Members

On this page, you will find a list of members and supporters of Climate Realists of Victoria, B.C., and their reasons for becoming climate realists.

Patrick Hunt

BA, Royal Military College; former Royal Canadian Navy submariner; former MLA, Nova Scotia; Conservative candidate for Victoria in 2011 federal election; entrepreneur in the high-tech field for 35 years.

Why I am a climate realist

I began to look at climate change more closely in June 2004 when I observed two unrelated graphs in separate rooms at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller, Alberta.  One plotted atmospheric CO2 over 4.6 billion years of the earth’s existence and the other plotted the world’s average surface temperature over the same period. I walked back and forth between those two rooms at least 10 times to confirm my observation; there was NO correlation between the two graphs that I could observe!  There was no overlapping trendline. 

Afterwards, I began to research in earnest the correlation between CO2 and temperature over geological time.  What I found is there is a weak negative correlation of -0.19.  I then became aware of the elaborate efforts being made to silence anyone who dared question the supposed scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of global warming.  I realized that many of the arguments supporting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) narrative were not just questionable, but went against direct observation —remember the Michael Mann “hockey stick”, which showed temperatures soaring in the last few decades when temperatures were only gently rising.

Allan F. Kiernan, P.Eng.

Why I am a climate realist

I am a skeptic regarding carbon dioxide as the principal cause of global warming because, as an applied scientist myself, I have difficulty believing that other “scientists” would take a multi-variable, chaotic system like the earth’s climate and seize on a single minor variable (CO2) that happens to display some positive correlation with temperature only over the past 100 years, then build computer models that assign CO2 as the dominant variable, while treating the 50 other climate variables as “forcings” in an effort to match recent historical temperatures, and then try to predict future temperatures while ignoring the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics.

Paul MacRae

BA, University of Toronto; MA (English), University of Victoria. Worked for more than 30 years as an editor, reporter, editorial writer, reviewer and columnist for Canadian Press, Toronto Star, Toronto Globe and Mail, Bangkok Post, and Victoria Times Colonist. Left the Times Colonist in 2002 to take an MA in English at the University of Victoria; taught business and professional writing at UVic for 15 years before retiring in 2020. Author of two books, False Alarm: Global Warming—Facts Versus Fears (2010, Spring Bay Press) and Business and Professional Writing: A Basic Guide (2015, Broadview Press).

Why I am a climate realist

For several years I wrote a weekly column for the Times Colonist in which I was sometimes critical of environmentalism in general and the climate-change scare stories in particular. One 2007 column (see it here) contested a comment by a Vancouver-area MP that climate change was “the greatest environmental challenge the world has ever faced”–a statement that displays a profound ignorance of past human challenges and is frankly absurd. However, in a letter to the editor, UVic climate modeler Dr. Andrew Weaver accused me of “a woeful lack of scientific illiteracy” for daring to question the s0-called “consensus” that global warming would be a huge problem for humankind.

Although I’m not a scientist, my columns were always based in science and I considered myself far from “scientifically illiterate.” How, I wondered, could Weaver make a comment like this, especially since almost all scientifically literate people agree that science is never “certain” and “settled”? Except, apparently, for the realm of alarmist climate science, which is not to be challenged by non-scientists….

Average of the four major climate monitoring agencies from 2000-2010 shows almost no warming at a time when the IPCC claimed warming was “accelerating”. Source: Woodfortrees.org

I put on my journalist’s and academic’s hat (I was already teaching at UVic) and began some serious research into the issue of climate science. I discovered a lot of sound and fury but not a lot of empirical evidence for catastrophic future climate change; most of the fear-mongering was a result of computer climate models that invariably overstated current warming. Meanwhile, the decade 2000-2010 showed almost no warming–the temperature average was basically flat–at the same time as the IPCC claimed warming was “unequivocal” and the then-head of the IPCC declared in 2008 that warming was “accelerating.” I realized that alarmist climate scientists were not being straight with, or just outright deceiving, the public.

My outrage at these climate distortions led me to research and write a book, False Alarm: Global Warming Facts Versus Fears, which I self-published in 2010. It’s now more than a decade since False Alarm was published, but I would change almost nothing in the book today beyond noting that there was mild warming in the 2011-2021 decade.

