Dear Sir,

So, ". . .there is no proven basis for [the] warnings that weather patterns are changing" and  "Ecologists [are] the heirs of the religious zealots of earlier times" (Comment and Opinion: Divine displeasure? 31 October 2000).

I am well aware that such pig-headed stupidity exists - but how does it manage to find its way into an editorial of the Telegraph, where one might hope rather to be edified by some words of wisdom.

Please excuse my strong language (I honestly do not mean to be offensive), but if you could see where this  kind of attitude is leading us, you would understand.

It reminds me of the attitude that many people used to have towards warnings about the harmful effects of smoking, the evidence for which, like that for global warming, is largely statistical.

Of course it is not possible to say definitively that any particular bad weather event is the result of global warming, any more than a particular death can be attributed to smoking. But the statistics reveal a clear connection.

And even without the statistics, it should be apparent to anyone with a clear head and an elementary knowledge of science that pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere year for year is bound to have an effect on the climate.

Could it be his love of the motorcar that makes the commentator so blind?

Facing up to global warming means facing up to the non-sustainability of individual motorisation and questioning our deep love for and marriage to the motorcar.

Or am I wasting my breath on the sponsors of the Motor Show, that "celebration of the car, where people can dream their dreams." (Reality intrudes on a dream date with Rover, 21 October 2000). Hopefully not. Because this dream is in fact fast becoming a nightmare.