Can't "Deny" The Facts

One of the most maddening characteristics of the Harper government, the disconnect between their rhetoric and actions on the climate change file. The latest propaganda merchant Jim Prentice, mirroring his predecessors, continually tells us how committed we are to cutting GHG's, how Canada is at the international forefront, as the world attempts to cobble together a new agreement. It all sounds wonderful, until there is any gathering, anywhere in the world, which is when we learn TIME after TIME that Canada is actually see as a "laggard", or "resisting", or "blocking", everything and anything that moves the agenda forward. What we hear from the government spinsters is completely nonsensical, but it happens with such frequency they've made absurd look routine.

Today's story in the G and M will get little attention in the grand scheme (and the government knows it), but it's a terrific concrete example of ACTIONS speaking louder that words:

Top Canadian scientists are accusing the Harper government of politicizing science funding and jeopardizing climate research by naming global warming critics to key boards that fund science.

University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, another lead author of past IPCC reports, said politics should be kept at a distance from these boards. He also said it is "very disturbing" that people who dispute global warming are making strategic decisions on scientific research.

"What would the public think if we appointed outspoken proponents of the fallacy 'smoking doesn't cause cancer' as members of the boards funding medical and, in particular, cancer research?" he said.

It's actually amazing that this government would appoint people to oversee research funding, when said appointments are HOSTILE to the scientists. A truly staggering quote from one appointment:

"To those who doubt the scientific basis of global warming theory, we say: Don't let a cabal of government-funded scientists, environmental activists and journalists convince us they're the mainstream." - April 28, 2006

How can someone who resists "government-funded scientists" be given the power to oversee expenditures? Is there any doubt, that a man with these views will be reticent to support research on global warming.

Or maybe the other appointment will advocate for "sceptic" projects:

"It strikes me that the science is not settled," he said in a 2007 interview posted at BCbusinessonline. "Put caps on global emitters' is not the natural conclusion I would come to."

You don't need much imagination to see the anti-intellectual, anti-mainstream bent that effectively endorses confrontation with accepted science. Sure, government officials can run to the cameras and pledge their firm commitment and resolve, blah, blah, oh just shut up, blah de blah. But, everytime you move past the rhetoric to the practical, you see a consistent pattern of hostility towards the most basic of premises. The sad part, the Conservatives have rightly concluded that a steady diet of unfounded propaganda is enough to cloud simple facts, allowing them to continually "slither" around as though competent and committed.