A letter from Douglas Carswell to the people of Clacton & my response
Letter is in the image, my reply us below.
Dear Mr. Carswell,
Thank you for writing to the people of Clacton about your recent change of party and the upcoming by-election. Given my disappointment at the news and what I later discovered, I felt compelled to write back and let you know my views.
Previous to your defection to UKIP I confess to paying little attention to local politics. I received your newsletters which, like your letter, painted you as a true representative of the people of Clacton, fighting for them even when it contradicted the party-line. All good stuff I thought, and still do.
I think that when given a small amount of agreeable information about someone, we tend to fill the gaps with ourselves. Therefore I was shocked when I heard you had moved to UKIP, a party whose opinions I know to be in opposition to my own.
This prompted me to do a bit more digging, whereupon I discovered a Guardian interview in which you revealed you do not believe in human-created climate change. To see if this was still your position, I trawled through your blog, where I found this statement:
"if the Roman or Medieval warmings weren't caused by industrial activity, why do we suppose that any contemporary warming [...] must be down to human activity?"
A strange question to ask from someone with an interest in the subject, I thought, as the answer is readily available for anyone with the slightest inclination to look.
I would like to point out that despite you and your party's assertion that a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming has not been reached, a study last year of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers revealed 97% of the studies relevant to AGW supported the conclusion it is real. If that is not a consensus, then I don't know what is. No doubt you have heard of the paper, but in case you haven't read it, you can find it here: http://bit.ly/97AGW
Many may try and refute the study, perhaps by claiming peer-review is somehow invalid. But no matter how it is spun, the evidence on one side far out ways that on the other. That is how consensus is reached.
Although I would love to demonstrate to the current establishment that they do not speak for me, it seems you don't either. The alternative must still be a party whose policies I can in large part agree with, and whose values I respect. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone whose views (and those of their party) so sharply contradict my own.
With that in mind, I do not wish you luck, but wish you the courage to reassess your views and the wisdom to use evidence as the basis for this.