I was delighted to read David Bellamy's article in Proceedings.
It was informative and thought provoking.
Dr Barnes' letter (NCE, 27 April), on the other hand, was ill-mannered and intemperate. I am glad that I do not have to invest in a climatologist's journal to read intelligent discussion on this topic.
To rubbish the man rather than his argument or evidence misses the point of civilised intellectual argument.
Many of the points raised by Bellamy and Barrett were also echoed in a 1998 paper of Robinson et al. All would have been well had Dr Barnes produced any reasoned argument to counter Bellamy, but he didn't.
I am sure your readers know that peer reviews are not guarantees of scientic truth, since 'peers' are human and have personal agendas. Furthermore the IPCC is a quasi-political assemblage of scientists. It is not a disinterested body independently searching for scientic truth, and has been accused of backing the wrong hypotheses before.
To describe this Proceedings article as bunkum, is bunkumesque.
Robin Smitherman, Robin2.Smitherman@uwe. ac. uk