"My position is that we should be cautious instead of ambitious when tackling this issue. That’s why I totally support my government, which has shown caution even if it brought us criticism and condemnations from environmental activists."
So, rather than listening to Prentice attempt to argue an ambitious agenda, or Harper's "preponderance of evidence" arguments, Bernier lays it out in the open- the Conservatives have done nothing because they believe it may all be much ado about nothing. Bernier also admits that one must appear to do something for "political reasons", which entirely explains all the go no where promises and obstructionist posture on the international stage. Bernier demonstrates that the Conservative agenda on climate change is nothing more than a manufactured fraud to APPEASE.
Bernier's viewpoint isn't particularly surprising to anyone who's been paying attention. In fact Bernier's opinion is entirely consistent with the evidence at hand. With the most basic of common sense, one merely has to extrapolate Bernier's position onto the entire file and tenure of the government, and you see a perfect match.
Emboldened by side issues that the deniers don't fully comprehend, expect to see more sceptics coming forward in the Conservative ranks. At the very least, it will help foster an honest debate, rather than this cynical shell game we've had to endure the past four years. This openness will also signal to our international partners, that their criticisms of Canada are well founded.
It was always "so call global warming" Mr. Harper, and any repositioning on your part, nothing more than an attempt to pacify and maintain electoral prospects. Bernier is really just stating the obvious, unless of course you're entirely brain dead.
19 comments:
The cynic in me prevents the applauding M Bernier's "honesty". No doubt his views reflect the majority of his fellow caucus members, but I can't help but think that his opinion piece is nothing more than an attempt by the PMO to test the waters.
Of course it is just as possible that the MP, feeling hurt and unfairly treated by his leader, is striking out on his own.
Let's watch the reaction.
An early indication: on Power and Politics, Jim Prentice distanced himself from the comments, but at the same time looked quite chipper.
I saw Prentice on P and P. It's funny watching him try to look serious, with nothing in hand.
Elizabeth May weighs in, and calls out Harper:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/maxime-bernier-has-long-history-of-climate-change-denial/article1480179/
Steve,
I think that the whole global warming arguement needs to have a do over. I agree with you that we need to have an honest discussion, none of this the science is settled stuff, an actual discussion between parties. (Political and non-political parties)
The more information that comes to light the more it casts doubt on the validity of the science to begin with.
Rocky
He is just stating what more and more Canadians think.
We have been had by the left.
Harper should be embarrassed by even paying lip service to this "settled" science.
Reminds me of WMD in Iraq. That was "settled" as well.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
Rocky
The deniers have never wanted a full airing, it's just a ruse. They continually ignore the vast body of evidence and cherry pick anything and everything to discredit, at the exclusion of all else.
Like Rottendam here for instance. Yawn, you stupid tools.
Science isn't "left". But, I do love the admission of politically inspired bias that the cavemen continually let slip.
Steve,
I think that the alarmists are in the same boat. They don't want an airing of the evidence either.
Himilayians (sp? and yes I am to lazy to go and google the correct spelling) will have no snow in them by 2035 for instance. Al Gore saying that we have 8 years or so before the world is completely changed. Well it has been about 5 years since An Inconvient Truth came out and there doesn't seem to be much change out there to me.
The extremes on both ends don't really want an airing. They just want everyone to believe there point without articulating and understanding it as best as a lay person can.
There have been scientists on both sides of the equation that have been questioning both sets of arguments, but in my opinion the media has only paid attention to the pro global warming side.
Rocky
97% of climate scientists believe in global warming. You display a certain selective understanding if you try to argue a raging battle. That's a fact jack.
Steve,
That sounds like a pretty selective choice of facts. Can you support the number "97% of scientists support claim."
Rocky
On an other note 2-0 Canada.
Rocky
3-0. GO Canada GO
Selective? Do your own homework, sounds like you need to.
Go watch the game.
Hmmm...even if you don't believe in climate change, you have to know our waters, air, etc. are dirty. Don't the deniers want to at least clean up our living conditions?
I noticed the double-standard with the Cons. When Kennedy said there needs to be a discussion/debate on taxes the Cons jumped all over it. Prentice says Bernier has a right to his own opinion. Yup, hypocracy and double-standards as usual with the Cons.
I am sure we will survive. Call me a skeptic but it seems to me nothing much has been done about co2 emissions to date indeed they are projected to rise. Surly no one here believes that this will cause some catastrophe in the near future.
Dollars to donuts in ten years we will still be here discussing co2 emissions.Well unless the Maya were on to something come 2012 then it all really doesn't matter.
Big deal so Bernier is a skeptic,considering the record of science and the mess science has made of many many things is it really a stretch of credibility for some one to be a skeptic.
P.S I don't like the Cons either,but please.
There's a difference between being critical and using the "sceptic" cover. Bernier's been a denier for years, so he's clearly not someone who has an open mind.
I think all the sceptics should go to the Arctic Circle for a few weeks, and confront their nonsense first hand.
Let's face facts here, the denier crowd isn't exactly the best and the brightest, it's mostly a concoction of back water ignorance, politically motivated wingers and industry backed interests. That's the pool, in GENERAL, not entirely impressive and that in and of itself should raise red flags for anybody.
Dirk Buchholz said...
"I am sure we will survive. Call me a skeptic but it seems to me nothing much has been done about co2 emissions to date indeed they are projected to rise. Surly no one here believes that this will cause some catastrophe in the near future."
Dirk,
I, for one, have now posted many times on various blog sites that I think the current levels of CO2 we generate are just fine, and there is no need to worry. In fact I think we can double the level of CO2 we burn and there will be little effect on our climate.
But the problem is that for the past 150 years of industrialization, only 10% of the world’s population (it did start with 5% in the 1850’s) contributed over 90% of the pollution. Over the next few decades, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, and a number of other developing nations will all become fully industrialized. Google these and check out their populations, then add them all together and compare to those of the current western industrialized nations. The citizens of these developing nations know how we live, they all have TV’s – and they want our lifestyle and we have no right to tell them they can’t have it.
By 2050 all of these developing nations will sextuple the size of the world’s population responsible for CO2 generation and other more serious pollutants. I don’t know about you, but even with my optimism I don’t think we can survive that.
Problem delayed is problem denied.
The real days of reckoning with regard to climate change are at least a decade away, probably longer before the average Canadian voter is confronted with catastrophe.
Politicians have real problems addressing anything beyond the next election cycle. What gets votes today? Cutting taxes is always popular. Dealing with government cash flow shortfalls is a future problem.
Setting up a false dichotomy of environment versus economy serves the politicians' purposes. We feel the economic pinch now and we want to do something about it. Environmental degradation and climate change are slow moving processes. Dealing with future problems at the expense of current lifestyle excesses is not a vote-getting strategy.
There will be at least 3 elections before we have to really face facts on climate change. Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it. It may already be too late to do anything about it.
I think it was Ignatieff who used teh phrase "adult conversation" not long ago. A real adult conversation would include the longterm negative effects of things like the tar sands and nuclear waste disposal. Ignatieff, like Harper, is on record promoting both industries. That's what gets votes: jobs, jobs, jobs.
Dirk thinks we'll all survive. Maybe so. We who are reading and commenting here will survive. The arctic communities built on melting permafrost will not. The areas of low sea level that support millions in Bangladesh and Indonesia will not. Micronesian and Polynesian islands will not. They don't vote in Canada so we don't have to worry about them, right?
I expect to live another 20 years or so. I won't likely personally suffer much due to climate change. My 3 YO and 1 YO grandchildren will not be so fortunate. We have a legacy to consider and it is more long range than the next election cycle.
Post a Comment