1

Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Global Temperature On June 23, 1988 Dr. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) stood before Congress warning of catastrophic global warming resulting from the rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels and the resultant CO2 emissions. Dr Hansen based this warning on computer model projections from his soon to be published paper “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model”

This paper presented a scenario “A” in which there was no attempt to reduce CO2 emissions which would increase at a rate of 1.5% per year. In 1988 global CO2 emissions were 22.052gt (billion metric tonnes) and at this rate of increase the projected value for 2010 global CO2 emissions is 30.598gt. In 2010 the global CO2 emissions were significantly higher than Dr. Hansen’s 1988 prediction coming in at 33.158gt. Dr. Hansen made the (false) assumption that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were the prime source for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and predicted that the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the same 1.5% per year rate of increase as used for the CO2 emissions. The 1988 atmospheric CO2 concentration level in 1988 was 351.56ppmv (parts per million by volume) which at this rate gives a projected value for the atmospheric CO2 concentration for 2010 of 487.81ppmv. The actual measured value for atmospheric CO2 concentration for 2010 is only 389.78ppmv as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html) Dr Hansen underestimated CO2 emissions growth and based on this 8% underestimation of CO2 emissions Dr. Hansen overestimated atmospheric

2

CO2concentration by 25%. This demonstrates that the predominant source for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is definitely not CO2 emissions from fossil fuels contrary to what the general public has been led to believe. The scenario “A” which has already been exceeded by current levels of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels produces a climate model projection of global temperature that is 0.6°C higher than the actual measured global temperature as demonstrated by the red triangles posted on the projected temperatures from the Hansen et al 1988 paper shown below.

More importantly the three temperature curves presented on this graph represent the three scenarios for 1) no reduction in CO2 emissions, 2)the minimum acceptable reduction in CO2 emissions and 3) the optimum level of CO2 emissions reductions, and with CO2 emissions in excess of the most dire emissions scenario; the global temperature is still below the best case scenario. Simply put the threat of catastrophic global warming from increased CO2 emissions as predicted by Dr. Hansen simply does not exist.

3

The launch of weather satellites in late 1978 has provided two satellite based measurements of global temperature in addition to the three existing surface based global temperature datasets. Each of these datasets uses slightly different computation procedures and base line references in the creation of these five global temperature datasets, but in spite of these differences all five datasets show exactly the same major features and all five clearly show no global warming since 2002 as demonstrated by the red trend lines on this composite graph of all five global temperature datasets.

Of these five global temperature datasets the HadCRUT3 dataset is the longest running, dating back to around 1856 which is why it is the dataset most often referenced by the IPCC.

4

The red trend lines on this dataset clearly shows that the world has actually been cooling since 2002 is spite of the continued accelerated increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and therefore every penny spent by our government since 2002 to combat global warming has been entirely wasted! On December 17, 2002 the Federal Government ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and legislated Canada’s commitment to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions to below the Kyoto target of 1990 levels for the stated purpose of arresting global warming which was predicted to rise to catastrophic levels. Essentially Canada committed to onerous economically crippling initiatives for the intention of arresting the threat of global warming after the world had already started cooling. This commitment was made without any independent scientific verification or due diligence of any kind in spite pleasfor proper scientific verification before ratifying Kyoto from the scientific community at large and even from then leader of the opposition Stephen Harper. Since 2002 the climate change issue has ceased to be an issue of science and has denigrated to nothing more than an issue of “political cosmetics” that has only served politicians and the Environmentalist lobby but has been universally detrimental to the public at large which has to pay for these wasted efforts. When it was realized that global warming had ended, instead of properly informing the public of this fact; Environment Canada simply changed the term to “climate change” and changed the focus from stopping global warming to reducing greenhouse gas emissions leaving out the purpose for doing so. This was augmented by a campaign of misinformation by the Environmentalist Lobby capped off with the release of Al Gore’s epic false portrayal of reality in “An Inconvenient Truth” in 2006 a full four years after the world had already started cooling. Instead of recognizing “An Inconvenient Truth” for the propaganda that it was; Alberta incorporated this horrendous piece of self-serving misinformation into the Alberta curriculum creating a large young student population of “believers” in this human cause global warming orthodoxy. On February 2, 2007 a full five years after the world had already started cooling, the IPCC released the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) for the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) which was nothing more than a blatant attempt to keep the world falsely convinced that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels still posed a threat. Instead of doing any of our own independent scientific verification for

