|The Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament
House of Commons
Dear Mr. Martin:
I was one of the first climatology PhDs in the world. My doctoral thesis, submitted to the University of London, England, used the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) records to reconstruct weather patterns from 1714 to 1952. These remarkable records, undoubtedly unique in length and detail of any single archive in the world, cover over 300 years and include vital descriptions of the natural environment. A major problem in our environmental policy decisions is to determine natural patterns so that we can accurately ascertain the role of humans in change. This must not assume that what humans do is unnatural, but if we are to modify our behaviour in ways that are economically and socially restricting, it is crucial to
know that it is scientifically justified.
The daily weather entries and meteorological journals of the HBC are a direct measure of the extent to which climate changes beyond human interference. They illustrate that much greater variations were occurring long before industrialization, the current culprit for the production of excess Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and the 'villain' in the prevailing wisdom of global warming. A measure of the inanity of this position is that, when I began my research and teaching, the prevailing wisdom was that the world was heading for another Ice Age. From 1940 to 1980, a period during which human production of CO2 increased the most, global temperature went down. This shows that the prevailing wisdom (the so-called 'consensus') is not scientific fact and that CO2 is not the culprit. In the rush to judgment and in pursuit of
political agenda, extensive scientific information and pure logic have been rejected in this situation.
I would not protest so loudly or fight so hard over the issue of human-induced global warming if the difference between realities and popular wisdom were academic. They are not! Water vapour is 97% of the Greenhouse Effect by volume and over 50% by impact yet variations in this substance are completely ignored in the climate models that constitute the very foundation of the Kyoto Accord. CO2, methane and nitrous oxide are less than 3% by volume, yet receive all the attention. The Canadian government has declared CO2 a 'pollutant' when, in reality, it is a naturally occurring gas on which plants, and therefore all animal life, including humans, depend.
The sun is the source of virtually all energy on Earth and fractional changes in its output change the global energy balance. Many studies show that temperature changes over millennia, and even in the past 100 years, are mostly explained by changes in solar radiance, yet this scientific information is ignored by the bureaucrats who direct global (UN - IPCC) and national (Environment Canada) policy.
Regrettably, Environment Canada has carried out what amounts to a campaign of propaganda - attacking climate scientists who question the government's position and funding unqualified people and agencies to support official doctrine. As I told a senior bureaucrat over 20 years ago, while it is difficult to convince a Cabinet Minister of a position, it is an even greater problem once you have convinced them. You are now committed to maintaining that position even as scientific evidence mounts against it. Consequently, it is serious mistake to rely primarily on scientific research done by bureaucrats; their conclusions will inevitably be more about supporting a pre-determined political agenda than in determining scientific truth - essentially, science is prevented from being objectively scientific. As one of the leading climate specialists in the world, MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen said about global warming several years ago, the supposed 'consensus' was reached before the research had even begun.
Environment Canada are now on a destructive treadmill of thwarting science by hiding the intense controversy that exists in the climate science community about the validity of the very foundation of the Kyoto Accord. This is leading many well-meaning Parliamentarians and other Canadian leaders into potentially disastrous policies decisions. As you can see by examining the attached open letter, many prominent climate experts from Canada and around the world share my belief in the crucial importance of basing environmental policy in this area on a far more comprehensive understanding of the underlying
science. Environment Canada has prevented this understanding from developing among government leaders and the public-at-large by actively blocking participation of these experts in the consultative process to date - a situation I have watched grow over 30 years.
Sir George Simpson, the Governor of the HBC responsible for its growth into the greatest multinational company in history, knew that precise data was essential to making the right decisions. He insisted the records were accurate, continuous and presented to the decision-makers in London as soon as possible. He would not have tolerated the sort of interference or distortion we now see on a continual basis from Environment Canada on the climate change issue. If you are to become Canada's next Prime Minister, I, and many other scientists, who have devoted our lives to working to understand and protect the environment, request that you instruct your government to correct this deplorable situation. As explained in the attached open letter, many of us are more than willing to provide you and your staff with the information necessary to understand what climate science really tells us about this crucially important and complex issue.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Dr. Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant
Victoria, British Columbia
28 Years Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg