[ This response was kind of “harsh”, but was written as a reaction to the flat denial of the evidence and because they did not follow my request to NOT send a response like this. ]

 

 

Dear _____

 

Thank you for your response which I received some time ago. I was somewhat surprised to receive it – for the following reason. In my report, I stated I was not interested in receiving a reply which was a flat denial of the evidence presented. The letter which was signed by you  (but you may not have written it) represented a denial of the data presented in my report. I stated in the report this was unacceptable and such a response should not be sent to me. This, then, is a waste of time and money and will be noted as such.

 

However, seeing as you did respond, I must point out that history has now recorded your name as being someone who supports a denial of basic evidence. This evidence was put together in a careful and reasoned manner. Your response did not offer any specific counter arguments of science or analysis to those that were presented to you. I need not point out that this goes against the way in which an organisation like DEFRA should operate – it should operate based on the principles of scientific truth.

 

Now, if I had submitted a basic letter with a few comments, your response might be considered adequate (from a certain, limited, point of view). However, I submitted an 18-page (approx.) report, backed by over 20 signatories, along with a DVD containing additional video evidence, so this is something more significant. I can also tell you that I received a number of messages of support following the publication of my press release and report -  many people are now waking up to this issue. This means that your agency is going to have to deal with this issue at some point in the future.

 

Your denial of evidence and the implied support of illegal black operations is now noted and recorded for future generations to look back on. You can, of course, at any point, revisit what I presented – I have included a draft copy here for you, in case you personally didn’t see it – and you can consider what the evidence means for us both - and what some group of people seem to be doing to the air that we breath. You can send me your personal response as to why you think the report is wrong, if you like – what specific elements of data do you disagree with? Or, you can walk down the street and look up at the aircraft that seem to be involved in re-engineering the atmosphere for some undisclosed purpose - and then wonder how so many other people (like you) can possibly be ignoring the issue. Yes, it’s probably due to fear. So the way to overcome that fear is to seek knowledge and seek the truth – in doing so, we may find a way to mitigate the effects of what this secret project is trying to achieve. For now though, I would like you to pass on this message to your line manager and for them to pass it on up the ranks: “We know” and “We’re watching you.”

 

I urge you to carefully review this data – in a personal if not professional capacity. I am not just a “customer”, I am a person - someone who knows when official agencies are denying evidence to protect another person or group. I know when someone has been told to put out an “official response” because the issue is too big or too sensitive to present an honest response.

 

On the next page, I include some of the messages I have received in response to the publication of my report and press release.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

 

{Enclosed another copy of original Report}

Responses received by e-mail from Chemtrailing Dossier and Associated Press Release

 

Hello Andrew

 

Just received your PR web release and am reading the report.

 

I have been following this issue for some time and have been videoing our local skies for 3months.

 

Thank you so much and I have sent it everywhere.

 

I think the Greens really need to look at this but so far here it has fallen on deaf ears and the other parties deny it.

 

Dear Mr. Johnson,

 

A friend sent me your report about chemtrails in the U.K.  I have tracked them here in northern Arizona for the past two years, where skies are normally a bright, clear blue (or at least they used to be) for most days of the year.

 

The chemtrails have increased and become far worse over the past several years, along with extreme changes in  local climate and environment.  Respiratory problems are virtually epidemic and long-lasting.

 

Dear Andrew Johnson,

 

Have just read your excellent article on chemtrails, and agree 100% with your views and conclusions. I live near Exeter in the South-west, and have been concerned for some time about these aircraft sprayings, having a huge amount of air traffic here at times, and as you say, the sky ends up completely milky white.      I have taken digital camera pictures of these unmarked aircraft spraying overhead, sometimes as many as thirty or more aircraft in a very short time, spraying in a grid pattern it seems, and have looked up some mornings to find an X marks the spot in the sky overhead......... looks like a St.Andrews cross.   I'm quite interested in astronomy , and have a large pair of binoculars  80 x 20's , but even with these there are no markings on these aircraft. I have seen a couple of aircraft with what look like extra tanks under the fuselage. With these binos I have also seen an aircraft that was spraying from the tailplane, the trails were not coming from anywhere near the engines........ quite offset from the engine positions. So, yes we are being sprayed.     Where do these aircraft come from?   Surely someone must see this amount of air-traffic taking off and landing! It makes me so angry that these pilots could be doing this to us all........and presumably to their own families. Perhaps these pilots don't have the full story on what they are doing, or are paid huge amounts of money, or maybe they are flown remotely from a base somewhere.

