Top Climate Scientists Denounce Canadian Government's Research Funding Cuts

Mon, 2007-11-05 11:34Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Top Climate Scientists Denounce Canadian Government's Research Funding Cuts

So, what do you do when the world's top scientists are telling you that there is an impending crisis that must be dealt with immediately?

If you're the government of Canada, the answer is to cut the funding for those scientists.

Apparently its easier to stifle the problem than deal with it.

A news report out yesterday has top climate scientists in Canada standing up and putting the government on notice:

Nobel Prize-winning scientists from Canada say the Harper government is failing to protect the country from the dangers of global warming because it has shut down a federal climate change research network and blocked new studies on the impact of rising greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.”


From a fellow IPCC scientist, and co-recipient of the Nobel Peace prize:

"I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer."

Luckily for us, we didn't elect these scientists, who've just been ejected from their funding gravy train for their pet project. We elected Stephen Harper, who's approval ratings just keep climbing. How's that for an Inconvenient Truth?

What's the scientist's name, Rob? What actual part did he or she play in the IPCC?

Is participation in the IPCC your idea of an impeccable scientific pedigreed, VJ?

The IPCC was set up to make the case for human-induced global warming. This is the Definition of Climate Change from The UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992:

“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

With these marching orders, is it any wonder the IPCC comes to fore-ordained conclusions? This is no objective scientific body exmaining climate change; it is a special interest group with an agenda. It is why a growing number of legitimate climate scientists are divorcing themselves from this fraudulent outfit.

It is the INTERGOVERMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. Its members are appointed by governments, many of which, for their own reasons, subscribe to global warming hsyteria. Governments disposed to AGW are not going to appoint people to the IPCC who are sceptical of it.

The scientist in question is well-known as a "contrarian" (see my post further down).

It is amazing to me that people continue to suggest that a huge collaboration such as the IPCC could be some sort of conspiracy to dupe the world into -- what, exactly? For what possible reason would all these governments be in cahoots? The panel itself was reviewing the peer-reviewed literature on both sides of the issue. The trouble is, there was precious little on the "It's not AGW" side (see the near riot over Oreskes' (sp?) findings). Even Christy concedes the point that AGW is a fact, he is only sceptical about the DEGREE.

I am, however, intrigued by your statement that "growing number of legitimate climate scientists are divorcing themselves from this fraudulent outfit." Can you provide a list & time line? Or at least a link to something reporting the phenomenon? In the interests of fair play, I'd like to hear what they have to say.


The IPCC is an extension of the UN; they are not some independent body. The UN stands to make a lot of money through cap and trade schemes. Developing countries stand to make a lot of money trading the excess credits they have to developed countries, such as Canada, for the right to emit CO2 above their quotas. This is pure redistribution of wealth. The middle men who run these trading scams will make millions by facilitaing the trade. The middle men of course will be appointed by the UN; a seriously corupt organization. Open your eyes; the global warming hype is driven by greed. Keep in mind AGW is a hypothesis without any evidence from reviewed scientific tests. The IPCC models can't even predit historical observed climate changes accurately; a must in true science. Until there is evidence proven evidence to support this theory; AGW is an educated guess at best.

Rob writes "...We elected Stephen Harper..." Rob is a political blogger in North Dakota, so either he is pretending to be a Canadian, or he is confessing that Harper's minority government was elected with the help of Americans. So, Rob, did Americans interfere in Canada's last election?

Deeply disturbing if its the later of those options.....

Are you idiots retarded, or what?

And, no Steve L., I don't have a blog. As you have probably noticed by now, "VJ" is a little -- how can I put this delicately? -- "special".

He has somehow gotten it into his dim little head that someone on the Internet, also named "Rob", I think, has a blog somewhere. In VJ's addled mind, this can only mean that since Rob is such a unique name(!), that I must be that person. Either that, or all people named Rob must be in a conspiracy against him. Who knows or cares?

Come to think it, calling VJ an idiot is a bit of an understatement, and it unfairly makes actual idiots look worse than they are.

Come on, eh, I'm Rob the Canadian guy, are you clueless? You think I can’t blog Tory? I’m brutal at it, hosers. I was sitting on the chesterfield toping up my double-double from a glass of homo (and a two-four for later), spindling up a Tim’s serviette and thinking about how I deked you out on that one. You’ve got buggar-all.

Holy Shit! That guy has his own blog? How can someone who doesn't read have a blog? [PS. Rob's link is to John Christy's drivel in the Wall Street Journal, the second time he's provided that URL. He doesn't seem to be able to read it, though.]

At some point we managed to link a comment that was word-for-word identical to a post on that blog in North Dakota. I have in the past pointed out to Rob that Canadians spell it "centre", and don't use words like "moonbat" in conversation.

I can't find the URL for Rob's blog, VJ. Can you help?

... and I generally employ the term "moonbat" when referring to rocket-scientists like "FEMACK". Terms such as "twit" or "feather-brained dimwit" will fit the bill just as nicely, if you prefer.

It seems the braintrust of VJ/FEMACK have brilliantly concluded that any one of the 6 billion people on the planet sharing the name "Rob", must be the same person. Apparently, this is what passes for "logic" following a prefrontal lobotomy.

Never mind the fact that their completely moronic theory is utterly irrelevant to the topic -- thus far they haven't let moronic irrelevance get in their way.

Let's hear it for perseverance!

I don't particularly care that someone calls me names. Doesn't really have much of an impact, especially considering the source.

The issue back then was that someone calling him/herself "Rob" posted the same comments -- verbatim -- at desmogblog & at, which (coincidentally) is run by someone named "Rob", who turns out to be Rob Port. There has been no reason to suppose that there are TWO "Rob"'s posting at both sites.

If you are Canadian, Rob, you are hereby invited to reveal your true identity and clarify the whole issue. I will even take the first step: I am Fern Mackenzie, and I live in the Ottawa area. If you are NOT Rob Port of Bismarck, ND, by all means use this opportunity to clear the air.

Rob's pretty obvious effort to wriggle out of this tends to finish off whatever was left of his "credibility."

This is bad for a couple of reasons. I was hoping Rob = EH, meaning that I'd only encountered one such ignoranus. I guess this means there are two. It means that an extremely unethical know-not runs a blog and presumably some people think he has something worthwhile to say. And it means that only crickets will be chirping on a different thread where I thought he was going to have to eat some of his most stupid words. Still, it's better now that I won't waste time trying to help him become a better skeptic. Thanks for that.

"Wriggle out" of what, exactly?

And, pray tell, how is any of that relevant?

It seems to me that if anyone is "wriggling out" of anything, it is the childish people who continue pursue they're addled fantasy that all people named "Rob" are the same person.

It is you who is attempting (very lamely, I might add) to distract from the very obvious fact that here we have an IPCC panel member, and climate scientist who happens to also be a skeptic. Hence, you have no "consensus" as you endlessly claim.

But please, keep playing your puerile games. It's all you've got left, apparently.

(Still censoring comments, are you?)

Oh, so now Rob wants to stick to the point. Is that a first? Have his insults ever been on point? Anything he's said? Unfortunately, he hasn't figured out that the point of this thread is supposed to be about the Canadian research program and its scientists complaining that the Canadian climate change research budget is getting cut. Instead of hijacking the threads here, Rob, why don't you get your own blog or something?

I don't know who the Rob posting on this website is, but I'm the Rob from Minot (Not Bismarck) North Dakota who runs Say Anything.

I wasn't even aware that this site existed until someone emailed me about my comments on this site. He said in the email that he saw I'd posted at "desmogblog" last night and wanted to ask my questions, and I had to respond saying that I didn't even know what "desmogblog" is.

Whoever the Rob on this site is, he isn't me. But I'm a little flattered that someone would confuse me with him.

It's not flattery. He's an obnoxious troll.

If Rob was Canadian he wouldn't have made the blunder of saying "we" elected Steven Harper as Prime Minister.
Any "moonbat" would know that Canada uses the British Parlimentary system. There is no separate election for Prime Minister.
Also, Mr Harper and his party are NOT gaining popularity.
According to the most recent polls they are holding steady, percentage-wise, in the mid 30 range. As they have been for weeks.
What a maroon!

Hey Tom, for me it doesn't really matter if he's Canadian or not. (Perhaps his IP address could clear that up.) Um, I take that back -- deliberate falsehoods matter. Also important is the word-for-word match to someone named Rob on another site run by a guy named Rob -- that suggests he's a plagiarist or a spammer.

it's his reluctance to clarify. What I can't figure out is if this is an error of identification, why not just step up and provide a bit of proof? It would be very simple, and I'd be happy to apologize for my error. If not, and he really is the guy at, why it is so important to him that we believe he's Canadian?

As you seem to have missed the original query some time ago, it went like this: The post that appeared here and at was posted there first by Rob Post (as "Rob"), owner of the blog, and then copied to desmogblog and another one somewhere (all time-coded), again as "Rob". This led me to suppose that it was written by Rob Post, a reasonable assumption I think. The point was (and is) if he is ready to own up to writing it there, why bother to deny the connection? It doesn't matter to me if he's a Republican from North Dakota and supports Fred Thompson. I'm a Green/NDP (provincially) in eastern Ontario & I think Fred Thompson should stick to Law & Order. So what?

Bottom line, it doesn't matter a whole lot where he's from. But I do wish he'd be straight about it one way or the other. It would do wonders for his credibility.


All very interesting, but ultimately not news. John Christy pops up regularly with Glenn Beck, TGGWS, and so on. He seems to think Michael Crichton is pretty nifty, too. I think you would have to concede, however, that he is not claiming NO AGW effect, rather is only sceptical about the degree of impact it is having. Two statements pulled from Wikipedia help to make his position more clear:

"It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way." (Public Radio interview)

Christy has also said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."

He is correct in stating that the climate systems of an entire planet are overwhelmingly complex and subtle, very humbling to try to make sense of it all. But you don't need to know all the laws of gravity and momentum to deduce it's a good idea to get out of the way of a boulder rolling down a hill. People who do little else but study those subtleties and look for interrelationships and connections are starting to see the Big Picture -- still through a glass darkly, but it's taking shape. How long do we wait before doing something? Until it's in high definition?



it is a bit like deniers from Britain and such swooping in to complain about Canadian warts, like how mean we are to the Friends of Science. See comments ---

I couldn't post here yesterday, not sure why; My computer has problems. This Rob who claims to be Canadian also has an obnoxious habit of accusing various people of being stoned on various drugs, and I think he should be banned for that. I'm inclined to think there is just the one Rob, and the first one who posted was definitely the one from North Dakota. But whether there are two Robs or one, they have yet to make a comment that was worth reading; and they are both dishonest.

climate change, IPCC

Human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” IPCC WGII AR5

Every five years or so thousands of scientists from around the world release a major report on the...

read more