Letters

Letters: Save for the future

Save now, or our children and grandchildren will suffer

Recent Letters

IoS letters, emails & online postings (14 February 2010)

Sunday, 14 February 2010

Your front page on the fossil fuel money funding the climate sceptics implied that ExxonMobil are the main culprits. While there is plenty of evidence to support that view, there is another side to the story. In 2006, for the first time in its long and distinguished history, the Royal Society took the unprecedented step of asking a corporation to change its behaviour; specifically to stop funding "organisations that have been misinforming the public about the science of climate change". The corporation, ExxonMobil, agreed to its request. ExxonMobil promised to stop funding climate sceptics again in 2007, and in 2008, and again in 2009. I'm sure that, if asked, it would yet again promise to stop funding sceptics. The teething troubles they seem to be having in implementing this new policy should not be allowed to cast any doubt on the sincerity of their public statements.

Letters: Terror and the birth of Israel

Saturday, 13 February 2010

Irgun and Stern terror attacks led to birth of Israel

Letters: Security and intelligence agencies

Friday, 12 February 2010

Disgraceful claim that secret services collude in torture

Letters: Somali pirates and the Chandlers

Thursday, 11 February 2010

Why it is dangerous to pay ransom to pirates

Letters: Homeopathy

Wednesday, 10 February 2010

Homeopathy can offer GPs a cheap and useful fudge

Letters: Parliamentary privilege

Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Parliament must rule on MPs' privilege claim

Letters: Climate change and trust

Monday, 8 February 2010

Don't 'trust' climate scientists, just trust the evidence

IoS letters, emails & online postings (7 February 2010)

Sunday, 7 February 2010

James Coop says that by electing Labour we chose Tony Blair to make important decisions (Letters, 31 January). True, but it was not a blank cheque to disregard the UN Charter and international treaties. The destruction of a state and the killing of more than a million Iraqis is a direct result of a policy pursued by Blair and George Bush. Absence of the Security Council's consent to the attack on Iraq is a further proof that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the whole world. We should remember that Saddam Hussein once was a darling of the West. What changed was his refusal to continue the American agenda in the Middle East, and not the non-existent WMD.