 

Anyway, if I can help in any way to get to the bottom of this, please let me know, I'm so pleased to see someone in this country voicing the concerns I've had for a while now.

 

We need a lot of us to make a dent in this thing.........and I don't think the Gov't will have a word of it...... tried that.  We need to know where these aircraft are based, who runs them, and who's paying for all this.

 

Hi Andrew,

I have just been looking over your chemtrail dossier and I think think it is an excellent peice of work.

Chemtrails first caught my attention after reading an article in nexus magazine around about 1998/99, and to be honest at that time in the UK I was not seeing any, so I just dismissed the idea as something that was happening in the US, if indeed it was happening at all, but still I decided to keep my eyes open just in case.

 

But then back in 2002 I was leaving my nephews house in North Shields Tyne & Wear to come home to Kelso just over the Scottish border.

 

From the main road near the tyne tunnel you can just see the cheviot hills that mark the border with Scotland and England, and amongst those hills is Otterburn military training camp.

Now back then and reaching the rise on the main road I could see in the distance the cheviot hills, except this time I could make out a huge X in the sky, so all the way home I kept my eye on this X to try to discover it's exact location and upon reaching wooler I could see that the X was amost above my head but to the left and which would have been directly over otterburn training camp and ever since that day these trails have been persistent over and near my home which is only about 20 miles from the training camp.

 

Now if you note, I first noticed this at the end of the summer in 2002 just as the case for the war in Iraq was being ramped up, any connection?

 

I have since taken many photos and videos of this phenomenon and also believe that last years spate of noctilucent clouds here in the UK may also be connected.

 

Keep up the good work Andrew.

 

Your's sincerely,

Dear Mr. Johnson:

 

I am interested in your report and would like to communicate with you about some of the information that two of us have been researching since 1998.  We believe, however, that the program here in Northern California and Arizona dates back to 1988 or 1989, when the American taxpayer funding was made available for a wide variety of programs...which include the making of persistent jet contrails.  We believe that there may have been experiments prior to this date...however, technology and funding became available on a massive scale in the late 1980s.

 

If you would like to communicate with me this would be great.  I do intend to forward your site on the Internet here and in several places in the next couple of days.  I have a variety of government documents which might be of interest to you as well.

 

Your report is very good.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rosalind, California

 

 

 

e-mail sent: 13^th June 2006

 

 

Dear ____

 

Many thanks for your kind response and the information you included in it. I am pleased to note that you read my report and were able to comment on it.

 

I found the paper you referenced, written by Professor Ulrich Schumann, and have studied it in some detail. I have included a more detailed commentary below and I will be e-mailing him separately.

 

In summary, I would say that there is little or nothing in this report which explains the phenomenon and data I presented in my report:

 

1)      It talks about contrail formation being linked to cirrus cloud formation, but states there is no proven link between them.

 

2)      It does indeed discuss persistent "contrails" but does not explain why they form and the duration of their persistence is not discussed in detail or with any empirical data.

 

3)      In particular, my attention was drawn to 2 figures: the standard contrail duration of maximum 2 minutes (I have no argument with this!) and also the discussion of regions of ice supersaturation. It states that ice supersaturation in the atmosphere may be the cause of persistent contrail formation but no firm link is documented or established. Indeed, a figure of 150 km is quoted for the maximum size of a region of ice supersaturation. If you check my measurement in Section 4 of my report, made directly from known satellite photos, I have measured chemtrails that are over 300 km long.

 

Some discussion of lidar measurements is included in this report, and this is quite interesting, but inconclusive. I have to ask myself (and maybe you will too) why there are no ordinary (optical) photos in this study? Why are there are no time-lapse studies? These studies can be made with cheap and simple equipment and are useful for gathering quantitative raw data.  Coupled with other methods for gaining information about the state of the upper atmosphere, this could form the basis of more useful study. Of course, as I am a private individual without access to research grants and resources, I am not really in a position to progress very far with this.

 

Below, I include a detailed response to the report.