What hasn’t changed? Alarmist climate scientists, environmentalists, politicians and the media continue to mislead the public about the “apocalyptic” dangers of the so-called “climate emergency,” based on highly dubious, mostly computer-generated “evidence” rooted in ideology, not facts.

Cameron Ross, Major-General (ret.), CMM, CD, rec

Cameron Ross, Major-General (ret’d), CMM, CD, rmc

BA, Royal Military College of Canada; 40 years of mostly operational and command experience in the Canadian Armed Forces; former UN Assistant Secretary General and Force Commander, UNDOF (Golan Heights between Syria and Israel); former Colonel of the Regiment, Lord Strathconas Horse (Royal Canadians); 12 years private sector with Emergo Group, Encana, and HCR Security International; former director on several NFP and private sector boards.

Why I am a climate realist

What is certain is that the climate is changing, and this change is impacting Canada. However, science and facts have, with absolute certainty, shown that the climate has changed over millions of years. Dinosaur remains in Alberta and glacial deposits in Ontario clearly show the impacts of changes in the climate tens of thousands of years ago. 

What is also certain is that human activity has greatly increased the level of pollution in an already fragile atmosphere. Efforts to reduce toxic pollutants such as methane, and nitrogen and sulphur oxides should be vigorously supported. However, the belief that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of climate change flies in the face of proven atmospheric data. My more learned Climate Realists colleagues have unequivocally proven to me that data gleaned from, for example, ice core samples from Antarctica to Greenland clearly show that there is absolutely no correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures.

With these realities, as a fiscal conservative, I am dismayed by the belief by all levels of government that to curtail fossil fuel use will magically stop climate change. Government policies of achieving net-zero by 2050 without supporting business plans squanders taxpayers’ money. This money would be better spent on adaptation programmes that would mitigate the impacts of severe flooding, forest fires, rising sea levels, etc. 

For these reasons, I support the goals of our Climate Realist group which are outlined on the ‘Home’ page of this website.

Ken Rowan

Honours BA; Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA); former president of Calgary CFA Society; 30-year career in the Investment/Finance industry, last 15 years as Managing Director of FirstEnergy Capital Corp in Calgary.

Why I am a climate realist

Key Principle: I don’t want to be a victim of a harmful authoritarian lie!  After 30-plus years of study and contemplation, it has become clear to me that “global warming” and its sequel “climate change”—including the alarmist half-brother “existential crisis”— is arguably the biggest worldwide hoax since the “Dutch Tulip Bubble” of the 1600’s.

Brief History: I was first aware of the growing media coverage of climate in the early 1990’s following the Rio Earth summit. I didn’t pay undue attention at the time because zealots hold conferences regularly.  To me, it appeared to be a bunch of “Greenpeace types” making noise.  I recalled the mid 1970’s cover of Time Magazine announcing the beginning of a “New Ice Age” and thought, “who knows what to believe?  I didn’t get too worked up about it.  

In the early 2000’s I was working in Calgary for an investment bank called FirstEnergy.  Jean Chretien was prime minister and had recently introduced a 25 cents/barrel carbon levy.  I didn’t like it at the time but it was relatively minor and I thought this was Chretien and the Liberals just paying lip service to the “global warming crowd.”  

During this early new millennium era we also had a lunchtime speaker (Alan MacRae, P.Eng., a consultant with Syncrude) come into our office and make a very compelling presentation about Dr. Michael Mann, the IPCC, and Mann’s “hockey stick” theory.  MacRae effectively demonstrated that Mann and his IPCC cohorts had doctored the scientific evidence and data to falsely conclude the earth was warming up at an alarming and unprecedented rate as a way to create this emerging so-called “apocalyptic crisis.”

This falsehood and coverup was subsequently fully exposed in the famous “ClimateGate” scandal of 2009.  The “global warming” movement was wounded by this scandal but not seriously.  The alarmists simply morphed the movement’s catchphrase from “global warming” into “climate change” and the “existential crisis.”

Following this period in the early 2000’s my awareness of the global warming/climate change movement was enhanced, but given that I was working hard as a managing director of an energy investment bank in a bull market for oil, I was too sidetracked to do much more thinking about the science of CO2….greenhouse gases….trapping heat, etc.  

