Thursday, April 19, 2012

Climate Skeptic In The West

It seems I have one more reason I don't want the Wildrose alliance to win. But Alberta's according to recent polls have them at a 7% point lead. The PC are in second, the NDP and the Liberals way far behind. 

"We have always said the science isn't settled and we need to continue to monitor the debate,"
Yes the Wildrose is saying that the science isn't settled, and therefor don't have a major plan to reduce emissions. Even though 97% of climate scientist agree that humans are causing man made climate change. Even the PC in the oil rich province of Alberta agree that global warming is real and CO2 emissions are causing it. This isn't just Danielle Smith personal belief this is party policy.

A Wildrose official confirmed Smith's statement reflects a longtime party policy.
 I don't know why I didn't remember this before Rick Mercer went with Danielle Smith for a day and they discussed global warming, and she admitted her skepticism of climate change. I think that having one of the most polluting provinces in Alberta led by a party that doesn't believe in a science that is fully settled ruins any chances of achieving the needed 80% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050. 

Read more here


  1. Are you seriously using that tired old statistic that has been critiqued beyond validity:

  2. it really is the only statistic I need I think. And to rebut this allegation from the Financial post that only 77 scientist were asked I need only to direct you here.

    "The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists."

    "As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues"

    1. actually, the 97% statistic is based off of 77 scientists. the methodology is highly questionable (see the link i posted). I personally would not cite such a shaky statistic, even if it supported my cause.

    2. I think the answer can be found here. Acutally, there is a consensus.

    3. one of the papers cited was the same work i just linked a critique of. Although I have only done a cursory review of the other papers, it seems that they too suffer from some of the same flaws, most notably in the definition of expert and the question asked.


Any highly offensive matter will be deleted whether it be solid, water, gas or plasma. No comments from outsiders represent the opinions of Owner and Doggy or vanillaman. We reserve the right to delete any comments without explanation.