ONCE again the Reverend Foster appears to be either trolling or wilfully ignoring the facts when he says that the idea of human-caused climate change has been disproved (Wind farm myths, Letters January 9). He may wish it were so – I do too – but the evidence gathered from around the world over decades remains against him. Again, if he has any evidence for what he says beyond wishful thinking, then where is it?
The plain fact is that the more carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gasses) there is in the air then the more energy from the Sun the Earth retains as heat. This has been known since the nineteenth century. Human activities are releasing more greenhouse gases into the air in a shorter time than natural processes - even the end of ice ages - do, and so the Earth is warming. Of course it does not happen evenly across the world or always have fixed effects, such as drought. But just because the effects are complex does not mean it is invalid.
Unfortunately I think the fundamental problem lies in something the author Sam Harris wrote: "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"
As for wind turbines being 'eco-crucifixes', what does that even mean? It sounds to me like a soundbite someone made up because it sounded 'cool' and vaguely related to the subject without their worrying too much about actual meaning. Who or what is meant to be crucified on them? Perhaps the person who coined it meant that dirty polluting energy sources would die there to bring in a new age of planet-saving clean energy?
On top of that plenty of people find wind turbines attractive features of the landscape. And all of the Reverend Fosters arguments against them have been extensively debunked by any number of groups (for example, see http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/wind_myths.pdf). Don't forget, also, that wind turbines are produced to make a profit. That by itself undermines most of the Reverend Fosters arguments - no profit could be made from the straw man system he describes.
While burning gas may be cleaner than coal, it is in no way truly clean. The fact that something it being burned at all means it is contributing to global warming.