I AM grateful to Paul Baker of the Devon Association for Renewable Energy, for his comments and contributions to the debate on climate change (Letters, March 23). However, I must take issue with some of his wilder statements. He states that ?the science is robust? with ?hardly a dissident among those who are experts?. Is this the science that bases its calculations and forecasts on the now discredited ?hockey stick? curve, as the BBC ?expert? was heard to do last week? Is this the science that does not like to hear from dissenters or give their papers and theories the same hearing and respect given to the ?consensors?? Is this the science that has only just woken up to the fact that 30% of atmospheric methane is produced by trees? Or that only 30 years ago was forecasting a new ice age? Is this the science we are supposed to trust? Sadly, Mr Baker seems to take note of only half the information available - that half which, quite reasonably, suits him. To state that the ?experts on climate change are united? shows a startling ignorance of the many, many real experts whose voices are drowned in the frantic clamour of what the Rev Philip Foster calls ?the new religion?. Experts that have as much right to be heard and tested as the bandwagon brigade. It is generally agreed that our climate has swung from one which allowed the Romans to grow fine wines in this country and Dartmoor to be extensively farmed to the other extreme of the Thames freezing over and fairs being held in the middle of it. Was this caused by man?s efforts? Hardly. Very few people would contest the reality of climate change; after all, it has been continuing, presumably, since time began. If, as he says, ?commercial wind power is the best and cheapest proven technology?, then we ought to immediately prepare ourselves for the day that the lights go out. The only proven thing about wind power is that it is unreliable, costly, locally destructive and divisive - and incidentally, as Germany has so resoundingly proved with their 17,500 turbines, does not allow one single power station to be closed. We must accept that if power stations are needed to be instantly available at all times, this in itself produces totally unnecessary and disproportionate emissions. So just how can ?wind power . . . help us to reduce emissions?? So where does all this leave us? Buying power from our neighbour just a few miles across the channel? If we are going to be panicked about terrorism, accidents, mining-produced emissions, waste or any other form of paralysing fears and nightmares, we should start now. It would seem fair comment to suggest that we, as a nation, should not have to depend unnecessarily on the French or any other country for our basic power. And we should certainly be very careful to analyse and question the advice proffered by those motivated by profit, grants, government funding or political expediency. What have any of these parties done to deserve our unthinking trust? Ray Quirke East Bowerland Farm Okehampton