VIC Barlow's article on the subject of global warming raises the question why has there never been any meaningful public debate on this subject?

The science underpinning climate alarmism is highly speculative. There has been no significant global warming for over two decades.

If the group which advocates that global warming is real, is due to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere and will lead to catastrophic future climactic events and has clear evidence of this, why will they not debate this hypothesis with a panel of scientists of varied views in an open televised debate?

Of all the doomsday predictions not one of them has come true.

Polar bears should be extinct by now but their numbers are higher than they have been in many years.

The main coral reefs should all have died out but in fact they are all still there and mostly in good health.

The polar ice caps would disappear leading to massive increases in sea levels yet the sum of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks has remained about constant as confirmed by recent satellite data and sea level rises have remained the same at about 1.3mm/year.

There would be massive increases in rainfall, droughts, floods, hurricanes, etc but none of these events have increased in numbers or magnitude over the last 100 years or more The scaremongers have led people to believe that CO2 is a polluting gas but without it life on earth would cease to exist.  In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today's content and there was no runaway temperature increase.

Higher CO2 levels lead to higher crop yields which could ameliorate the problem of providing the food for an ever increasing world population.

Meanwhile we are all eagerly awaiting the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) in Poland when 30,000 attendees will use thousands of tons of fuel flying in from every corner of the world.

Gilbert Paton