5

the justification of continued attempts to reduce CO2 emissions; the Alberta Government followed the lead of the federal government ignoring physical data and continued to blindly accept IPCC proclamations as the sole reference for Alberta Government action on Climate Change. The Alberta Government 2007 publication “Facts about Climate Change” (posted on the internet at http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7774.pdf ) demonstrates word for word “parroting” of the IPCC 2007 4AR Summary for Policy Makers clearly indicating that our government never even acknowledged the many attempts by physical scientists to have proper and open scientific discourse before creating policy on the climate change issue. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change has no actual scientific basis as it only references the output of climate models all of which have failed to produce even a single valid global temperature projection; so it is safe to assume that the intent was not scientific but political. The focus of the Kyoto Accord has been CO2 emissions from fossil fuels making it abundantly obvious that fossil fuel production and not climate change is the target of this Environmentalist Lobby driven Accord. Alberta is a fossil fuel producing Province and is therefore a target and not a benefactor of this Accord, yet the Alberta Government instead of opposing the dictates of the Kyoto Accord, supported this false conjecture about human caused global warming and undertook Kyoto inspired initiatives to the detriment of all Albertans. In a province which has more than enough coal and natural gas to provide all the clean and cheap electrical power that we will ever need in the foreseeable future, we have put up wind farms that are so costly limited unreliable and inefficientthat this has dramatically increased the cost of electricity throughout the Province. The government has been rather dishonest in hiding the true cost of this Kyoto inspired wind power through a myriad of unexplained and confusingly named charges added to our electricity bill which for the most part relate to the extra costs of inserting unreliable power from wind turbines into the provincial power grid. Instead of attempting to bring the cost of power down, the Government instead has chosen to raise the cost of power from coal and natural gas fired power generation by sequestering and burying the CO2 produced by these facilities. Thismakes the construction of new fossil fuel fired power generation facilities less economically viableand limits the incentive to add to Alberta’s conventional electrical power supply.

6

In the endAlbertans end up paying for our power twice; once through our electricity bills and once again through our taxes which supply the funds for government subsidies. The same is true for biofuels and ethanol in particular. Ethanol only produces 64% of the energy of the gasoline that it replaces so it has a negative effect on gas mileage when added as a 10% mix to gasoline. To get ethanol up to the 99% purity necessary for its addition to gasoline requires a large amount of energy for the distillation process, and since this energy comes mostly from fossil fuel, ethanol as a fuel becomes a very poor substitute for gasoline and comes at a very high cost. To offset this cost the government subsidizes the production at taxpayers’ expense and while these subsidies are beneficial to farmers who now get a premium for their wheat and corn, the bulk of the subsidies go to ethanol producers to make their otherwise uneconomic product profitable. So once again Albertans are paying twice; once at the pump and once again through taxes which fund subsidies. Perhaps the most serious effect from the failure of the Alberta Government to verify the science behind the Kyoto Accord is the unwarranted denigration of the Oilsands as “dirty oil”. The only basis for this slanderous moniker is the CO2 emissions produced in the mining and upgrading of the Oilsands. Instead of taking the intelligent route and simply stating thatCO2 emissions from oilsands production is not a pollutant and in fact is universally beneficial to the environment; the Alberta Government tries to improve the image of the Oilsands by foolishly adopting the Kyoto rhetoric and promoting all the advances in reducing greenhouse gases that have been initiated. Climate science is far from settled; but the one aspect that is completely settled is that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have no detectable detrimental effect on global temperature. If in fact increased atmospheric CO2 concentration resulting from increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuels actually caused the enhanced greenhouse effect claimed as the basis for the Kyoto Accord thirty years of satellite measurement of what is called outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) would have detected this effect. The greenhouse gas theory states that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing the insulation effect of the atmosphere preventing thermal energy from escaping and causing the Earth to warm. If this was the case the 57.1% increase in CO2 emissions over the past three decades should have at least some detectable effect. The climate models would predict precisely 0.782watts/m2 reduction in OLR for the measured increase in CO2 concentration over the past three decades.

