Letter to the editor of the Toronto Star (submitted but not published)

Date: January 2, 2007

Subject: Sierra Mistakes Abound

Re: "Consequences outweigh benefits" (letter) by Hugh Wilkins, Staff Lawyer, Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Toronto, published in the Star on January 3

To the editor:

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund (SLDF) lawyer engages in unjustified speculation about a number of issues, including the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), the group I Chair (“Consequences outweigh benefits”, Letter, 3/1/07). 

NRSP is not a lobby group (SLDF could easily confirm this as we are not listed in the Lobby Registration).  We are an organization dedicated to bringing good science to the public discussion concerning important environmental issues.  Our first campaign centers around climate change, surely the most skewed debate in modern science.  

The identities of our supporters are strictly confidential to protect the privacy of Canadians who have been generous enough to help us out.  No one wants the sort of attacks we have had to endure from extremists since launching in October, so naturally the names of those who donate to NRSP are not publicized.  The research scientists who assist us are funded by the taxpayer through such agencies as UNESCO, NSREC and CFCAS.  Their research, much of which contests the point of view being promulgated by groups such as the SLDF, is being done and papers published entirely independent of, and long preceding, the existence of NRSP.  We merely publicize the results of this work, something I am not surprised to hear ‘shocks' the groups who stand to gain from today's hysteria.

The risk analysis in the Stern report referenced by SLDF only looked at the downside of global warming and was not a cost/benefit study as is normal practice in economics. Not surprisingly, the report was thoroughly discredited by scientists and economists worldwide and Gordon Brown, British Chancellor of the Exchequer, who commissioned the report, essentially rejected it. Stern resigned shortly thereafter.

Finally, SLDF say that the climate change debate has been “wide open and extensive” – were that only true.  In reality, the debate has been so skewed to the side supported by alarmists that many of Canada's leading climate experts have been systematically barred from participating in public and government hearings.  For example the Conservative-led committee examining Bill C-288, the act to enable Kyoto, only invited scientists who supported current dogma on climate change to testify.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tim Ball

Chair – Natural Resources Stewardship Project

back to NRSP People