Is Stephen Harper a Denier?

This entire Kyoto debate is frustrating in one sense, the former Liberal government’s utter failure continues to absolve the current Conservative government and their now SIX year abysmal reign on the environment. The Kyoto Protocol has been a friendly ally for these Conservatives, it runs cover for their complete inaction, people forever lay blame elsewhere and in so doing utterly miss the plot. Yes, the Liberals signed Kyoto and did little else, we can all agree on their record, I will never defend it, nor did I support it in the ballot booth. It is also true this Conservative government was “saddled” with the commitments, it was pretty clear Canada would face a herculean effort because of past inaction, so again, YES, we all digest the chronology, we all realize the 2006 starting point, we get it in relation to the Liberals, we do, we do, we do, ENOUGH already.

I would love for the discussion to begin with this Conservative government, because the blame game on Kyoto doesn’t adequately incorporate the last SIX years. These Conservatives were always Kyoto sceptics, a “socialist scheme”, there was a philosophical resistance, which is reasonable and worthy of some merit. Kyoto is flawed, Kyoto isn’t necessarily “fair”, people can disagree, people can suggest alternate plans, it is not the holy grail and we can debate the contents in this democracy. However, what is required within this Kyoto discussion, an acceptance of the problem, and within that any rejection must be accompanied by an ALTERNATIVE, otherwise motivations are dubious, true intent suspect.

I find it a bit hilarious that people can vividly remember the Chretien years, and yet they seemly can’t recall the more recent past. I remember Rona Ambrose failing badly to bring forth a credible climate change plan, I remember it was so bad public relations wise this government pulled the hook on the Minister. I also have memory of John Baird taking up the Conservative “fight” against global warming with the catchy “Made In Canada” action plan, with much hype, THIS plan was the counter that would show a seriousness on global warming. Unfortunately, even though the 2008 election was PRIMARILY about environmental issues, Baird announced that the Conservative plan would be delayed in light of said election and produced at a later date. The Conservatives won that election, attacking the Liberal carbon plan, while simultaneously producing NOTHING to counter, then summarily SHELVED their PROMISED “Made in Canada” plan after the vote. After Baird’s reign, Jim Prentice took up the lead role, so bad it was now referred to as a “career killer”, people openly wondered if Harper gave him this post to hobble future leadership aspirations. Prentice spoke of intensity targets, hitched his wagon to America, in essence we gave up environmental sovereignty, and decisions for Canada would be made in America (an amazing development given the former “Made in Canada” thrust). Little in the way of noteworthy policy followed, band aids and not much else, Prentice left an objective failure, like his Conservative predecessors. Fast forward to Kent, more inaction, little effort, more “pariah” talk, rhetoric without real world applications.

This government has CUT climate change research, this government actually diverts “green” money to carbon producing ventures, this government has left a void that some provinces have tried to fill, leaving a patchwork effort, so BAD even the carbon puking industry itself wants MORE clarity. The last six years provide a very coherent strategy, this government will attach itself to anything that can lessen primary blame. The Conservatives will blame past governments, other nations, “special” requirements unique to Canada, anything that provides distraction, that creates a fog to shield the true shape of their actions. In essence, six years of propaganda, smoke and mirrors, moving goalposts, evolving excuses, hiding behind other countries. 

If you review Harper’s commentary on global warming just prior to taking office, you see a consistent thread, Harper was very much a sceptic, he reads like a global warming denier. Only when the issue rose to the top of public opinion, only when Harper became PM, did he suddenly start to sound committed to the idea of man made global warming, when challenged ONCE, he spewed out some flat language meant to end any suggestion he actually questioned the entire premise. However, if you take Harper at his word prior to taking office, then review the Conservative “commitments” on global warming, how we’ve acted on the international stage, there is really nothing to suggest that Harper has changed his beliefs, in FACT, there is a perfect symmetry. 

If you’re a climate change denier, massive odds you’re a Conservative supporter, read some of their supporters and you can literally hear the knuckles dragging. That fact in and of itself begs some questions as to why the attraction, given public pronouncements. As well, just last week Harper’s former guru Tom Flanagan took to the CBC airwaves to declare himself a proud denier, even encouraging others to come out of the woodwork. Harper was quite clear prior to becoming PM, one wonders has he really changed his mind, or does the nature of the job demand more nuanced public language? Given the record, given the public commentary history, given where we sit today- still long on massaged propaganda and public appeasement, short on actual ACTION- it is fair game to wonder if we have a climate change denier for Prime Minister? Maybe when everyone is done chasing Chretien’s ghost we can get down to it, once and for all….

Click HERE to read more from Steve Val.
Article viewed on Oye! Times @ www.oyetimes.com 

2 Comments

  1. “However, what is required within this Kyoto discussion, an acceptance of the problem, and within that any rejection must be accompanied by an ALTERNATIVE, otherwise motivations are dubious, true intent suspect.”

    I do not accept your premise. The earth’s climate is changing; always has, always will. The impact of man on climate, and the power of man over climate, are so inconsequential as to be laughable.

    Guess what – the earth stopped warming and started cooling 5 years ago:

    [img]http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/12/09/a-2485-year-record-shows-current-warming-is-a-natural-cycle/[/img]

    Climate change “deniers” aren’t! They are simply skeptics. They don’t believe the oft quoted phrase “the science is settled”. The science isn’t settled; eminently qualified scientists across many disciplines reject the Al Gore hypothesis and conclusions.

    Keep an open mind. If you are interested in a scholarly examination of the evcomment_IDence, visit here:
    http://www.mcomment_IDdlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

  2. The Great Global Warming Hoax is in full swing, preying on the fact that the vast majority of citizens are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, and are prone to swallow apocalyptic stories hook, line, and sinker. Yes, I’m a “denier”… but my beliefs are based on my formal training as an atmospheric physicist, and not on having watched a documentary produced by someone who made near-failing grades in every science course he ever took.

    Reality check: If you take a close look at all of the “scientists” who believe that man’s contribution of about a dozen CO2 molecules to every million molecules in the atmosphere is causing “runaway heating”, you’ll discover that they aren’t actually “scientists” at all… They’re simply running computer “simulations” using programs that have never actually predicted anything accurately at all. There is, in fact, not one shred of actual empirical science to support the notion that human activity is having any serious effect on the climate one way or another. Computer simulations are not “science” – they are computerized Tinker-Toys with which one can manufacture any outcome he wishes.

    In general, CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. At the dawn of life ( Cambrian period ), atmospheric CO2 was about 7000 ppm. As CO2 absorption increased ( from both increased plant growth and ocean absorption ) it steadily dropped during the Paleozoic until it bottomed out at perhaps 400 ppm during the vegetation-lush Carboniferous period, about 300 million years ago. Then, it mysteriously rose during the Permian period until it peaked at about 1800 ppm at the beginning of the Triassic. It jumped again during the mcomment_ID-Jurassic ( 160 million years ago, or so ) then began an almost linear decline down to the present levels of the present day.

    What we see during all this is 4 ice ages followed by 4 interglacials, and we just happen to be born late in the one associated with the Holocene, at a time when CO2 is low when viewed throughout our planetary history.

    At no time dcomment_ID the planet suffer any kind of a “climate crisis”, until the present day, when steadily rising temperatures and subsequent rising sea levels are happening as expected… as they have happened so many times before during interglacials between ice ages.

    The current “crisis” is that the climate is now inconveniencing the human race because they were too dumb to take a broad look at the whole climate history of the planet before building their villa by the sea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


Confirm you are not a spammer! *