7

This graph of satellite measurement of OLR clearly demonstrates that no such reduction in OLR has ever taken place as claimed by the IPCC.

The blue line shows what the IPCC states should be happening if the Greenhouse Gas Theory was valid but the green line shows the actual trend demonstrating that there is no detectable“enhanced greenhouse effect” from CO2 or any other so called “greenhouse gas” regardless of whether it is human sourced or not. The Earth only radiates a limited amount of energy in the wavelength band that is affected by CO2 and it doesn’t take much CO2 to access most of this energy. The following graph shows the effect for incremental 20ppmv increases in CO2 and it is quite obvious that at the current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 390ppmv there is very little further effect from further increases in CO2 concentration. The entire case for human caused global warming is based on computer models which predict 2°C to 5°C of further global warming if the CO2 concentration doubles above our current 390ppmv level. This graph clearly demonstrates that this

8

amount of global warming from a further doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is completely ludicrous.

The foundation for the computer climate model projections is the assumption that the observed increase in global temperature correlates perfectly with the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The global temperature record as depicted in this graph from the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report shows that the global temperature did not steadily increase but instead increased in a cyclic pattern with warming and cooling cycles. The warming from 1910 to 1942 is depicted between the two vertical red lines and the cooling cycle from 1942 to 1975 is depicted between the red and blue vertical lines.

9

10

When these warming and cooling cycles are depicted on the emissions data the assumption of a perfect correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming is proven false with a fivefold increase in CO2 emissions as the world cooled compared to just a 14% increase in CO2 emissions as the world warmed as clearly demonstrated by the above graph. The true nature of the greenhouse effect is very different from what is being presented to the public. There is no such term as “greenhouse gases” properly defined to a scientific standard in any of the scientific literature. The Nimbus 4 Satellite measurement of the Earth’s radiative spectrum shows that H2O (water vapour) CO2 (carbon dioxide) and O3 (ozone) are the only atmospheric gases that have any sort of detectable effect on the Earth’s radiative spectrum and therefore these are the only possible gases that could fit a scientific definition of the greenhouse effect.

It should be pointed out that neither ozone nor water vapour are included in the list of “greenhouse gases” named in the Kyoto Accord, but the list does include several gases that have no effect on the Earth’s radiative spectrum because they either operate on wavelengths outside the range of the Earth’s radiative spectrum or they operate in a low energy portion of the spectrum already dominated by water vapour.

11

The Earth’s greenhouse effect is calculated as being between 33°C and 35°C depending on the values used for solar flux, albedo, and global temperature, and the calculation does not include the concentration of CO2 or any so called greenhouse gas. 100% of the insulating effect of the atmosphere that produces the 33°C greenhouse effect can be attributed to the insulation provided by clouds and water vapour. Since thermal radiation passes through CO2 before it reaches clouds or in the case of clear skies passes through water vapour and CO2 only, the strong absorption effect of CO2 takes over about 10% of the greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapour producing the deep notch in the spectrum depicted in the above Nimbus 4 satellite measurement. In this regard the only effect from increased CO2 would be to take over more of the greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapour without producing any substantial change in the net greenhouse effect which would remain more or less constant at 33°C regardless of whether CO2 concentration doubled or was reduced by half. The two most damaging terms to the “greenhouse gas theory” in support of the Kyoto Accord are “clouds” and “water vapour” because the domination of the greenhouse effect by these two components removes any possible catastrophic effects from CO2 which plays such a minor role in the process.

12

These two representations of the greenhouse effect dynamics show how Environment Canada presented a case for the greenhouse effect that excluded both clouds and water vapour giving the false impression that greenhouse gases were the prime driver of the 33°C greenhouse effect. By contrast the proper scientific representation on the right depicts clouds and water vapour as the prime components and doesn’t even mention the term “greenhouse gases”. This is just a small sample of the vast amount of physical evidence that refutes the conjecture on which the Kyoto Accord is based and which drives the entire climate change issue and Alberta Government response to climate change. All other evidence aside the simple fact that the Earth has been cooling for the past nine years means that every penny of taxpayers’ money spent on initiatives to stop global warming since 2002 have been entirely wasted. This entire issue has been driven by misinformation provided by the IPCC and the Alberta Government must stop this reliance on the politically motivated IPCC and undertake a proper review of actual physical evidence pertaining to the effect of CO2 emissions on global temperatures and restructure its policies in accordance with proper scientific evaluations. Norman H Kalmanovitch P.Geoph. 5432 LaSalle Cres. SW Calgary Alberta T3E 5Y5 (403) 242-7587 kalhnd@shaw.ca

13

ADDENDUM Upset with the scientific rationale behind the Kyoto Accord, a group of international scientists sent Paul Martin this letter Financial Post (Toronto), June 04, 2003 The Rt Honourable Paul Martin, P.C. Member of Parliament House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6 Dear Mr. Martin: We understand from media reports that you believe that more consultation with the provinces should have taken place before moving forward with ratification of the Kyoto Accord. We would like to alert you to the fact that the current government neglected to conduct comprehensive science consultations as well. The statements by current Minister of the Environment David Anderson that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's decision to ratify the Kyoto accord was based merely on a "gut feeling," not an understanding of the issue, clearly illustrates that a more thorough examination of the science should have taken place before a ratification decision was made. If you are to lead the next government, we believe that a high priority should be placed on correcting this situation and conducting wide ranging consultations with non-governmental climate scientists as soon as possible in order to properly consider the range of informed opinion pertaining to the science of Kyoto. Many of us made the same suggestion to the Prime Minister in an open letter on Nov. 25, 2002, in which we alerted Mr. Chrétien to the fact that Kyoto was not justified from a scientific perspective. That letter called on the government of Canada "to delay a decision on the ratification of the Kyoto Accord until after a thorough and comprehensive consultation is conducted with non-governmental climate specialists." It was explained to the Prime Minister that, "Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord." Unfortunately, the Prime Minister took no action on the issue and proceeded to ratify the accord without the government and the public having had the benefit of hearing a proper science debate on an issue that is sure to affect Canadians for generations to come. We strongly believe that important environmental policy should be based on a strong foundation of environmental science. Censoring credible science out of the debate because it does not conform to a pre-determined political agenda is clearly not a responsible course of action for any government. Your openness to re-examining the recent approach to the Kyoto file encourages us to believe that you may also be open to reconsidering the way in which the scientific debate was suppressed as well. We certainly hope so. Although ratification has already taken place, we believe that the government of Canada needs a far more comprehensive understanding of what climate science really says if environmental policy is

14

to be developed that will truly benefit the environment while maintaining the economic prosperity so essential to social progress. In the meantime, we would be happy to provide you with more information on this important topic and, for those of us who are able, we would like to offer to meet with you personally to discuss the issue further in the near future. Above letter signed by: Dr. Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant, 28 years Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. Dr. MadhavKhandekar, Environmental Consultant, former Research Scientist with Environment Canada. 45-year career in the fields of climatology, meteorology and oceanography. Dr. Tad Murty, private sector climate researcher. Previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans; conducted official DFO climate change/sea level review; Former Director of the National Tidal Facility of Australia; Current editor - "Natural Hazards". Dr. Chris de Freitas (Canadian), Climate Scientist and Professor - School of Geography and Environmental Science, The University of Auckland, NZ. Dr. Vaclav Smil, FRSC, Distinguished Professor of Geography; specialization in climate and CO2, University of Manitoba. Dr. I.D. Clarke, Professor, Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences (arctic specialist), University of Ottawa. Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Climate Consultant, Past Meteorology Advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and other scientific bodies in Marine Meteorology. Recent Research Scientist in Climatology at University of Exeter, UK. Dr. Chris Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario - focuses on underlying physics/math to complex climate systems. Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, specialized in micrometeorology, specifically western prairie weather patterns. Dr. Kenneth Green, Chief Scientist, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC - expert reviewer for the IPCC 2001 Working Group I science report. Dr. PetrChylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia. Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (Paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and Past Chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa. Dr. Fred Michel, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (Paleoclimatology), Carleton University, arctic regions specialist, Ottawa. Dr. Roger Pocklington, Ocean/Climate Consultant, F.C.I.C., Researcher - Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Nova Scotia. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest microclimate specialist, Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C. Dr. David Wojick, P.E., Climate specialist and President, Climatechangedebate.org, Sioux Lookout, Ontario/Star Tannery, VA.

