Canada Kicks Ass
Kyoto: Scientists want to meet with Liberals


1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

thirdEye @ Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:54 pm


E-Mail sent on March 9, 2004 by paleoclimatology specialist (PhD - UCLA, 1986), Dr. Tim Patterson:

From: Professor R. Tim Patterson
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:36:29 -0500
To: Prime Minister Paul Martin , Environment Minister David Anderson , National Science Advisor Arthur Carty
Cc: all members of the Canadian Federal Parliament, all Canadian media, international climate experts

Subject: Serious Problems with the Science Content of Recent Speeches by the Minister of the Environment about the Kyoto Accord

March 8, 2003

The Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P., LL.B.
Prime Minister of Canada
Room 309 -S Centre Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

The Honourable David Anderson, P.C., M.P., LL.B.
Minister of the Environment
Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere
10 Wellington St., 28th Floor
Hull, Quebec
K1A 0H3

Dr. Arthur J Carty, OC
President - National Research Council of Canada
Executive Offices
Room W-307 Build M-58
1200 Montreal Road
Ottawa ON
K1A 0R6


I am writing to request that a meeting be arranged in which non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate scientists are given the opportunity to brief the Minister of the Environment and departmental advisors about the very serious problems in the Federal Government's interpretation of today's climate science. These misunderstandings were more clearly revealed than ever before in the following recent speeches given by the Minister of the Environment in which there were numerous significant factual errors and misrepresentations:

- The Economic Club of Toronto (Feb 20, 2004) - ... 20_s_e.htm

- The University of Ottawa (Feb 23, 2004) - ... 23_s_e.htm

- The Calgary Chamber of Commerce (Feb. 27, 2004) - ... 7b_s_e.htm

- Greater Saint John Community Foundation, Saint John, New Brunswick (March 4, 2004) - ... 04_s_e.htm

- Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Industries Association Annual General Meeting, Trade Show and Conference, St John's, Newfoundland (March 5, 2004) - ... 05_s_e.htm

I am a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences in the College of Natural Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa and one of a growing group of climate scientists who have been attempting to educate the public, media and government about the realities of climate science. For the past 20 years, I have conducted research in the field of paleoclimatology, the study of climate prior to the widespread availability of records of temperature, precipitation and other instrumental data. Therefore, I am particularly concerned by the Government's stance on the science as illustrated in the above speeches. As you know, presentations such as these are crucially important to helping inform Canadians about the rationale behind government policy and so I hope you will agree that the content of such speeches should be as fair and accurate as possible. This is especially true for such controversial and high profile topics as climate change and the Kyoto Accord.

In an effort to help ensure that Canadians hear a more accurate and balanced perspective when Ministers or other government officials address this field in the future, I have assembled a table that clearly shows the actual state of the science in a number of key areas referenced by the Minister in his recent speeches. This table, which may be viewed at was prepared in collaboration with some of the world's leading climate scientists.

I, and many others in the field, have already requested that the Federal Government conduct open consultations on this matter - to date, we have been ignored and, as a consequence, there has still been no comprehensive climate science review in Canada involving impartial climate experts. For your information, some of these experts are located here in Canada and are quite prepared to meet with the Minister and his staff. To assist your staff in contacting these scientists, please see the identity and coordinates of these specialists in the signatory list at the end of the open letter sent to Prime Minister Paul Martin calling for an independent evaluation of the science of climate change - this letter has been uploaded to the web page for your convenience. One of these experts, Professor Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and lead scientific author of the IPCC WG I report, wrote an important article that was published as a guest OpEd in The Hill Times on Feb 23, 2004, a copy of which you may view at .

I urge Mr. Anderson, as Canada's Environment Minister, to uphold his responsibility to the Canadian public and provide them with the opportunity to hear all the relevant information relating to the science of climate change, not just information that validates the Government's current policies. Canadians should be encouraged to weigh the evidence on both sides of this debate and come to their own conclusions. This can only happen if Environment Canada no longer hides the extensive and growing debate in the climate science community about this complex, but rapidly evolving field.

Like many of my peers, I hope that future environmental policy formulation will be based on a broad and up-to-date understanding of real environmental science. To that end, I, along with many of the world's foremost experts in climate change science, request the opportunity of briefing the Minister and departmental officials and working with them to ensure that future speeches and government initiatives more accurately reflect the true state of today's climate science.

I want to thank you in advance for your consideration and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.


