Most of us actually agree that reduced emissions and reduced consumption is an absolute necessity. However, a fair number of us baulk at the way the issue is discussed, commercialised and (almost) politicised, and so have a sneaking liking for the views expressed by Patrick McKay on your letters page (BSj, 01/07).

It automatically irritates that the science of warming is presented as being beyond question. Any practising engineer knows there is no such thing as a watertight scientific theory – science evolves and incorporates new and revised theories, many of which in our field are derived from engineering experience. The trouble is that early exclusion of other ideas has led to an oversimplification of solutions and an inexact jargon.

Then, many of the green gurus do not utter as if they understood the differences between statistical correlation and causal links, and between necessary and sufficient conditions. And some institutes seem very shy of answering perfectly reasonable queries.

It was no less a person than physicist John Tyndall who demonstrated that the globe is as warm as it is primarily because of atmospheric water vapour. It is a well documented “fact” that the H2O solar energy absorption bands cover almost all the CO2 absorption bands, yet the suggestion that it is therefore just as important to control high-level water vapour emissions, and the related clouds in the stratosphere, is never answered.

It may well be that high level clouds keep us cooler, but it is only on certain blogging sites that the issue receives any reasoned published discussion at all.

John Moss CEng, MCIBSE

Source

Building Sustainable Design