15

Dr. S. Fred Singer, Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. George Taylor, State Climatologist, Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University, Past President - American Association of State Climatologists. Doctorandus Hans Erren, Geophysicist/climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands. Dr. Hans Jelbring - Wind/Climate specialist, Paleogeophysics& Geodynamics Unit, Stockholm University, Sweden. Currently, Manager Inventex Aqua Research Institute, Stockholm. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, solar/climate specialist, Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Waldmuenchen, Germany. Dr. ZbigniewJaworowski, Climate expert, Chairman of the scientific council of CLOR, Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland. Dr. Art Robinson, Founder - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - focus on climate change and CO2, Cave Junction, Oregon. Dr. Craig D. Idso, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona. Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona. Dr. Pat Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a contributing author and reviewer of the IPCC science reports. Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK, Editor, Energy & Environment. Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Director - Office of Climatology, Arizona State University. Dr. Fred Seitz, Past President, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, New York, NY. Dr. Vincent Gray, Climate specialist, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of "The Greenhouse Delusion; a Critique of 'Climate Change 2001'", Wellington, NZ. Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, energy and climate consultant, official scientific IPCC TAR Reviewer, Langensendelbach, Germany. Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Atmospheric Consultant - four decades experience as a USAF weather officer and climate consultant at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA. Dr. AsmunnMoene, Former head of the National Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway. Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey. Dr. James J. O'Brien, Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography, Center for Ocean- Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida Sate University. Co-chaired the Regional Climate Change Study for the Southeast USA. Dr. Douglas V. Hoyt, climate consultant, previously Senior Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS; Broadly published author of "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change". Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas,

16

California. Prof. Dr. Kirill Ya.Kondratyev, Academician, Counsellor RAS, Research Centre for Ecological Safety, Russian Academy of Sciences and Nansen International Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre, St.-Petersburg, Russia. Dr. PaalBrekke - Solar Physicist, specialist in sun/UV radiation/Sun-Earth Connection, affiliated with the University of Oslo, Norway. Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate consultant, expert IPCC peer reviewer, Founding Member of the European Science and Environment Forum, UK. William Kininmonth, Managing Director, Australasian Climate Research. Formerly head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference and the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change. Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, Docent in environmental technology/science, Process Design Laboratory, the Swedish University of Finland, Biskopsgatan, Finland. Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, Principal Geologist, Kansas Geological Survey; Adjunct Professor, Colorado School of Mines; Noted author and geological expert on climate history.

17

ADDENDUM National/Financial Post 2006-04-06 page FP 19 Open Kyoto to debate Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming . Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006 An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Dear Prime Minister: As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science. Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action. While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary. We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

18

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next. We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic. CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources - - - Sincerely, Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa Dr. MadhavKhandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont. Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont. Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

19

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria Dr. PetrChylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K. Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C. Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary PaavoSiitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont. Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review Dr. HendrikTennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics& geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif. Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn. Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health) Dr. ZbigniewJaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

20

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey Dr. AsmunnMoene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z. Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K. Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K. Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000 Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass. Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland Dr. WibjornKarlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant. Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore. Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health Dr. AlisterMcFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. © National Post 2006