I would like to congratulate Wayne Fowler for continuing the debate on anthropogenic climate change but feel obligated to point out that I don't believe the only reason for his dismissing skeptics of this theory is personal opinion. It was his contention that any point of view that did not agree with anthropogenic climate change was a "litany of errors, misunderstandings and dubious beliefs" that prompted my statement. As in any argument, there are valid points made on both sides and many of the points being put forward by the skeptics are certainly as credible as some of those being touted by the environmental alarmists.

But if Mr. Fowler doesn't like what the skeptics are saying maybe we should take a closer look at what the IPCC states. Dr Vincent Gray (NZclimatescience.net) who has been analyzing the IPCC reports since the UN began releasing them makes the following observation: In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems: to determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing; to measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere; and to reliably predict changes in future climate. His contention is that none of these prerequisites have been met by the IPCC or any other group.

In addition, he points out that the IPCC do not make predictions throughout their reports. Instead they make projections, defined in their glossary as "Projections are distinguished from predictions in order to emphasize that projections involve assumptions concerning, for example, future socio-economic and technological developments that may or may not be realized and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty."

As he states this is an admission of the substantial uncertainty of all their “projections”, which is compounded by the fact that they do not attempt to check whether any of them correspond with the actual emerging behaviour of the climate.

This uncertainty is also highlighted by Lorne Gunther's Sept. 11 article in the National Post which points out that Professor Mojib Latif of the German Leibniz Institute, a leading climate modeller and one of the lead authors for the IPCC conceded at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and looks set to continue a cooling phase for another 10-to-20 years. As Professor Latif has previously been a major supporter of the global warming theory it is interesting, but not surprising, that this admission wasn't covered more widely by the media.

For a number of reasons, common sense dictates that we should continue the debate on the theory that man is primarily responsible for climate change.

First, this is a theory that has yet to be supported by irrefutable scientific evidence. Second, following the money trail demonstrates that the big money is being made not by the skeptics but by those who support this theory. Third, the alarmists' contention that the debate is over is unacceptable from a truly scientific point of view which should encourage a vigorous examination of any theory. Fourth, consensus is a political, not a scientific, term and the UN is well known to be an organization that overstates its case on a regular basis.

The cost of attempting to reduce CO2 emissions is going to be enormous and as always it will the consumer and taxpayer who will foot the bill. It is only natural to be concerned about the environment but chasing an unproven theory may not be the most efficient or cost effective way of improving our stewardship of the planet.

Michael Newman