Stephen Harper wanted to make Canada an energy superpower while he was PM so shrill cries from the climate-change movement didn’t impact me much. Fossil Fuels were a reality of life to me. They have done more to raise global living standards in the last 100 years than any other invention or technology and Canada produced as environmentally friendly and ethical barrel of oil as any jurisdiction on earth.

Everything seemed to change for the worse in 2015 when Justin Trudeau was elected PM.  Climate change was a central tenet in his ideology.  He changed the name of the “Ministry of the Environment” to the “Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.”  That got my attention (negatively).  His environment minister Catherine Mckenna stated in an interview  “The science is settled … and I have no time for deniers.”   

By then I was paying attention to the whole issue much more seriously and started doing a lot of reading.  My research included the likes of Tim Ball, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore, Bjorn Lomborg and several other prominent earth and climate scientists. To reduce their work and conclusions into a few bullet points is not a simple task but for me, here are a few takeaways:

1.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is a life-enhancing gas.
2.  The earth has had historical periods with much higher (multiple times more!) levels of CO2 than today with no serious negative effects.
3.  The earth has in the past 170 years emerged from a “little ice age” and the earth’s temperature has only risen approximately 1 degree Celsius since then.
4.  The earth has been several degrees warmer on average in the past, also with no significant negative effects.
5.  The sun has far more impact on the earth’s climate than CO2. Ocean currents and cloud cover also likely have more impact on climate than CO2.
6.  Think about the reality of 280 ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere rising in the past 100 years to 400 ppm. How likely is it that 120 ppm of a trace gas (remember, a life-enhancing trace gas) that currently constitutes one part in every 2,500 in the atmosphere can cause an apocalypse? Clearly not likely!
7.  The IPCC claims to be a “global scientific body” providing unbiased scientific research, conclusions and policy advice to governments. In reality, the IPCC appears to be a highly politicized organization that publishes alarmist conclusions for governments and the media. These alarmist conclusions are not even supported by the underlying research. Many prominent scientists like Patrick Moore and Judith Curry have criticized or quit the IPCC because they refused to kowtow to the official alarmist propaganda.  

Conclusion: My own view of fossil fuels is (not surprisingly) positive given that I spent the majority of my professional career immersed in the Canadian oil patch. Most economists will tell you that in the past century, the global standard of living has multiplied many times over, largely on the back of relatively cheap, efficient energy (namely, hydrocarbons).  

As a global citizenry we should be celebrating the existence of fossil fuels, not demonizing them!  If better alternatives were readily and cheaply available I’d be supportive. They are not!  The BP Statistical Review  (the bible of energy macro trends) still predicts that fossil fuels will form 80% of the global energy supply in 2050.  

We (Canadian citizens……..no, all global citizens) are being sold a falsehood backed by very faulty, erroneous science.  Our current government and the IPCC are trying to stifle any dissent by saying that “the science is settled” or that “97% of climate scientists agree” (a complete lie) and promoting disastrous green energy policies in a very authoritarian manner.  I’m doing my best to fight back by becoming a “Climate Realist.”

Maldwyn Thomas

Former Government of Canada Trade Commissioner and diplomat; served in diplomatic posts in eight countries in Europe and Asia, and in managerial positions in Ottawa.  Later held executive positions in the private sector in Canada and abroad and served as senior trade advisor to the United Nations Trade Centre in Geneva, Switzerland, specializing in developing-country issues.

Why I am a climate realist

I decided to join the Victoria Climate Realists’ group because I believe that it is important to help inform Canadians better about the facts of climate change and to support an open and intelligent public debate about this important topic.

I first began to take a closer look at climate change when I became aware of the elaborate efforts being made by government, the media, and others who should know better, to intimidate and silence anyone who questioned the orthodoxy that had developed around the subject, especially the reasons presented by the IPCC and governments in the Western world to explain the phenomenon, and when I realized that reliable scientific research did not support the theory of anthropogenic-driven climate change. 

I have also been alarmed by what I believe will be the grave economic consequences of the erroneous energy and climate policies now being imposed on their citizens by governments in the industrialized Western world, especially by the Canadian federal and provincial governments.  In a futile effort to prevent the climate from changing, as it always has and always will, our political leaders, aided and abetted by a compliant media and a short-sighted business community, and prodded by ill-informed “climate activists,” risk wrecking the economies of the countries they govern and impoverishing their citizens, especially the less-fortunate members of the community.  This suicidal policy needs to be reversed before irreparable damage is done to the fabric of our society.

Consequently, I am pleased to be a member of our informal group of concerned, mainly retired, and non-partisan citizens, who collectively possess an impressive array of skills and knowledge that will enable them to make a useful contribution to an intelligent public debate that is long overdue.

William C. Weston

Col (ret.), CD, BASc. Former Vice-President Administration, Aerospace Industries Association; Executive Director, Canadian Aviation Maintenance Council; consultant in aviation and aerospace.  

Why I am a climate realist

I am against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s objective of pursuing a Net-Zero Target by 2050 because of the disinformation being used and the scare tactics employed to convince the public (and scare the kids). Moreover, I believe that following such a target will be ruinous to our economy by having a deleterious effect on our fossil fuel energy sector.

Factors I’ve considered:

a.   Some international political forces wish to change the economic structure of the world by destroying the fossil-fuel industry and converting to wind and solar power. Canada has been identified as a target in the process.

b.   IPCC forecasting is done on computer models that use selective data. These models are hypothetical and not meant to be the basis of policy choices.

c.    There has been no cost-benefit analysis of the cost to the Canadian economy to reach a Net-Zero target.  It is estimated the cost will be in the trillions of dollars.

d.   Even if we reduced carbon emissions to zero, it would have an over-all effect on temperature of less than one per cent.

Ken Wilson

P. Eng. (ret’d), BASc (UBC, Civil), SM (MIT, Water Resources); former Water Resources Specialist with the B.C. Government; former British Columbia Land Surveyor (BCLS).

Why I am a climate realist

The short answer is that I wish to see major government policies being based on rational decision-making processes rather than on magical thinking or on a public hysteria that has been stoked by needless alarmism.

The long answer: When I was in Boston at MIT, between 1969 and 1971, broad environmental concerns were rapidly emerging among the general public and university students and staff about air quality, water quality, and groundwater quality, as well as about sustainability for the future.  The dimensions of the Love Canal industrial-waste site were just being realized. Lake Erie was declared “dead” because of industrial pollution from Buffalo.  Smog, which was already a chronic condition in Los Angeles, was now becoming common in Eastern cities like Boston in the summer.  In 1970, the U.S. created the Clean Air Act. This was followed in 1972 by the Clean Water Act.

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which predicted that by the end of the 1970’s hundreds of millions of people would have died from starvation.  The population of the world at the time was about 3.5 billion.

In 1971, the Club of Rome released the highlights of its Limits to Growth study.  Limits to Growth was a computer study of the consequences of exponential economic and population growth in a world with finite resources. The study concluded that by the 1990’s and the 2000’s, the world would have exhausted the supply of most industrial minerals, oil, and gas, and that food prices would be rising rapidly as rising population would overwhelm the output from the land suitable for agriculture.  

It was a grim forecast that had a major impact on the thinking of media outlets, academic institutions, leading industrialists, and political leaders.  The report also had a big impact on the campus as MIT staff, using some of the newest computers and most powerful programming algorithms at the time, had carried out much of the technical analysis.  

All these events had a galvanizing effect on the environmental movement and world opinion.  The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm in 1972.  This was the first major international conference on the environment.  The conference was attended by representatives from 113 nations and over 400 non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 

Maurice Strong, a Canadian, was the Secretary-General for the conference, and he became the first Director of the UN Environmental Program.  He was a great believer in environmentalism and the effectiveness of NGOs in shaping public opinion and in pressuring political leaders.  Subsequent UN Environmental Conferences and IPCC gatherings like the recent COP26 conference in Glasgow would often have 20,000-plus attendees, reflecting Strong’s vision on how to shape public opinion and achieve environmental goals.

These gatherings soon resembled old-time revivalist meetings, filled with noble aspirations and passions, Good versus Evil, the Nature Preservers versus the Nature Despoilers.  The solution: We all need to live simpler lives and learn to live in harmony with Nature. 

