LIKE the majority of the UK, I am concerned about the global consequences of climate change on the natural world (of which we humans, are part).

Untoward and more extreme weather in many parts of the world over the last few years seems to be getting more and more widespread and increasingly frequent.

And when respected scientists from diverse backgrounds who work for independent organisations - such as the Met Office whom we in the UK have good reason to traditionally trust, and Nasa, whom professional astronauts for example, trust with their lives - present evidence that increased carbon and methane in the atmosphere is responsible for global warming, and that the evidence that this increased level of carbon has happened since the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale since then, it makes total sense to me.

I think in this country we probably all learned at school about how coal and oil came to be created over thousands of years, so we don’t have to take it on trust that when these resources are brought to the earth's surface and burned, they release carbon.

The scientists aren’t asking us to believe anything illogical.

Thats my little rant finished, and I predict that I will have now been labelled a “green zeolot”, a “climate change enthusiast” or an “extremist” by those readers who still refuse to accept that if we continue to burn fossil fuels in huge quantities, we will all be trying to live in an increasingly inhospitable world and enduring miserable existences in the same way that many people throughout the world already do for many reasons. But, because I know how easy it is to live in an 'echo chamber' I do try to pay attention to what dissenting people have to say about it all.

It invariably leaves me, at best, perplexed and at worst, angry, with the totally unsubstantiated claims that are made , or the out of context or out of date “evidence” which is regurgitated, or arguments that seem to indicate that the person making their point has very little understanding of the basic principles of global warming or the logic of net zero targets or how this might be put into place.

I’m not very clever and science isn’t my strong point so I’m not trying to set myself up as superior here.

So here are some questions that keep coming into my mind …

- Are there any people who are currently suffering greatly with the aftermath of recent flooding in parts of the UK, or whose homes are going to be encroached by the sea imminently, who aren’t convinced that these are consequences of human induced climate change?

- Why do so many climate change deniers whose letters I have read in media outlets, not understand the difference between a personal point of view and evidence based fact?

- Why do fossil fuel supporters seem to believe that a net zero UK would be such a terrible place to live?

And what is wrong with the actions that would promote that goal, such as full on programmes to properly insulate homes, legislation laying down conditions for new house building, improving public transport systems to entice more people to use that instead of their cars, and to aspire to make it much easier to access essential public facilities such as food shops, healthcare centres, social and religious hubs, within walking distance of everyone?

And do they not agree that the air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is detrimental to our health and quality of life and that to improve that air quality would be beneficial to all of us?

Penny King

Lapford