Mr. Milloy,

In November 2002 I sent an email to most of the members of the Canadian government questioning their decision to endorse the Kyoto protocol.  The few who actually replied simply referred me to the Government of Canada Climate Change website.  However, much to my surprise today I received the following reply from the office of David Anderson, Canada's minister of the environment.  I was also surprised when in his letter he stated that the "skeptics" of climate change have limited expertise and are guilty of "selective use of a few scientific papers".  Not only that, their arguments have been "thoroughly refuted by the broader global science."  Of course the IPCC's conclusions are beyond reproach and their climate models are just fine, thank you very much.  Well, you can read the whole reply for yourself, which I have attached to this email. 
 
The powers of Junk Science are strong indeed.

[Signed]

Response received:

Subject: Au nom de David Anderson - On behalf of David Anderson

Dear [identification omitted by editor]:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning climate change.

Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental issues facing Canada and the global community.  The choices we make today will determine the health of our environment for the next century.  By working together towards a common goal, nations of the world can successfully address this challenge.  That is why, on December 17, 2002, the Government of Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol.  A copy of the speech that I delivered at that time is available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/minister/speeches/2002/021217_s_e.htm.  I am also attaching an information supplement that outlines what the federal government is doing to address climate change.

Climate change science is complex science.  It deals with the challenging task of understanding how the planet works:  something that humans may never fully understand.  It is a task that involves many different scientific disciplines and requires a good understanding of how the different components of the earth's climate system fit and work together.   Each new piece of information must be carefully considered within the context of the large body of related knowledge that has already been amassed over the decades.  That body of science now involves more than 20,000 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals.  Since few, if any, scientists have the individual expertise to understand all of that science, it demands collaboration amongst the many different experts, and a need to periodically sit back and communally assess the state of the science.

That is a process that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (IPCC) has undertaken three times since 1990 - an activity that has involved several thousand scientific experts from some 80 countries and the full range of related scientific disciplines.  While some insist on arguing that the IPCC process is flawed, last year, the US National Academy of Sciences sent a message to President Bush strongly endorsing the quality of the IPCC assessments.  National academies of science in at least 17 other countries have said the same.

However, there are those who disagree with the information provided by the IPCC and these national academies and use various means to communicate their dissension.  It is within this context that we must then assess the validity of the arguments raised by these skeptics.  First, while some of the skeptics have no background expertise on climate change, some are individuals who may have some expertise within one or more of the sub-disciplines involved in climate change science, but not beyond that.  Also, their arguments are largely based on a very selective use of a few scientific papers, often related to disciplines outside of their area of expertise - a bit like trying to put together a giant jigsaw puzzle with only a few of the thousands of pieces.  Most of their arguments have been thoroughly refuted by the broader global science, yet continue to be presented to the public as solid evidence. 

The conclusion of the IPCC assessment scientists, among other things, is that, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, the past century was likely the warmest of the past millennium, the 1990s was the warmest decade of the period, and 1998 the single warmest year.  Together with model studies of natural variability, these results suggest that the 0.6°C warming over the past century cannot be explained by natural variability (which includes factors such as the sun's natural variability, the effect of volcanic eruption, natural climate cycle; please visit the Internet Web site given below for further details).

By comparison, model simulations using human influences through increased greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations reproduce the trends of the past 50 years remarkably well.  Hence, they conclude that most of the warming during the past 50 years is likely due to human activities.  They also project that continued human influences will add, within the next 100 years, a further 1.4 to 5.8°°C to the warming observed to date.  Even at the lower end of this range, the warming would very likely be unprecedented in at least the past 10,000 years, based on paleoclimate data.

For more information, I would encourage you to read the responses to frequently asked questions (FAQ) about climate change provided by Environment Canada experts.  These responses are largely based on the most recent IPCC assessment (a process that benefited from the input of 108 Canadian experts).  These FAQs are available at the following Internet Web site: http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/saib/climate/FAQ_2002/index_e.html .

In addition, if you wish, you can visit the Internet Web site of the IPCC at the following address:  www.ipcc.ch .

We must all work together towards protecting the world from the effects of climate change, and I hope I can count on you to do your part in this national project in the years ahead.

Yours sincerely,


Original signed by:
David Anderson, P.C., M.P.


Attachment:

INFORMATION SUPPLEMENT