Dr. R. Tim Patterson
Professor of Geology (Paleoclimatology)
Department of Earth Sciences
2240 Herzberg Building
College of Natural Sciences
Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1S 5B6

Telephone: 613-520-2600 ex 4425
FAX: 613-520-2569
e-mail :

PS: Guelph University Professor of Economics, Dr. Ross McKitrick, just sent me the following comment about the economic content of the recent speeches: "Mr. Anderson is being disingenuous to claim that warnings about the economic costs of Kyoto have been refuted by events. The warnings were about the costs of the policies needed to reach the targets. So far they haven't implemented any such policies, so of course the economic impacts haven't been felt."


Pathos @ Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:38 pm

meh, no surprise there! genuine concern for the environment at all!....liberal government pandering for a few votes!..again!


Feuermann @ Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:06 pm

Excuse me? Where are you getting that from pathos? Just because they want to be heard?


Rev_Blair @ Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:38 am

Richards S. Lindzen is paid up to $2500 a day for consulting with the energy industry according to this.

His explanatiions and models are at odds with the majority of climate scientists.


thirdEye @ Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:08 pm

The science behind Kyoto is so bad that 18,000 Climatologists and Scientists have signed a petition urging its rejection. Politicians tell you that the scientific community is united on global warming. It isnÂ’t. Only 800 environmental activists and government scientists support Kyoto.


Rev_Blair @ Sat Jul 03, 2004 12:45 pm

Geeze, talk about your junk science...Has any of these ever even bothered to try to explain what happens with all the excess energy we toss into the atmosphere?

The fact is that the majority of the scientific community agrees that global warming is taking place. We are having an effect on the climate. Doubt it? Have a look around...our weather is going crazy in ways that very much match computer predictions. Consider what is happening in Canada's north as the ice melts.

I could take the time to search out a bunch of links refuting this suicidal piece of crap that Third Eye has chosen to post, but instead I'd just encourage everybody to do their own research. You all have Google. I suggest starting by looking into the clowns being quoted by those on the radical right, guys like Ball and this Patterson fool.

Suicidal greed is stupid.


thirdEye @ Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:23 pm

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
this Patterson fool.

A Phd scientist who has been studying paleoclimatology for 20+ years is somehow a fool? I'm afraid you are out of your league when it comes to making arguments against this particular person. He argues for the sake of the science, not for greed, or partisan politics. Don't let your personal beliefs and opinions close your mind to real science.

And no, the weather is not getting worse or "going crazy". There is no scientific data to back that claim up. The computer "predictions" used for Kyoto are wrong. Junk data in, junk data out.

I also suggest that people do their own research - so long as they research science and not opinion. Someone with science that shatters the beliefs of Rev_Blair is not "radical right".

You likely won't find anybody denying that global warming exists, but you will find people denying that Kyoto will solve global warming, or that human activity is causing global warming. Climate change is a permanent feature of the planet - it has happened forever and will continue to happen forever. Global warming, and cooling, has happened in the past, in cycles, without any human activity.

Embrace Kyoto at your own peril. It won't make anything better, but it will make things worse. Pollution is bad, but Kyoto will do nothing to stop pollution.


Rev_Blair @ Sat Jul 03, 2004 5:46 pm

Like I said before, I encourage people to look this up for themselves. Check it out. Third Eye doesn't want you to do that, he just wants you to follow his little link. he's afraid of people actually going out and learning for themselves. Give this guy a Google. Give his supporters and his "science" a google too. This is too important not too.

Remember a little basic science while you're doing all that...if you release energy (say CO2) it must have an effect. If somebody cannot explain what is happening with the excess energy then their theory isn't a theory at all...just a way of getting a cheque from the oil companies.


thirdEye @ Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:55 am

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
Like I said before, I encourage people to look this up for themselves. Check it out. Third Eye doesn't want you to do that, he just wants you to follow his little link. he's afraid of people actually going out and learning for themselves.

I absolutely want people to look it up for themselves, and I'm not afraid of them doing so. In fact I'll get them started off right here:

Google search: +kyoto +science

You can't get much more simple and straight forward than that.

You should be the one who is afraid of people going out and learning for themselves. They will inevitably come back against you - if they are willing to believe science and facts and not left wing lunatics like yourself.

People can follow my "little link" as you put it, if they like. It's just a suggestion. Your immaturely calling it "little" should do nothing to deter them.

The fact of the matter is, there is no science that proves that global warming is being caused by man, just as there is no proof that it is not being caused by man. In the absence of proof, one way or the other, more research must be done. Without proof Kyoto is pure folly. Even then, Kyoto is structured in such a way that it cannot even achieve its own goals - it is futile.

Give this guy a Google. Give his supporters and his "science" a google too. This is too important not too.

By all means do. Notice how anything Rev_Blair disagrees with is labeled "science" by him. Somehow I suspect that if George Bush were in favour of Kyoto, Rev_Blair would be against it. That's how Rev_Blair does his "science".

For your convenience:

Google search: +kyoto +patterson

Remember a little basic science while you're doing all that...if you release energy (say CO2) it must have an effect. If somebody cannot explain what is happening with the excess energy then their theory isn't a theory at all...just a way of getting a cheque from the oil companies.

People are expected to take basic science lessons from you? You clearly don't have any understanding of basic science yourself. Co2 is not energy. Co2 is not the primary greenhouse gas. Co2 forms only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere's composition (0.035%). Co2 is not pollution. Man's contribution of Co2 to the atmosphere is but a fraction of the natural Co2 in the atmosphere.

The combustion of oil products produces by-products that are far worse than Co2, yet Kyoto does not address those. If you are so against oil companies, go ahead and burn bio-diesel. Sure it gives off less Co2, but it gives off way more smog forming pollutants. Enjoy your clean air while you can.

Perhaps I could lend you my textbooks from the atmosphere, weather, climate, geology, and geography courses I took in university. But I'll just start you off with the simplest thing, a definition:

carbon dioxide
A colorless, odorless, incombustible gas, CO2, formed during respiration, combustion, and organic decomposition and used in food refrigeration, carbonated beverages, inert atmospheres, fire extinguishers, and aerosols.

Finally, let's not forget that we are being led down the Kyoto road by a prime minister who uses his shipping company to ship coal (and drugs it seems) to countries who are not limited by Kyoto. He'll still make his millions, what does he care?


Rev_Blair @ Sun Jul 04, 2004 11:17 am

Yeah, whatever, Third Eye. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of global warming theory. The vast majority of scientists believe in that theory because it is scientifically sound.


Milton @ Sun Jul 04, 2004 11:45 am

If you don't think the weather has gone wonky, talk to some eskimos. They will tell you that they have had to install artificial icemakers to make ice for their hockey rinks in the winter. They never had to do that 15 years ago. They will tell you that they can no longer navigate on winter terrain without using gps technology because the prevailing wind patterns have changed and the wind now comes from all sorts of different directions which makes the reading of snow drift patterns for navigation purposes irrelevant. Weather scientists used to ask the eskimos for a weekly weather forecast because the eskimos could read the signs more accurately than the scientists instruments could. Now the eskimos rely on the scientific weather reports because the natural signs that they had read for thousands of years have disappeared.

If you can't tell that the weather has become more volatile in the last 15 years then you are spending way to much time in doors and not paying enough attention to the weather news.


jerrysb @ Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:07 pm

one of my moms friend is a bug guy. He studies bugs and one of his research has concluded that global warming is contributing to the spreading of a beetle in bc's forests at such a rate, the the cutting of trees, and the forests fires of today are not enough to stop the spread. The only way to stop this spread, which will kill the forests would be to burn literaly every square inch. Now, he uses a very powerwul program called GIS to model the spread of this beetle. He's NOT saying that we are contributing to climate change. What i'm saying is that there are consequences to our actions.

global warmimg is not something new. It's been know by climatologists for years and what gives credibility to their argument is that the models used to predict the temperatures have been mostly correct in every year. Theres got to be a reson that a 100 years ago our econmies started to become oil dependant and at the same time, out of the blue, temperatures started to rise.

I was talikng above above certain consequences of global warming. these include tropical diseses that are now becoming more prelevent in northern countries ( west NILE virus...), our crops are reaching their thermal limits which mean they will soon be bombarde with more energy than they can absorbed and will die. I'm sure bioengineering will come up with a species better adapted to higher temps, but are we solving the problem or just ddelaying the envitable.

Finally, while global warming will not extinguish life on earth (i think there have been 6 mass extinctions on earth) but what i worry about is whether the human civilization will be able to absorb the changes nature presents us. I'm sure we'll survive, but will sociaty surive or will se have to start from scratch?


jerrysb @ Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:10 pm

i think what pisses off a lot of people is that torononians bitch about alberta and it's tar sands on their way to buying an escalade.


Rev_Blair @ Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:24 pm

What is really driving this anti-Kyoto/ant-global warming crap is the politicisation of science. hereis a good article on what a bad idea that is.


Zenfisher @ Sun Jul 04, 2004 8:44 pm

Third Eyes statements aren't really being debunked. I will only leave a link to one scientist. .David Suzuki
When his name appears on the list against Kyoto I will give it some credence.

Aboriginal tribes the world over have noticed changes in the weather patterns. It is niave to think that the advances of mankind have not affected the world and its climate.

The Kyoto accord is far from perfect. It is, however a start. That is what's important. We need a point where we look beyond borders, beyond our species and suck it up and do what is best for the planet. That is why Kyoto is important



1  2  3  4  5  6  Next