I SEE Dr Martin Rogers is at it again (‘Extraction of gas not appropriate’, Letters August 31).

There is a kind of argument being used by the supporters of renewable energy, which is in fact not an argument but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement. A good example was Martin’s concern about us all using ‘too much’ fossil fuel.

I would suggest that with the rapid growth in the population, the demand on fossil fuels are further increased because of renewable energies’ unreliability factor, which is the main reason for unsuccessfully, in terms of numbers, closing down a single fossil fuel power station.

This is something Martin constantly fails to mention when proportioning the blame on his favourite worn-out scenario.

Sadly, the green movement’s technique is to appeal to moral self-doubt. The argument relies on fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim.

It is deployed in the form of an ultimatum, demanding that we renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy, a little Englander or an extremist.

Fracking is perfectly all right compared to all the alternatives to give us energy security, affordability and the nation’s prosperity.

The best its opponents are capable of doing is telling people to ‘frack off’ and making themselves unavailable for work. However, such an argument is itself a confusion of intellectual impotence and there is thankfully one weapon against it: intellectual certainty.

MIKE FRY, Moorland Crescent, Upton