What was rarely recognized was that those already living closest to Nature in the developing world had had enough of Nature.  They wanted the same high living standards as those living in the West.  What was also not given much recognition was that the High Priests of Global Warming Apocalypse, Al Gore and David Suzuki, preferred the high life for themselves rather than the simple life that they were extolling for others.

By 1988, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created, a primary goal of the organization was to provide scientific confirmation for the widespread belief among environmentalists and some scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were an existential threat to the planet, that fossil fuels should be replaced by green energy, that industrial demands on the planet’s resources should be reduced, and that it would be best if the world’s population could be reduced substantially.  Essentially, it was Malthus redux.

In 2002, Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol.  At that time, the IPCC still had not confirmed that CO2 was the primary driver of global warming.  Nor had the Canadian Government carried out any studies to determine what measures would be required to implement the Kyoto Accord.  There was no examination on what Kyoto would cost or what, if any, benefits would result.  It was enough for then-prime minister Jean Chrétien that Canada had agreed to cut its emissions by slightly more than the U.S., which gave us bragging rights over the Americans! 

Matters have remained in pretty much the same state through to the present day. Despite its claims, the IPCC and its computer models have still not been able to prove that CO2 is the primary driver of current global warming.  In fact, as the decades pass, the IPCC modeling results are diverging even further from observed weather data. 

We continue to be in a moderate warming period, and have been since the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, with a gain of about 1.07°C since then.  There is nothing alarming about this rate of temperature rise.  Similar warming spells occurred in the Medieval Warm Period (a thousand years ago) and the Roman Warm Period (two thousand years ago).  On the contrary, the production of food and the greening of the Earth are continuing to respond well to the rising levels of CO2. CO2 is not a “pollutant.”  It remains a necessity for life. 

The environmentalists and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continue to depict CO2 as a pollutant that must be eliminated. Yet Green energy sources such as wind and solar continue to be intermittent, unreliable and costly, and with a greater environmental footprint of environmental damage than fossil fuels. 

The imposition of Green energy measures in the UK and the EU are creating economic and social chaos, but environmentalists remain indifferent, insisting that fossil fuels and nuclear power must be phased out, even though these measures make their societies ever more dependent on Russian gas (and therefore on the good will of the Russian government). 

The Canadian Government is in the process of committing us to go down the UK and EU path.  The Canadian Government continues to refuse to look at the economic costs, the social costs, or the environmental costs of its policies.  Meanwhile, money remains readily available to Environmental NGOs to promote their cause. 

The push to adopt Green energy has become an hysteria on a classic scale.  It is difficult to see how it will all end. 

As Climate Realists, we must try to find ways to limit the damages that environmentalists are bent on inflicting on both Western societies and on poorer people living in the developing world. 

We must continue to point out that the U.S. Clean Air Act and the U.S. Clean Water Act solved real problems.  These two Acts have substantially reduced or largely eliminated most air-quality problems, water-quality problems, and even cleaned up heavily polluted sites like the Love Canal.  These improvements were done in an orderly way by first identifying the nature of each problem, then identifying and implementing appropriate solutions.  They are examples of rational decision-making processes in action.   

We should continue to point out that alarmist claims often prove to be false.  Paul Ehrlich’s prediction of imminent mass starvation did not occur due to crop failures despite the world’s population increasing to 7.5 billion.  Where starvation has occurred, it has been due to a failure of government policies as in China’s Great Leap Forward, or the chronic wars that plague the Horn of Africa. 

We must continue to point out that the IPCC’s models, despite the billions of dollars lavished on them, do not provide a reliable basis for formulating any government policies on global warming.  We should also point out that major speculative computer studies based on a consensus of experts like the Limits to Growth study failed because the experts did not understand the governing equations and feedbacks for the phenomena that they were trying to model.  It is an example of the classic computer modeling problem of Garbage In, Garbage Out.  The IPCC study is a similar consensus of experts suffering from the same problem of GIGO.

In summary, despite 34 years of effort, the IPCC has not been able to provide satisfactory proof that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming, or that a global-warming apocalypse is imminent.  This remains an unproved alarmist claim that should be rejected by responsible Western governments. 

With regard to future climate changes, which are bound to happen in due course, we should monitor and assess whatever bona-fide climate trends do emerge, and then make decisions on how best to adapt to the emerging threats on a rational basis, not on magical thinking or mass hysteria.