Sir, – I recall reading that one of the artworks shown at the Great Exhibition of 1851 bore the lofty title “The Spirit of Science Conquering Ignorance and Prejudice.”

Judging by the four climate change denial letters you published last week, the Spirit Of Science still has her work cut out.

May I suggest for starters that Mr Nicholson learn the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Mr Parker’s figures on sea level rise are, I’m afraid, a serious underestimate and while he may be able to enjoy a paddle at Redcar, that option may not be available to his or anybody else’s great, great grandchildren.

Mr Wiper states that Prof Hulme criticised the International Committee on Climate Change for misleading the press and the public. In fact Prof Hulme issued a denial that he ever made such a statement and added: “For the record I believe the warming of the climate system is unequivocal and .., is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (ie induced by man) greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Finally we come to Mr Bloom whose letter is full of more factual errors than I have space to contradict. Focusing simply on the first, he claims that Prof Jones of the University of East Anglia “accepts there has been no global warming since 1998.”

This appears to be a misquote of a comment by the professor that although global temperatures had risen since the mid 1990s, the increase was not statistically significant.

Mr Bloom goes on to write that man-made climate change is a “tax-raising, power-grabbing, money-making scam.”

Such an attack on the intelligence and integrity of the climate science community, gives I suggest, a flavour of the level of debate to be expected from this particular MEP.

The sad thing is that faced with such a barrage of misrepresentation and errors most people are confused and ready to believe the most comfortable explanation, that man-made climate change is a fallacy. Can I “prove” that climate change caused by humans is a fact? Of course not, since climate scientists are putting forward a theory based essentially on probability.

Even if the probability that we are warming the planet were only 50 per cent, it would be madness not to try to do something about it while we have the chance. In fact, the great majority of scientists who specialise in the study of climate change believe the probability is much higher.

FRANK BROUGHTON Brompton on Swale.