 

 

 

Detailed Response to the Schumann Report

 

Definition of Cirrus Clouds

 

There seems to be some confusion that contrails may be Cirrus Clouds, so I want to consider the definition of cirrus clouds. From: http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/fltenv3.htm

 

Cirrus (Cl). Very high, Thin, wavy sprays of white cloud, made up of slender, delicate curling wisps or fibers.  Sometimes takes the form of feathers or ribbons, or delicate fibrous bands. Often called cats' whiskers or meres' tails.(left)

 

Cirrocumulus (Cc). Thin clouds, cotton or flake-like. Often called mackerel sky.  Gives little indication of future weather conditions.(right)

 

Cirrostratus (Cs). Very thin high sheet cloud through which the sun or moon is visible, producing a halo effect.   Cirrostratus is frequently an indication of an approaching warm front or occlusion and therefore of deteriorating weather. (left*)

 

Also from: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/soo/docu/cloud_classifications.php

 

Cirrus clouds are wispy, feathery, and composed entirely of ice crystals. They often are the first sign of an approaching warm front or upper-level jet streak. Unlike cirrus, cirrostratus clouds form more of a widespread, veil-like layer (similar to what stratus clouds do in low levels).  When sunlight or moonlight passes through the hexagonal-shaped ice crystals of cirrostratus clouds, the light is dispersed or refracted (similar to light passing through a prism) in such a way that a familiar ring or halo may form. As a warm front approaches, cirrus clouds tend to thicken into cirrostratus, which may, in turn, thicken and lower into altostratus, stratus, and even nimbostratus.

 

Looking at the chemtrails, these do not match these descriptions much at all – because they are not water vapour based cloud formations.

 

I will now go through some sections of the paper  “FORMATION, PROPERTIES AND CLIMATIC EFFECTS OF CONTRAILS (Schumann, 2005)” and offer a commentary on what each one says.

 

Section 7, Page 12

 

The formation of contrail-cirrus is clearly visible to ground observers and observations by satellites from space [77-79]. However, modelling and prediction of contrail cirrus for observable cases is still in its beginning [88]. Proper models and validation data for such studies, including the state of the atmosphere, at scales comparable to the size if supersaturated regions are still to be provided. No conclusive observational evidence exists for an impact of aviation aerosol on cirrus properties.

 

So, there is no evidence that contrails affect the formation of cirrus clouds.

 

It is to be expected that aviation aerosol and aerosol precursor emissions may impact the upper tropospheric aerosol over their entire life cycle, which may last over a time scale of up to a few weeks depending on season and altitude.

 

We see almost immediate effects of contrails/chemtrails – as documented on 4^th Feb 2007, for example.

 

 

In particular, soot particles originating from aircraft exhaust may act as efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei [22, 57]. Aviation aerosols may trigger the formation of clouds long after the emission, when the background atmosphere has changed to a state allowing cloud formation (supersaturation).

 

“May” indicates this is an assumption, and no data is presented to back this up.

 

Aircraft-induced aerosols can modify the micro-physical properties of clouds, change cloud particle sizes and forms, and the number of cloud particles [89-90]. The result of such modification may include a change in the precipitation rate, in cloud life time, and in cloud radiative properties. A quantification of the impact of aviation aerosol on cirrus properties is subject of ongoing research.

 

Again, “may” has been used and it is stated the link between aerosols and cirrus formation is “unknown”. No reason is given as to why trails persist.

 

Section 3 Para 2

 

Compared to thermodynamics, the particle emissions play a secondary role in contrail formation. If the atmosphere is cold enough, a contrail will form even for zero particle emissions from the aircraft engines because of condensation nuclei entrained into the exhaust plume from the ambient air.

 

This is, just as I put in my report, an explanation of contrails which don’t persist. I have no argument with this.

 

Section 4, Top of Page 8

 

Since contrail persistence requires at least ice saturation, a sky full of contrails but without natural cirrus shows that cases occur with humidity above ice-saturation but below the threshold for cirrus formation.

 

This is not an explanation – it is a statement that “something happens”. It says that trails can persist without supersaturation – so, supersaturation cannot be the sole explanation for the formation persistent trails. The phrase is really, again, saying “persistent trails form, but we don’t know why.”

 

Section 4, Just under Figure 5

 

Regions with ice supersaturation have been found with horizontal extensions of the order 150 km [53]

 

This still doesn’t explain why trails persist. Also, I measure a trail over 300 km long – which presumably would fall into the “unexplainable” category we can deduce from Section 4, top of Page 8.

