Kyoto: An Open Letter to the European Governments and the European Commission

Last week 60 accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines wrote an open letter to the Canadian Prime Minister. They wrote to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the […] government’s climate-change plans.

Without having spoken with these experts I would expect the exact same review to be relevant in Europe so that European governments do not squander the billions of Euro’s earmarked “for implementation of the protocol,” which is what will happen in Canada “without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.”

The problem is very clear since “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” as well as all of Europe’s “climate policies are based.”

The 60 experts, many of whom are European, go on to say that “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.”

Some very interesting statements that should put an immediate halt to Europe’s Kyoto policies, and a statement that is worth repeating – “delaying implementation of Kyoto […] would be insignificant.”

The experts’ opinion is that “while the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy.”

The fact is that “the study of global climate change is,” as the Canadian Prime Minister himself has said, an “emerging science,” and “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.”

This is definitely worth repeating: “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.”

It is important that European governments (as well as governments around the world) formulate “sensible science-based policy” however difficult this may be when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. Even though these loud voices have publicly admitted that they have to balance between telling the truth vs telling their story. And Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, has described his former organization as “a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics.”

However, if the Canadian or European governments follow the advice of the 60 experts “by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians” and Europeans “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.”

The experts conclude:

“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.

One can only hope that either the Canadian PM takes up these experts’ proposal, or that they will extend their cooperation to any European government willing to setup “balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions.”


There is no need for a formal proof of the cause of climate change. The goal is not to improve the environment. The goal is to make people feel guilty. Greenpeace will even falsify data to make people or corporations feel guilty. As Fjordman indicated, Europe is not allowed to love itself. Is there any better way not to love yourself than by feeling guilty? As long as you are spreading guilt, you're ok.

Check out how the environmentalists (and leftists) formulate their sentences, articles. They go high on guilt. Any individual that lives on his personal guilt, gets in a downward spiral. A society is no different.

a better discussion is why...

some political movements seemingly need as much hysteria and drama as can be mustered.   It seems to go beyond winning an argument, beyond mobilizing "their" side, but almost as a psychological imperative.