THE truth is sometimes simple. On climate change, Les Reid is entirely correct and and Dr Charles Wardrop is entirely wrong (“Why it is not alarmist to say that climate change is a grave danger to humankind”, Herald letters, October 8).

We are indeed destroying the ecosystem upon which we depend for our survival and unless we accept profound changes in the way we live, damaging our competitiveness (something Dr Wardrop worries about) won’t be an issue, since civilisation will collapse.

Dr Wardrop claims there are enormous costs associated with decarbonisation. This is not true. A microcosm of the changes we need is the transition from driving to cycling. Any individual making that change will instantly not only have more money to spend on other things, their health will improve from day one, and so they will save money for the NHS.

On a national level, switching strategy from motorway building to car-free city centres immediately releases billions of pounds of public money and then billions more by not spending money treating the effects of pollution, injury and death on our roads.

Those billions of pounds in both private and public coffers will boost local trade, corner shops, cafe culture, post offices and pubs.

Just look at Dutch towns and cities, bustling with vibrant life while creating happy, healthy places for people to live in.

There are no costs and no sacrifices associated with addressing climate change, everything is positive, that is, unless you just happen to like flying, driving and eating lots of meat, in which case you just need to think responsibly and not just do what you feel like in the moment.

Norman Armstrong,

Free Wheel North,

Glasgow Green Cycling Centre,


LES Reid (Letters, October 8) describes as “pathetic” my assertion that research scientists are being forced into a position to agree with the draconian predictions on climate change.

Obviously he is unaware of, or possibly chooses to ignore, the letter written to the UN by 500 international scientists of world renown urging the Secretary- General of the UN to base climate change policy on sound science.

They described the current computer-generated climate change models as “wholly inadequate”.

Strangely, the media was full of Greta Thunberg, but there was not a mention anywhere of this highly relevant intervention.

Mr Reid proves my original point by using pejorative terminology against anyone who questions climate change orthodoxy and choosing to ignore completely scientists whose arguments he cannot refute.

Why let inconvenient facts get in the way of climate change fervour?

David Stubley,


UK OPINION polls on the question of the causes of climate change show that over half the respondents blame human activities, a third say it is natural, and the rest “don’t know”.

The received view has been that greenhouse gases are the main cause, and dire weather events the result.

The ‘establishment’, most political parties and scientific bodies have called for decarbonisation to curb CO2 output but increasingly, climate scientists now dispute these opinions, blaming nature and unknown factors.

Decarbonisation is vastly costly but, since the UK’s man-made CO2 output is negligible at 0.3 per cent of one per cent of the world total, Scotland’s a tenth of that, the case for us to decarbonise is very flimsy.

Nevertheless, the UK Climate Change Committee seeks to go the whole way.

This will not only nearly ruin our nations financially but will also impose drastic deterioration of lifestyles, and greatly raise home and industrial costs and taxation.

Meanwhile, the main carbon “polluters” - China, the USA, India and Russia - do not curb CO2, nor will they.

Fortunately, the recent European Climate Declaration by 500 prominent international scientists dispels the climate pessimists’ warnings by showing very serious flaws in their computer analyses.

Accordingly, in their words, “There is no Climate Emergency”, giving us adequate time for further review.

The full truth should eventually emerge but our national situation is: negligible greenhouse gas release in world terms, so decarbonisation is safely avoidable, therefore ruinous financial, lifestyle, home and industrial consequences need, must not result.

The UK, including the Scottish, public must reflect on these vital issues, or our ruin and even a revolution could come to us.

Dr Charles Wardrop,