 

Section 5, Paragraph 1

 

Small and large transport aircraft may produce persistent contrails of similar size, even though the fuel consumption may differ by a factor of five [66]. Under subsaturated conditions, contrails of 2-engined aircraft evaporate mostly already during the jet phase (<20 s), contrails of 4-engined aircraft often survive until the end of the vortex phase (ca. 2 min) [68]

 

This is the only paragraph where specific times for the duration of persistence is mentioned – all these times do not agree with the examples I have documented and provided to you. I am fully aware that ordinary contrails dissipate within 2 minutes.

 

Section 5, Paragraph 2

 

At present, only a few exploratory studies have dealt with the later stage of the persistent contrail dynamics which depends on the mesoscale atmospheric flows with rising or sinking motions of turbulent or wavy character and on shear, radiation and ice particle sedimentation. A vertical shear in the wind perpendicular to the contrail causes a contrail spread which may reach several kilometres within hours [73-76].

 

Again, this is saying, “we don’t know why trails persist”.

 

Section 6, Figure 6

 

Compare with satellite photo from Feb 4^th 2007.

 

Notice any differences? Right hand photo was from:

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?Europe_2_01/2007035/Europe_2_01.2007035.terra (4th Feb 2007)

 

Section 7 – Para 3

 

Consider the meaning of this paragraph:

 

A correlation between aviation soot and cirrus particle concentrations has been observed in cirrus only in one case study, apparently in young persistent contrails [91]. The potential for a connection between aerosols and cirrus has been found in experiments which have shown differences in aerosol and cirrus particle concentration in clean and polluted air masses [20; 92-95]. However, the contribution of aviation emissions to cirrus formation in the atmospheric aerosol has not yet been observed at ages beyond about one hour, nor has the formation of cirrus been documented which forms from aviation aerosol without presence of a contrail. The potential for an impact of aviation aerosol on cirrus has been shown in still tentative numerical simulations of soot concentrations and ice particle formation [96, 97].

 

Is this suggesting that the aircraft passes over, with no persistent contrail, then a cirrus cloud forms sometime later? If this is the case then:

 

1)      It does not match the observed data I discuss (trails are seen immediately and persist).

2)      It is likely to be difficult to prove, at many locations, what particulates were responsible for cloud formation – whether those emitted from aircraft, or those from industrial pollution, or those carried from distant location by, say, the jet-stream.

 

Section 7 – Para 5

 

The ice formation processes are very complex and not yet finally understood [5, 6, 92, 98, 99]. The changes in concentrations of ice nuclei (such as aircraft soot) may cause an increased cirrus cover but may also cause a reduced cirrus cover, so even the sign of this effect is presently uncertain [100].

 

So, there is no definite link between contrails and cirrus formation anyway!

 

In the rest of section 7, it discusses the increase in contrails over the long term, but does not explain how specific days can show almost blanket coverage and then, some days later there are virtually no contrails seen – even in the same weather conditions.

 

Section 9, Start

 

“The climatic impact of contrail cirrus is not known.”

 

On a global scale and/or long term this may be true, but I have documented the effect, as have others, on short term, localised climate change – where a haze develops and sunlight levels drop. This is a known, observed effect which is repeated and backed by reliable data.

 

Section 10 is not really relevant to what I have presented discussed, though it may have some bearing on what is being discussed.

 

Section 11

 

“Persistent contrails form in ice-supersaturated air masses.”

 

The data presented in this report simply does not support this conclusion. Neither does it support or explain the formation of crosses/grids and almost parallel lines, as shown in many pictures I have and the ones presented to you. So, this conclusion is false – also see Section 4, Page 8 – as mentioned above. What it says there does not support such a conclusion.

 

It is really saying “Persistent contrails may be formed in regions of ice-supersaturation, but we have no real, reliable explanation why Persistent contrails form”. The correct conclusion is that unknown aerosols are being covertly introduced into the air – as I said in my report.

 

Conclusion

 

The paper lists an impressive number of references, but sadly it completely fails to explain the type of trails that have been documented by hundreds or thousands of people across the world.

 

The report suggests a maximum length of a trail of 150 km – I showed an example of a trail twice this length (quite a few others can be found on that and other satellite photos). It also mentions a persistence duration of about 2 mins – I have time lapse photography showing trails lasting over 18 minutes – and the 360 km one suggests a duration of at least 27 minutes. So, this report does not explain this data either.

