Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Uncivil response

Letters

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

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.