AS one who is old enough to remember being relentlessly told that we were heading into an ice age, I have to admit to being somewhat cynical about the announcements of impending global catastrophe due to global warming.

Dr Hamish Maclaren states “the science is on Ms Thunberg’s side, and the scientific community overwhelmingly supports what she is saying”(Herald letters, October 2).

A discussion with a university researcher shed some light on why there is this unanimity within the scientific community.

It would appear that anyone seeking research funding has a vastly better chance of obtaining it if the object of the research is to prove some element of global warming. He estimated that there was ten times more funding for such research than for anyone questioning the draconian predictions of industrialisation causing global warming.

A second factor affecting university researchers’ seemingly total acceptance of the climate crisis is that to become known as a “denier” is the kiss of death for anyone’s chance of promoted posts.

Such is the atmosphere within universities that it appears there is a policy of attempting to shut down any debate completely and effectively blacklist anyone who dares to voice a contrary opinion.

In the light of these circumstances, it is difficult to place total faith in the current scientific conformity.

Does this mean that I reject totally global warming? The answer to that is ‘no’ but it does mean that I treat research with a large pinch of cynical salt. After all, most of the predictions are based on computer programs and they are only as good as the information which has been input.

My concern for Ms Thunberg is that she will be cynically used by vested interests until she loses status and then she will be discarded.

David Stubley,


Rev Dr John Cameron (Letters, October 2) thinks people should take a close look at Greta Thunberg, whereas I think we should take a close look at what she’s saying.

If what she’s saying is wrong, Rev Cameron should be able to explain why. If he can’t offer an explanation, he won’t find an adequate substitute in telling readers that her voice is monotonous, or that some people treat her as a cult figure, or that we live in an age when “even the less well-off can travel the globe and sample international cuisines”. All of that might be true, but none of it undermines Thunberg’s claims.

Robert Canning,

Bridge of Earn,


I MUST congratulate the Rev. Dr John Cameron for his superbly succinct condemnation of the emerging movement of teenagers against adults on scientific matters they do not fully understand.

Informed adults are themselves hugely divided on the issue of climate change for example. The arguments on the role of human activity versus natural causes such as solar radiation and movements in the magma continue unabated.

The young people in question do not appear to wish to learn about the many factors which could be included in the debate, and are at a very easily influenced period in their lives.

They can be affected by the impact of their peers such as the rather peculiarly dogmatic Greta Thunberg who wishes to blame adults- or psychologically, I suggest, her parents- for her obvious unhappiness.

I believe the fact is that the whole debate on human causes of climate change is driven by anthropocentrism, which I thought would have largely died out in science with the emergence of Copernicus.

Bill Brown, Milngavie