 

 

 

Further Remarks

 

There is a considerably large volume of evidence which people are ignoring and thus they are drawing incorrect conclusions. I hope I have provided you with enough feedback on the Schumann report to demonstrate that something is seriously wrong and, as I said in my previous letter, deeper and uncompromised investigation is required by you and your agency.

 

Below, I include some messages that were sent to me from around the world following the posting of my report and press release.

 

I will be posting a follow-up press release, discussing the essence of your response and my answers that I have included here.

 

Thank you very much for reading this long response.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

Andrew Johnson

 

Responses received by e-mail from Chemtrailing Dossier and Associated Press Release

 

{As shown above}

 

e-mail sent: 22nd June 2006

 

Dear ____

 

Many thanks for your prompt response to my previous e-mail. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond. (Coincidentally, I also received an evidence-denial response to my report from the CAA today.)

 

I think you may have slightly misunderstood me because I am certainly not disputing the existence of ordinary contrails lasting for a maximum period of 2 minutes. I state this clearly in my report. I also think saying "150km or 300km" (a factor of 2) is rather a loose margin of error to apply to basic data. Additionally, we could argue about the usage of the word "may" if it was especially important here.

 

The criticisms I raise about the Schumann report are valid and I have presented data which the report cannot explain. I have sent the same comments to Professor Schumann as I did to you, so I am sure he is capable of responding in his own way, should he have the time, interest or inclination to do so.

 

Also the credibility of data and evidence and conclusion is often a matter of opinion. For example, is a currently employed funded scientist always going to produce better analyses and "more credible" conclusions than a retired one? You state "with contrails there is scientific uncertainty but that doesn't support a chemtrail conspiracy". However, the data I provided cannot be explained - it is not explained in that report. I find Clifford Carnicom's scientific data, analyses and conclusions (see www.carnicom.com) to be more credible than the report you kindly linked me to. Additionally "conspiracy" is an emotive word, which I avoid as much as possible, because I prefer to focus on points of evidence.

 

However, let us assume, for the moment, your conclusion is correct. The grid of trails which appeared outside my window on 10th June 2005 must then be the result of ordinary air traffic. Also, the 42 aircraft I counted and filmed on Sunday 4th Feb must be ordinary air traffic. Can you therefore please answer these questions:

 

1) Can you please provide a list of flights which travelled over the Derby area between 9pm and 10pm on 10th July 2005?

 

2) Can you please verify that some of these flight paths crossed at 90 approximately degrees in the same area?

 

3) Can you please provide a list of flights travelling over Markeaton Park Derby between 14:15 and 16:45 and verify that there were at least 42 planes during that period?

For your convenience I have provided the unretouched pictures of the Grid and links to Google Maps of the location of my house...

 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&z=15&om=0 

 

(Lat/Long 52.902891 / -1.378364)

 

(the grid was seen on bearing of about 280 degrees (i.e. approx West-North-West of my house)

 

and Markeaton Park, Derby:

 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&om=0&ll=52.93519,-1.501265&spn=0.012467,0.056477&z=14  (Lat/Long 52.935129 / -1.505260)

 

I can provide the unretouched video clips of the aircraft from 4th Feb if this will be of any help.

 

Thank you for any help you can provide in supplying or pointing me in the direction of this data - if we could find it would clear up these 2 instances of illegal aerosol spraying and prove that my description of same is incorrect/inaccurate in these particular cases.

Thanks again.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

 

e-mail sent: 22nd June 2006

 

Dear ____________

 

Many thanks for your response to my report regarding illegal aerosol spraying operations which are being carried out in UK Airspace and in many other areas of the world. (For your information, at the end of this message, I include responses from around the world which I have received, following the posting/publishing of my report.)

 

I appreciate your response, even though your letter clearly disagrees with the conclusion above, as I predicted in my report. I have already considered in some depth (as have many others) this explanation, and found it cannot, by the laws of physics, explain all the data.

 

However, let us assume your statement is correct. The grid of trails which appeared outside my window on 10th June 2005 must then be the result of ordinary air traffic. Also, the 42 aircraft I counted on Sunday 4th Feb must be ordinary air traffic. Can you therefore please answer these questions:

 

1) Can you please provide a list of flights which travelled over the Derby area between 9pm and 10pm on 10th July 2005?

 

2) Can you please verify that some of these flight paths crossed at 90 approximately degrees in the same area?

