PETER Mullen produces some strange pieces of “evidence” in his determination to deny climate change. In his column (Echo, Feb 3) we have Professor Frederick Seitz with a petition of 20,000 American scientists. The petition, advising rejection of the Kyoto treaty, states “the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind”.

There is no mention as to whether they accept the evidence in favour of climate change, just let’s do nothing about it.

How many of these scientists were employed in the oil or automobile industry? How many, if any, were climatologists (Prof Seitz was a nuclear physicist)?

How many may have changed their views in the following 11 years, the petition being dated 1998?

Mr Mullen also comments that Arctic ice cover was greater in 2009 than in 2007, but fails to acknowledge that the cover is much less than the 30-year average. Roaming the internet, I have been unable to find any statement to back up his claim of a 28.7 per cent increase.

Eric Gendle, Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough.

WHEN the snow started, I expected to see columnists use it as evidence that man-made climate change can’t be happening.

I was surprised that Peter Mullen (Echo, Feb 3) managed to write and submit his column so quickly, though that possibly reflects his level of research and thinking on the subject.

That Mr Mullen is able to take the weather from a few days on one small corner of the planet and use this evidence in place of a century of global temperature records is worrying.

Indeed, this point of view was described as “blithering idiocy”

by environmentalist George Monbiot in his Guardian column last month.

Taking this viewpoint is perhaps understandable, coming from someone who makes money by generating controversy.

That The Northern Echo continues to publish Mr Mullen’s opinions is less understandable.

Mike McTimoney, Darlington.