If Dr Lloyd AM could include some evidence to support his (moral) rhetoric ('Climate concerns', July AD2000), he may have been able to indeed 'redress the balance'. Instead he seems intent on trying to persuade readers that because his 'detailed study of the science' conforms with 'scientific consensus' it is a call to concerted urgent drastic action.
As a highly qualified, professional scientist, he surely has an obligation to be more objective about issues than is evident in his letter.
I put it to Dr Lloyd that had his 'detailed studies' been more thorough he would have found out that the scientific consensus is very clear about its position, namely that there is a lack of scientific evidence to connect man-made greenhouse gas emissions with climate change.
This position was reiterated yet again at the International Conference on Climate Change held in New York in March 2008, where the 500 attendees included (climate) scientists, economists, planners and academics. Dr Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, an economist by profession, was particularly scathing of the 'climate alarmists' stating that he saw 'the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism.'
I suggest that Dr Lloyd's 'consensus' is a political consensus, achieved through a very systematic campaign, using fear of catastrophe as its principal weapon, targeting a largely gullible citizenry.
This has been driven by the Green lobby and its like-minded supporters with such success that it is now embedded in most Western governments and in the UN, as expressed through the IPCC. Consequently, the IPCC reports do not represent a scientific consensus. Sadly, the more objective scientists do not seem to 'market' their 'product' with the same zeal as the Green ideologues.
As a grandfather of 11, my concern is that, apart from being unnecessary, the 'urgent action' Dr Lloyd seeks to involve the reader in will not have one iota of impact on the two main carbon dioxide emitters, China and India.
More serious though, it will reduce the standard of living of affected citizens considerably by driving energy costs to treble current levels, thereby increasing the incidence of worldwide poverty, especially in the developing countries, all part of the Green agenda towards reducing the world's population to appease 'king environment'!
If Dr Lloyd is serious about undertaking 'detailed studies' of this issue, he could borrow my copy of the Christopher Monckton DVD reviewed separately in this issue of AD2000, which explicates the scientific consensus case very clearly, if only to demonstrate that Monckton at least is capable of objective analysis.