Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:28 pm    Post subject: Letter from Environment Canada Reply with quote

1+1 Environment
Canada
MAR 3 1 2009
Environnement
Canada
Ms. Eve Stevens
eve_stevens84@sympatico.ca
Dear Ms. Stevens:
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Jim Prentice,
I am responding to your email message of February 18, concerning climate
change science.
For policy-makers, one of the challenges in developing policy on science-based
issues is to base this policy on "sound science." Thousands of scientists around
the world are undertaking research relevant to climate change, and innumerable
new scientific papers are published in the scientific literature each year. The
generally accepted method for evaluating this evolving body of knowledge
is through a process of formal scientific assessment. The prerequisite for
inclusion in such an assessment is that the science has been peer reviewed
and is publicly available.
Through the assessment process, the results of any single scientist or paper
are put in context within the broader information base. I believe that the best
process for evaluating the scientific literature on climate change is that of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The rigorous scientific
assessment process used by the Panel is widely acknowledged by the scientific
community, and has been endorsed by National Academies of Science from
many countries around the world, including Canada. The Government of Canada
believes that Canada is served better by having this country's distinguished and
well-respected climate experts contribute to the authoritative and rigorous
scientific assessments of the Panel, than by undertaking a more limited Canadian
scientific assessment or "audit" as you request.
The value of the Panel assessment process, as with other assessment
processes on science issues of public interest, is in the consensus building that
occurs during the preparation of assessment reports. This "consensus" does
not mean that there is unanimity among scientists, but rather that the authors
of the assessment agree that their report is a fair representation of the state of
scientific understanding at that point in time. Individual papers and individual
scientists may disagree with the conclusions, but the conclusions are consistent
with the larger body of literature that exists.
The most recent Panel assessment report was published in 2007. One of
the conclusions of this report was that warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, that most of the warming since the mid-20th century is very likely
Canada www.ec.gc.ca
due to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse ~~ses arisin
from human activity, and that of these gases, carbon dioxide has l'ik(l\th'e' ;"
greatest impact.
The Government of Canada is very concerned about climate change, and there
is more than enough scientific evidence to warrant aggressive action to deal with
the problem.
I hope that the foregoing information is of assistance.
Sincerely,
Brian T. Gray, Ph.D.
Assistant Deputy Minister
Science and Technology Branch
Environment Canada

I have a serious problem with the fact that our government will only look at data from the IPCC, a UN political body whose mandate is to prove global warming. Where the summary is not written by scientists and is not peer reviewed. I have have written back to Jim telling him this but surely he should know. I will also write to Mr Harper since he says his emails are down.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian T. Gray wrote:
...Through the assessment process, the results of any single scientist or paper are put in context within the broader information base. I believe that the best process for evaluating the scientific literature on climate change is that of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...

Wow. Just ... wow. It's not like there was much doubt about their official position, but I'm suprised that they point to the IPCC as the final arbiter of Truth. Thanks for sharing, Eveable.
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is time that we, the non vocal majority of people who do not believe in man made global warming, start making some noise. I was quite sure that Stephen Harper is not an AGW believer but the believers are vocal. Look what happened to Rona Ambrose. She is a sensible person and made sensible remarks about Kyoto. She was shuffled out of the Environment position and now we have a global warming alarmist in there.
I have written to Stephen Harper and to my MP. I refuse to have my tax money spent on salaries for global warming alarmists.
WBD





Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 46
Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7Reputation: 38.7

PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can't expect to get any other reply from government. Most in power know what the score is but will not admit to any belief that could be used against them in an election.

I've listened closely to enough radio interviews of skeptical scientists to have heard this said and at other times inferred.

I don't think anything will change until the A.W.G. Industrial Complex comes crashing down.
Only then will the politicians change their tune.

Even now though you can see them hedging with long time frames for action and most of the money to be spent many years from now hoping by then it won't need to be spent.


Bill in Calgary
fkarcha





Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 31
Reputation: 33.3Reputation: 33.3Reputation: 33.3
votes: 3
Location: Winnipeg, MB

PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps, if you do not trust the synthesis of the IPCC, you could provide a similar synthesis of literature -- as scientifically rigorous as the literature reviewed by the IPCC -- that points to some another trend, or no trend?
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That has been done by the NIPCC and it is peer reviewed and published,
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.sepp.org/publicatio.....b%2020.pdf
Big Tuna





Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 368
Reputation: 15
votes: 6

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eveable wrote:
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf


http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo.....amp;page=2

Quote:
ABC News showed Singer's most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense."
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But scientists say there is no "other side." The debate about global warming is over, they say.


You have to give them credit for a good try. No need to debate when the debate is over. The AGW scam has given science a black eye that it wil carry for a long time. And the politiians with their "taxes to prevent global warming"?? We knew they were crooks before but I am afraid this time they have lost all integrity. I am considering never voting again because I see no point. Our elected officials can tax us until we freeze to death in our homes and voting will make no difference.

This is a good read.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy......letter.pdf
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Letter from Environment Canada

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB