I write in response to the letter from Tony Hamilton (printed Echo April 11th) in which he states that I said the offshore wind farm is a red herring.

What I actually said, and I quote: “Mr Unsworth writes at length in defence of the wind farm, against the fears from residents of the impact on local tourism. Many people will no doubt see this as yet another red herring from Navitus”.

I did not say that the ‘wind farm was a red herring’.

I never cease to be amazed how the green lobby refuse to examine the facts in their fanatical push for anything green.

The majority of non-biased people will examine the facts and then form an opinion; indeed many green projects make sound economic sense and are well supported.

However, let's look at the proposed Navitus wind farm. Without the very generous subsidies this would never get off the ground, fact.

Again because of the unpredictability of the wind, the proposed power generated can never be constant and will only ever make a contribution to the grid, fact.

If we then look at climate change, without doubt it happens as can be seen throughout the ages, but it has never been proven beyond reasonable doubt that it is caused by mankind.

Most sensible people try and weigh up the pros and cons of a development such as the proposed wind farm and how it will impact on them.

Many people are quite rightly concerned by the visual impact of the development and will want to weigh this against any benefits from the wind farm.

Tony Hamilton would do well though to recognise that the likes of Mr Bond with the East Stoke wind farm and Navitus are not going down this route because they are overly concerned with the environment.

No Mr Hamilton, they are doing this in the main for commercial reasons. These are the same reasons that the general public should be able to examine them with, without being accused of scaremongering, being misguided and prejudiced, NIMBY opposition and the like, as suggested by Tony Hamilton’s letter.

C D Moyes, Hamworthy