 

3) Can you please provide a list of flights travelling over Markeaton Park Derby between 14:15 and 16:45 and verify that there were at least 42 planes during that period?

 

For your convenience I have provided the unretouched pictures of the Grid and links to Google Maps of the location of my house...

 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&z=15&om=0 (Lat/Long 52.902891 / -1.378364)

 

(the grid was seen on bearing of about 280 degrees (i.e. approx West-North-West of my house)

 

and Markeaton Park, Derby:

 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&q=&om=0&ll=52.93519,-1.501265&spn=0.012467,0.056477&z=14

 

(Lat/Long 52.935129 / -1.505260)

 

I can provide the unretouched video clips of the aircraft from 4th Feb if this will be of any help.

 

Thank you for any help you can provide in supplying or pointing me in the direction of this data.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Andrew Johnson

22 Mear Drive

Borrowash

Derbyshire

DE72 3QW

Responses received by e-mail from Chemtrailing Dossier and Associated Press Release

 

{As shown above}

 

Response from WWF UK (they have a campaign about Carbon Footprints)

-----Original Message-----

From: Supporterresponse Supporterresponse

[mailto:Supporterresponse@wwf.org.uk]

Sent: 11 June 2007 15:28

To: ad.johnson@ntlworld.com Subject: 512434789/MD

 

Dear Andrew,

 

Thank you for your letter concerning climate change.

 

I appreciate your comments that climate change is natural. Throughout its life the earth has moved from cold periods - ice ages - to warmer periods - interglacials.  We are in an interglacial now, the temperature is about 4 degrees centigrade warmer than during the last ice age which ended 20,000 years ago.

 

However, over the last 150 years or so it has been observed that this warming has accelerated. It is now 0.5 degrees centigrade warmer than it was in 1860 - a huge change for 130 years considering there was only a rise of 4 degrees centigrade in the last 20,000 years.

 

Furthermore, the last century was the warmest century for 600 years and the last 2 decades of the 20th Century were the warmest on record. The speed at which the change is happening, leads us to the belief that it is not a completely natural change. The current science looking at the issue has concluded that there is a ‘discernible human influence on climate change.’ This human influence is mainly a result of increases in CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions from the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy.

 

Whilst CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, during the last 150 years or so (since the Industrial Revolution), there has been a dramatic increase in our emissions of CO2, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels to produce energy (i.e. power generation, transport and industry) and it is this increase that is responsible for the accelerated warming.

 

For more information on this, please see “The Science of Climate Change - A Short Overview”, report on www.panda.org.

 

WWF believes that each person can take responsibility for their impact on climate change. Especially when one considers the fact that 36% of the UK’s CO2 emissions come from us driving our cars and heating and powering our homes.

 

By switching to a green electricity supply you can support the development of renewable energy resources within the UK. Renewable energy sources are defined as energy sources which occur naturally and repeatedly in the environment and which can be harnessed for human benefit. There are many forms of renewable energy, including wind, wave and solar power. They can be used for both electricity and heat generation. For example, the burning of biomass produces heat that can be recovered and distributed locally. The main benefit of using wind, solar and wave renewable technology is that the emissions of greenhouse gases (CO2 in particular) zero compared to those associated with fossil fuel use.

 

WWF are also looking at how domestic users can reduce their energy use. This includes things such as buying energy saving light bulbs, switching off appliances and lights when not in use, insulating your home properly and buying energy efficient appliances.

 

The changes in the local and global climate we are seeing is expected to have a number of significant impacts. Ice sheets, already showing signs of retreat will continue to melt, increasing the incidence of avalanches and dramatically changing river flows. This shrinking of the ice sheets will have major impacts on the Arctic and Antarctic habitats, affecting Polar Bears (Arctic) and Penguins (Antarctic). There is also evidence that the Siberian Tiger could be squeezed out of its Tundra habitat. Snow on mountain ranges is melting, the snow line is retreating.  Species such as the Ptarmigan in Scotland could simply run out of habitat.

 

There is also the risk of an increasing number of pests and diseases in the UK as conditions for their survival become more favourable and more unusual weather conditions will be seen - the UK will become more stormy with 10% more rainfall which will lead to more flooding.

 

I appreciate your comments about climate change and global warming and hope you have found this letter both helpful and informative. Please be assured that these events are already taking place and therefore it is essential that we do everything that we can to conserve energy and the environment for current and future generations.

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us and for letting us know your views.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Supporter Relations