For a while, it looked like Environment Canada would do what climate experts have long demanded -- conduct an unbiased examination of the state of the science behind the Kyoto Accord. In mid-May, the department issued a request for proposals for the performance of a study that would:

1. Review relevant documents that Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) provides on the state of climate change science at MSC, in Canada, and internationally to build a comparative picture of the Canadian situation in a national and international context.

2. Conduct a series of executive interviews with stakeholder organizations that have an interest in climate change research ...; and

3. Based on the information collected, ... produce a written draft report including their findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Environment Canada was less interested in the views of stakeholders than it claimed, however. The deadline for the receipt of proposals to do the study was only three days before the final report’s due date, allowing too little time to do such a report. The study must have already been well underway long before the request for proposals was even issued; the request for proposal was merely a formality.

The contract stipulated that the contractor was to base its survey of climate science on documents provided by MSC. But MSC is part of Environment Canada, an organization that is well-known for ignoring any science that does not support its political agenda. MSC repeatedly dismisses those who question official government science as unqualified contrarians. But as the list of climate experts who recently signed an open letter to Paul Martin over flaws in Kyoto’s science reveals, MSC’s condemnation is absurd. Many of the signatories are far better qualified to comment on climate science than the MSC’s civil servants.

This sort of science suppression in the Kyoto file has been going on for years. In his recent keynote speech at the Canadian Meteorological and Ocean Society’s Ottawa Congress, Environment Minister David Anderson boasted, Our country went through a full and active public debate last year on the decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. But the public, including the media and independent experts in climate science, economics and energy engineering, were specifically excluded from the June, 2002, cross-Canada Kyoto consultation the government holds up as their example of full and active debate. Instead, the government chose the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation and activists from other lobby groups to prop up the government view of the science and intimidate those who questioned Kyoto’s foundation.

In that same speech, Mr. Anderson asserted: As Minister of the Environment, I depend on good science to help me make policy decisions and explain them to my colleagues in Cabinet and indeed Canadians at large.

But his narrow definition of excellence in science seems to extend only to science that supports his department’s point of view. And his frequent references to scientific consensus do not ring true, either -- in numerous publications, respected scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT and physicist Freeman Dyson have explained that we are many years away from understanding the Earth’s climate system well enough to determine a need to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.

So why is Environment Canada trying so hard to keep the door firmly closed on the climate science debate in Canada? The reason is simple. If Canadians come to realize that leading experts contest many of the government’s confident statements about Kyoto science, support for the accord will quickly wither and the public will want to see tax dollars spent on more worthwhile, and better understood, problems.

Mr. Martin has had the courage to criticize the federal government for severely mishandling the Kyoto file in its dealings with the provinces and for the absence of an implementation plan before ratification. If he is to lead the next government, he must also open the door to the many climate scientists shut out of the process to date.

With the next series of UN meeting to set targets for the second Kyoto implementation phase (i.e., post 2012) only two years away, Mr. Martin’s job will need to move quickly if Canada is to handle the job properly this time around.

The Government Response and Ken Green’s Rebuttal

If there has been a suppression of contrary scientific views to the conclusion of the International Panel for Climate Change, how is it that Dr. Kenneth Green was an expert reviewer for the International Panel on Climate Change 2001 Working Group I science report? The simple fact is that the vast majority of scientists on the IPCC disagreed with Dr. Green. Disagreement with a small minority of scientists does not mean suppression of opinion. Input was clearly sought from all sides in assembling the global scientific consensus on climate change.

Obviously, we do not, nor is it likely we ever will, know everything there is to know about climate change, so we must base our decisions on the best science available. Dr. Green and the ideological groups he works with refuse to accept this, or that the findings of the IPCC represent the consensus view of the international scientific community.

This is apparent not only to the government of Canada, but to the national academies of 17 nations, including the United States, which also endorsed the credibility of the IPCC assessment report. Literally dozens of Nobel Prize laureates have also endorsed the IPCC’s findings.

Our scientific knowledge of climate change and the factors that contribute to climate change continues to grow. As it does, Canadians can be assured that the Government of Canada’s climate change policies will be based on science and the need for prudent, reasonable and cost-effective actions to protect against this threat to the health and safety of Canadians.

David Anderson, PC, MP, Minister of the Environment, Ottawa.

********

Kenneth Green responds:

David Anderson’s response fails to address the key point of my column, which is not about the United Nations climate panel, but is about the actions of Environment Canada. The process being run by Environment Canada to produce a report representing the state of scientific understanding about climate change is marred by a lack of meaningful transparency. Further, the authors of the report seem to be using selective consultation of pro-Kyoto scientists to downplay legitimate criticisms of climate science that would show the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol to be an act of premature foolhardiness.

Further, in trying to appeal to consensus and authority, Minister Anderson shows he does not understand the scientific process. Science is about asking questions, and showing contradictions in the data that disprove theories. It’s not about taking votes, or trotting out people with Nobel prizes. And if it were such a contest, Minister Anderson would lose badly: More than 15,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, stating, There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Minister Anderson assures Canadians that our climate change policy will be based on science, but the actions of Environment Canada and the Chretien government suggest otherwise. Bolstering support for the Kyoto Protocol with a report that creates a false sense of scientific consensus, and downplays the key uncertainties and internal contradictions of climate science, will only lead to the misinvestment of scarce public resources needed to protect the health, safety and environmental quality of all Canadians. We face many health and environmental challenges in Canada and can ill afford such misinvestment. The Minister should instruct his staff to hear the full spectrum of voices on climate science, and not to cherry-pick their consultees.