________________________________

From: Ross McKitrick [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:20 AM
To: Steve Gregory
Subject: Re: FW: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...


Dear Steve

Thank you for your note. The Fraser Institute did not receive any money
from any firms, certainly not Exxon or any others listed by Mr Ellis,
for the ISPM. (As for that, what people don't understand is that all the
climate policy proposals before the US government right now will be a
financial boon to major fossil energy producers if passed. Cap and trade
as configured in those proposals is simply a legalized cartel with the
scarcity rents (in this case emission permits) handed to the incumbent
firms. Energy firms are not out there fighting against climate policy,
they are lobbying for cap and trade). In any case, the Fraser Institute
did not seek or get any funding from any firms--energy or otherwise--for
this project.

The ISPM is not, as he suggests, a summary of the IPCC Summary for
Policymakers. It is a summary of the Second Order Draft of the full IPCC
Working Group I report as it stood in June 2006, at the close of
scientific review. We used this as the best estimate of the final
wording of the full IPCC report, which is due out in early May. We
explain this in the ISPM. 

We also explain that the statement of Overall Conclusions represents the
views of the writing team. Judgments about whether climate changes are
good or bad are not mere emotion. The IPCC report devotes many pages to
discussions of things like storms, extreme weather, precipitation, heat
waves, sea levels, etc, because these are the things people worry about
in connection with climate change. Ambiguity about trends in these
things implies ambiguity about whether potential problems or benefits
will arise. 

The "90%" probability statement was arrived at by a vote among
bureaucrats at a meeting in Paris. I would not put much emphasis on the
specific number: different studies, different methods and different
assumptions imply very different numbers. The IPCC relies heavily on a
single model-based methodology. The discussion of this is in the
detection and attribution chapter in the IPCC report, which we summarize
in detail in the ISPM. 

The kinds of policies put forward to address CO2 emissions are different
from those that address air pollution, and to some extent are rivals.
This is especially true in 3rd World settings, where the main health
threat is indoor air pollution from burning wood and dung in open indoor
fires. The first step to improving air pollution for most of the poor
people in the world is creating an electricity grid with
fossil-generated power. I have a short magazine article about this at:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/particles.pdf. So the decision
about climate policy can't be subsumed under general air pollution
policy. Choices do have to be made. One of the main motivations behind
the ISPM is to get interested people to read the full IPCC report
itself, not merely the SPM published in Paris in February. The more
people grapple with the details, in all their complexity, the more
likely we will be in a position to make sound policy choices.

Yours truly,


Dr. Ross McKitrick
- Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
- Department of Economics
- University of Guelph
- 519-824-4120 x52532
- http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html



Steve Gregory wrote: 

	Dear Doctor McKitrick,
	
	First I would like to introduce myself, my name is Steve Gregory
and I
	am a Production Engineer for an electronics comapany in Tulsa,
Oklahoma
	called OAI Electronics.
	
	I belong to a email forum that is hosted by the IPC (Institute
for
	Printed Circuits) called Environet, which discusses
environmental issues
	as they relate to our industry. We occasionally get into other
	environmental topics as well, as you can read in the exchange
below.
	
	I was wondering if you could comment on Brian Ellis's reply.
	
	Kind regards,
	
	Steve Gregory
	Production Engineer
	OAI Electronics
	6960 East 12th Street
	Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112
	
	(918) 836-9077
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:10 AM
	To: Environmental Issues; Steve Gregory
	Subject: Re: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
	
	Firstly, let me quote the last sentence of the ES:
	"Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of
uncertainty
	as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate
change,
	and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing."
	
	The IPCC report allows "an unavoidable element of uncertainty"
by
	equating "very likely" to a 90 percentile probability.
Furthermore, it
	quotes the ranges of different scenarios. It is therefore "very
likely" 
	than a part of the climate change, but not all of it, is
anthropogenic. 
	This is therefore not contradictory.
	
	Whether or not it is a good or bad thing depends on where you
are. It is
	very personal and such a statement has NO place in what is
purported to
	be a purely scientific assessment. When I see emotional
interpretations,
	then credibility flies out the window.
	
	Then, when I see "Our work is financed by tax-deductible
contributions
	from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations."
without
	names, I think of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and their
offshoots etc.
	
	as being possible major contributors. Who bites the hand that
feeds
	them? Compare this with
	http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
	
	Yes, there are still many naysayers. I await, with impatience,
the full
	IPCC scientific report which, hopefully, will be published next
month. 
	Until that comes out, we have no yardstick by which to measure
the
	veracity of the modelling (and neither have the writers of this
report,
	which is based essentially on a 20 page summary, not the ~500
pages of
	the full report).
	
	Finally, whether climate change is partially anthropogenic or
not - and
	I believe it is from all the evidence I have seen - there is an
even
	more compelling reason to cut down on using fossil fuels: public
health.
	
	I'm sure I've touched on this before, but see here
	
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/climate_change.htm#Public%20health
	if you wish to know more.
	
	Brian
	
	Steve Gregory wrote:
	  

		I was given the link below to read, and it credibly
dicusses another 
		point of view about "global warming".  I cannot just
dismiss this
		    

	paper.
	  

		It seems well supported by some prominent researchers
and is backed-up
		    

	
	  

		by data. I just wonder what some of you think?
		
		-Steve Gregory-
		
		http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf