IF I could be allowed to reply to Nan Pratt's letter of Wednesday, June 9, 2004.

There is of course no dispute over the signs of global warming which are everywhere. Arctic ice feedback, ocean heat storage, planetary energy imbalance and various data all ring alarm bells for climatologists.

On the subject of whether the cause is man made, there is certainly as yet no consensus.

A complex web of worldwide climatic feedback systems make it notoriously difficult to ascertain whether greenhouse warming, however probable, is the culprit.

While I am as aware of the need for urgency as Nan Pratt I, like her detractors, do not share her predisposition to over-readily arrive at early conclusions, however tempting.

With regard to the wind-energy programme; in order to achieve the Government's target of 10 per cent of our energy from renewable sources by 2010, we will need a minimum of 5,000 wind-turbines with a further five per cent by 2015.

This proliferation may well benefit the wind energy industry more than the environment and I do not apologise for lacking the mental agility prerequisite for equating this expensive folly as either a practical or productive way of addressing the global warming issue.

With so many turbines, this island will take on the appearance of a giant hovercraft, possibly being torn free from its moorings and propelled aimlessly across the ocean until colliding with either mainland Europe or some lesser land-mass.

If of course this Government had followed Denmark's example and had all wind-turbines out at sea, (presumably having the sense this time to consult the Maritime and Coastguard agency to make provisions that would minimise the risk of sea collisions, also wildlife organisations to co-operate in reducing the high mortality rate of birds encountering the chopping motion of wind turbine blades) then at least the present disaffection with wind farms among the populace would have been circumvented.

John P Hunter

Shaw