In the continuing debate about climate change, it is easily and conveniently forgotten that sea levels have been steadily rising for many thousands of years.
Many places near coastlines, including ancient forests, classical monuments and Bronze Age settlements, have already been engulfed.
The UK itself became an island because of global warming. If this country were still joined to Europe, the average temperature would be substantially colder than it is now and most of it could well be unfit for human habitation. 0°C would be positively tropical.
Why do some people in the present day passionately believe that they must preserve the climate as it is now? What is so special about today’s climate?
Put simply, it’s the one we know. We have not experienced anything else. But it is so astonishingly arrogant of today’s society to believe that any alteration in today’s climate will inevitably be for the worse.
Is today’s climate worse than it was 500 years ago? Why not go further and preserve it as it was 10,000 years ago?
We are being told that we cannot allow the climate to change in any way. So how do we miraculously influence the overwhelming causes of climate change, ie, natural phenomena such as earthquakes, continental drift, volcanic eruptions and, most importantly, the sun?
The recent cyclone in the Philippines was frighteningly devastating, but was it really the worst ever? What about the storms that there may have been during the thousands of years ‘before records began’, using a well-worn phrase.
Climate change is today’s bogeyman; we fear it because we have been convinced that anything different from today will be catastrophic for the planet.
Wind turbines are promoted as the ultimate panacea against climate change. To prevent our own self-inflicted demise, we are told we must accept turbines as the obvious replacement for ‘evil’ coal and gas power stations and as the solution to all our electricity needs, free from foreign interference and carbon emissions. Added to this is nuclear – hated by ‘green’ activists but has zero carbon emissions.
Where will you put the thousands of turbines required to replace existing power stations? 1,070 3mw turbines (the size of the 14 proposed at Middleton Burn, Belford) would be needed to replace just the new Hinckley Point C nuclear power station.
Of course they would need to operate at full power 100 per cent of the time, which as we all know is living in Cloud-Cuckoo Land. It is a totally impractical solution.
What about all the carbon emissions from draining and digging up of precious peatland to build them and the ancillary structures?
The bottom line is the need for a guaranteed supply. Every time you plug something in, you want it to work. Coal can do this on its own, as can gas or nuclear; wind cannot. Close all the coal, gas and nuclear power stations and what will happen?
Who would be happy if their electrical appliances only worked when there was sufficient electricity being generated by wind turbines?
In the depth of winter when the temperature is below -10°C and inevitably no wind, you may be nostalgically reminiscing about the ‘good old days’ when there were proper reliable conventional power stations, electricity was reasonably priced and it always worked.
One of your recent correspondents will classify me pejoratively as a fanatic who should be sectioned because apparently I suffer from what he disparagingly terms “a classic example of a psychological condition, cognitive dissonance.”
However, I can assure your readers that I am just someone who dares to question the prevailing propaganda.
R Simmance, Elsdon