging catastrophic global warming as all across the world we see extraordinary amounts of snow. He will doubtless receive many letters from "environmentalists" saying that such comments should not be allowed in your pages because "the debate is over". In November 23rd 2006 you published a letter from an eminent Scottish clergyman who criticised your publication of an earlier letter from me on this subject, on the grounds that "an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is a reality, to a degree never even remotely approached at any previous stage of history" existed & should not be disturbed.

No doubt you will hear that this "consensus" still exists (always excluding the 19,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition saying the opposite, among many others). More important than the opinions of the "great & good", more important even than the opinions & computer models of scientists, are the facts. It is a fact that since 1999 the world has not got warmer.

Climatologists, historians & archaeologists agree that the Medieval Warming was, even being cautious, as warm as now & the Late Roman (when grapes grew at York) probably significantly warmer.

It is good to see that there is somewhere willing to publish evidence that opposes the purely political "consensus". That is what good journalism is about. I hope you will show such scepticism over the next "environmental" scare story, whatever it may be.

Yours faithfully
Neil Craig"

Canon Kenyon's letter, for it was indeed he, & another by Roy Turnball on the same page were a direct response to a drastically shortened letter of mine on 1st November. My original is here

I was therefore being accused of being "those who claim otherwise seldom have any real authority and often are funded by groups with a vested interest in avoiding the implications of the reality" & an "inability to recognise the truth". My authority is equal to that of the Canon's, my knowledge considerably greater & my funding by evil plutocrats non-existent.

I strongly suspect the Canon was merely wanting to make a PC point & get his name in the paper & his 2nd letter shows some consternation that he had stirred up Matrin Livermore of the Scientific Alliance, Dr GM Lindsay & Jim Sillars whom he was not well informed enough to dispute with.

I am quite proud of this (which is why I wrote today's letter) since it is one of the earliest times we saw a serious media debate on the subject - the position having been that the debate, never having taken place, was over. This is still the position in the broadcast media although even there the BBC are passing each other emails about how they ought to try to at least look more impartial.

My unpublished reply at the time to the Canon's letter

I think a little perspective on how recent it was that it was possible to say "the debate is over" is worthwhile.