YEP Letters: April 14

Have your say

I CYCLE to work every day down Otley Road from West Park and have done for years. It can be a touch hairy sometimes, but on the whole it’s a perfectly safe experience.

I don’t accept the arguments from Nick Keer who seems to feel he can ignore the law and ride on the pavement whenever he feels like it.

Sometimes it’s just sensible to get off the road for a short stretch, so you get off your bike and walk it, like any considerate person would. Perhaps Nick could let us know which other laws he thinks it is acceptable to selectively disregard?

I’ve been knocked over by a cyclist on the pavement and sprained my wrist as a result, and I was probably more angry about it than a non-cyclist due to the arrogant disregard for both other people and the law.

I’m sure the man who knocked me off also thought it was perfectly OK to be on the pavement and he was being “careful”.

I am currently taking legal action against him as I am self-employed and lost significant income as a result of his irresponsible behaviour, so hopefully he’ll learn his lesson in the end albeit the hard way. Nick Keer and his ilk are a disgrace and their attitudes are an embarrassment to sensible cyclists everywhere.

Anna Wilson, West Park, Leeds

Don’t ride on the pavement

EVEN BY today’s standards, I was amazed at the arrogance of Nick Keer. Does he expect some commendation because he only trespasses onto the pavement when necessary? Dismount from the bicycle please. As for the roads being too dangerous for kids, my message is don’t buy them a bike.

Give me strength.

M Bastow, Leeds.

Well-educated to rescue UK

SO THERE are lots of Old Etonians running the country? Excellent! These are people who are well-educated, knowledgeable and can be relied on to rescue us, once again, from the disastrous mess all Labour governments leave.

Wilson, Callaghan, Blair and Brown were all failures on the economy, leaving the country bankrupt.

Is this class bigotry the only card Labour and the BBC have to play?

Malcolm Nicholson, Barwick-in-Elmet

Pay-offs for incompetence

MANY ADVERTS annoy me but the one that gets me wanting to kick the TV at the moment is the solicitor’s firm advertising services for three issues: one of which is “dismissal and settlement”. Nowadays it seems everyone, not just football managers, NHS CEOs and Social Services Directors want to be rewarded for incompetence with a pay-off. It sickens me. Mind you, it starts at the top doesn’t it, with MPs and their specious claims to transparency? One look at the discussion in the House today about Maria Miller shows that they do NOT want to be accountable to us lesser human beings.

Then they wonder why some of us actually hate them and their hypocrisy. Constituents? Pah!

R Kimble, by email

Muggers target women for bag

AFTER READING of a woman aged 78 who was robbed and left black and blue, it reminded me of the only time I was mugged (over 40 years ago) on my way home from a nightclub.

But I am a man and only had bruises on my legs and I had no money left for them. The main reason women are set on is because their purse and possessions are in a bag, making it easier to grab them than if a man was mugged where everything is kept in pockets.

AE Hague, Bellbrooke Grove

Look at results of experiments

WITH REFERENCE to Prof Woodcock’s comments, I taught science for 35 years and I think, with one slight exception, he is right on. The exception is the length of time the Earth has been here. I taught science from books that said the earth was 4.5-4.7 billion years old and he states it is only 1000 million years. That seems like a large discrepancy. Otherwise I fully agree with his position.

Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to compare the idea of light as introduced by Newton, who said light was composed of particles with wave-like properties. Those optical physicists who followed him began to believe that there were no particles, only the waves. In a couple of centuries it became nearly 100pc (the idea of overwhelming scientific support). Then Albert Einstein won the Noble prize by showing that a single particle of light generated a certain electric result when used to bombard Selenium. With a single scientific result, he established the fact that Newton was essentially correct. It does not matter how many scientists vote for or against an idea; it is experimental results that determine scientific facts.

In the current climate nonsense, a good many scientists are saying that their voting is meaningful. Let’s look for facts in scientific results. The IPPC has generated zero results, but lots of advice based on it. That means it is a political agency and not a scientific one.

Jerry Matchett, Edmonds, WA (near Seattle) USA

Supported by real science

IN THE article about his views on global warming, you have invited the readers to comment about Prof Woodcock’s views.

I am not in Yorkshire. I am in central Mexico, and am a now-retired Senior Mechanical Design Engineer and Engineering V.P.

In about 1999 I’d heard about global warming for some time previously but had not been intrigued enough to look into it. But at that time I saw what is called “The Hockey DStick” graph and was familiar enough with climate to ask: “Where in the world is the Medieval Warming Period? What did they do to the data to erase the MWP?” and “Where is the Little Ice Age? What did they do to the data to erase the Little Ice Age?” Something seemed wrong. I didn’t have any preconceived notions, one way or the other, but I knew that both those periods were established facts (there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of research papers confirming this), and I knew that any graph that purported to not show them must include some serious mistakes – or specifically explain how they came to remove them from the record in their work.

As an engineer I am included in the level of science called “Applied Science.” We are hard-nosed, “give me the facts” kind of people. We solve real-world problems all the time. I also worked in Research & Development for seven years, doing experiments for five doctorate level scientists. Some of those experiments worked and some didn’t. That is how science finds out what is reliable and what isn’t – you come up with a reasonable hypothesis and then you design experiments to find out if the idea works or doesn’t work.

Professor Woodcock’s points in this article are points that ANY objective researcher would ask, and the answers he gives are basically all supported by real-world science. In other words, there is nothing intrinsically or fundamentally incorrect in anything he said.

At this point the most that can be said of those ideas is that they are questions that need to be asked, but that so far the objective evidence is either non-existent or has been twisted in its interpretation to mean something that it does not. Not yet, and maybe never.

There is also a large body of research that rebuts the claims. However, the public is rarely given the opportunity to see that other evidence, not without some subjective scientist or science editor stepping in and accusing the other scientists of being stupid or contrarian or worse.

Steve Garcia, V.P. Engineering (retired), Guanajuato, Mexico