Dr Alsop's reply to my letter on climate change (Manx Independent 20.10.06) contained many spurious and misleading remarks.

1. He mentions "pernicious regulation and the unjustified use of taxation for ill-conceived intervention". Contrary to his view, the main UK political parties accept the need for "green taxation". In the USA, states such as California are leading the way on measures to prevent climate change. If the existence of climate change is accepted. it is logical to support reponsible initiatives to combat it so that future generations will survive even if the undisclosed financial and business interests of some, such as right wing George Bush supporters, are affected.

2.How much we spend depends on how much we value life. Money spent on diminishing within the air we breathe a toxic gas such as sulphur dioxide, or traces of the acrid smelling corrosive sulphuric acid have great value. If, in Dr Alsop's admitted terms, the cost is the main factor, I suggest spending money on climate change reduces the burden on the NHS, on business etc. as well as on the emotional distress of families seeing loved ones die prematurely.

3.Charles Darwin in the "Origin of Species" wrote, "Climate brings on the most severe struggle between the individuals which subsist on the same kind of food". This is still true despite modern research and climate systems engineering. Too many species including 150,000 people die each year because of climate change. This will increase. What value do we put on life?

4. The Copenhagen Consensus ranking climate change at the bottom of their priorities, below disease prevention, was produced by economists who failed to identify and communicate a true consensus. Most prominent experts have come to a different conclusion, one saying that the Copenhagen Consensus had used "junk economics". Dr Alsop fails to mention that "The Economist" was one of the co-sponsors of the project, so its support for the group's conclusions is hardly independent.

5. Dr. Alsop agrees with me that the subsidy on aviation should be removed by universal agreement so that each passenger realises the true cost to the planet of travelling by air.

There is hard evidence for human induced climate change and so most scientists, politicians, journalists and environmental activists are doing us a great service compared to critics who although educated to appreciate scientific facts, choose to ignore the need for urgent action by advocating doing too little, too late.

Letter sent to Manx Independent for publication .