Tuesday, May 21, 2024
HomeReaders CommentsLetters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor


PLEASE send your letters (as short as you like) to and mark them ‘for possible publication’. We need your name and if possible, a county address, eg Yorkshire or London. We will include biographical details if you volunteer them.

Climate change is a big earner

Dear Editor

The curious thing about the claims of catastrophic climate change for which the world’s leaders have assembled at COP26 is that they do not amount to a scientific theory. In fact, climate change has more the characteristic of a religious belief, as all sorts of variations in weather, oscillations in oceanic currents and other natural fluctuations are attributed to it without any regard to their causation.

 Anthropogenic global warming, on the other hand, was a scientific theory, but, when after over 50 years its predictions of raised oceans and raised world temperatures had not happened, it was clear that it was false one.

The elision from AGW to climate change was more than just a definitional retreat; it was an implicit admission that their theory did not reflect reality.

However, as a vast political bandwagon had gathered speed and as a great many businesses, university departments and individuals relied on AGW for their income, mere falsification of the theory was not enough.

We must follow the science, abandon the failed theory of AGW and its variants and end all government policies which rely on climate change as their justification.

Otto Inglis



Test the vaccine on politicians first

Dear Editor

On November 2 the British Medical Journal published an article by Paul Thacker in which he summarises a testimony by Brook Jackson, a former regional director at Ventavia Research Group in Texas.  Ventavia has several sites that have been involved in the Pfizer Covid vaccine phase 3 trials with 1,000 participants.

Jackson details how data integrity and patient safety were poor. The company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems. Jackson repeatedly notified Ventavia about these issues, and then complained to the US Food and Drugs Administration. Ventavia fired her later that day. She has provided the BMJ with dozens of documents, photos and audio recordings.

The problems include vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures, and insufficient staff to swab participants who displayed Covid-like symptoms. The FDA confirmed that 477 swabs were not taken from such patients across the full trial.

In Aug 2021 the FDA published a list of nine out of 153 trial sites that were inspected, but the Ventavia sites weren’t included. Several other former Ventavia employees have anonymously confirmed Jackson’s claims to the BMJ.

The vaccine should be tested on politicians first. If they survive, the vaccine is safe. If they don’t then the country is safe.

Geoff Moore

Ross and Cromarty


Keep the lights on with nuclear power

Dear Editor

The Scottish Government thinks that Scotland is the ‘Saudi Arabia of Renewables’. If we follow their belief that we will become 100 per cent renewable, be prepared for the lights to go out when the wind does not blow.

We have enough wind farms in Sutherland where I live and have seen constraint payments ( when the turbines are not in use and payments are made to the electricity companies). This figure in Sutherland is a staggering £68.4million. The payments were set up by the Westminster government of the day some ten years ago. Many more wind farms are in various stages of the planning system and when built will add further to the constraint payments.

In Caithness we have the decommissioning of Dounreay, the experimental nuclear power station. With the scientific and engineering experts they would be able to establish a nuclear fusion power station. This would be clean, green, 24/7 reliable, unlike wind, and does not produce CO2. A PhD position is being advertised to look into the waste that nuclear produces. Nuclear would completely do away with redundant wind turbines.

Michael Baird


BBC closes down climate debate

Dear Editor

It is a sad reflection on our democracy that from all the speeches and media coverage emanating from COP26 we have not heard single alternative word of realism to provide an opportunity for presenting well-reasoned, authoritative arguments that provide a counter balance to what Tim Davie, Director General of the BBC, parrots as ‘the overwhelming consensus – that humanity is causing global warming’. Immediate responses will doubtless be that with a 97 per cent scientific consensus, there is no need for further discussion. This conveniently ignores the fact that science is a perpetual state of enquiry. Few realise that this consensus figure is based on flawed methodology and also includes hundreds of scientists whose areas of expertise are completely unrelated to atmospheric and climate sciences.

It is interesting to reflect how some of the scientific giants of the past, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin and even Einstein, were similarly ridiculed, ignored and even persecuted for their contrarian views, only to be proved correct. For those who may dismiss these examples as irrelevant to modern times, consider the fact that it took 57 years for the concept of continental drift, later known as the Taylor-Wagener theory of plate tectonics, to be universally accepted in 1964. 

Mr Davie dismisses what he calls ‘voices on the fringes’ (climate realists) while hypocritically maintaining that ‘there’s loads to debate, argue about, interrogate’. This wilful blindness is further illustrated by a previous BBC progress report in 2018 which directed its staff that ‘to achieve impartiality you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage’. Whatever happened to constructive open debate and freedom of speech?

Neil J Bryce



I could weep

Dear Editor

It’s just so upsetting to hear the government constantly pushing the ‘vaccinations’ when the evidence is mounting that they do not protect anybody and they have such appalling side effects on so many. I could weep.

Name supplied

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Edited by Kathy Gyngell

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.