Sir - Michael Heavey's letter (July 27) implies that we scientists are cynically stoking the issue of man-made climate change in order to gain research funds.

What this tired old argument overlooks is that what every scientist wants, more than anything else, is to be famous for being right and what he/she dreads most is to be notorious for being wrong.

I wonder if such cynicism exists about all areas of science: Do crash investigators exaggerate the dangers of alcohol because they have shares in breathalyser manufacturers? Do cancer specialists invent useless treatments to sell drugs? Do epidemiologists fabricate evidence about pandemics such as Aids to frighten governments? Do lung specialists invent statistics because they have a grudge against cigarette companies? Do climatologists predict warmer drier winters with wetter summers and more extreme weather events (such as heatwaves and torrential rain giving flooding) to gain research funds?

Or could it be that such bizarre scepticism allows some people to continue to deny reality in the face of all the evidence? Science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning knowledge and scientists need research grants to gain knowledge. In all of the above examples (including climate science), that knowledge can be used to save and improve lives. For the record: I am a solar physicist rather than a climate scientist and it would be very much to my personal advantage in gaining research grants were the Sun to be a factor in recent climate change; however, the evidence is clear that this simply isn't so.

Prof Mike Lockwood , Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton