Ian Scott, Woodend
Hal Curwen-Walker seemed very upset by suggestions the world is warming and we shouldn’t use major fires as evidence (‘Malthusian scaremongering’, Opinions, August 28).
His conviction seems to be based then on contestable evidence. Given the potential dire consequences if he is wrong I think I’ll go with ‘No time left to pretend’, the other climate letter on the page.
Anyway ‘Hal, methinks, protesteth too much’. His final paragraph making reference to the dire consequences of social wealth distribution (I think that is what he meant) is evidence of an ideological blockage of equal proportions. What we really need here is some bigger thinking (climate change is bigger than party politics) and less indignation.
