Alberta Wildrose leader Danielle Smith now says she believes in climate change - Macleans.ca
 

Alberta Wildrose leader Danielle Smith now says she believes in climate change


 

RED DEER, Alta. – Alberta Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith now says she believes that climate change exists and that mankind is at least partially to blame.

Smith, who was speaking to reporters at the Wildrose party convention in Red Deer on Friday afternoon, says it’s clear that the greenhouse gas emissions need to be dealt with.

A day earlier, Environment Minister Diana McQueen and NDP Leader Brian Mason harshly criticized Smith for refusing to tell reporters where she stands on the issue of climate change.

In last year’s election, Smith was booed at a debate for saying the science of climate change was not settled.

It’s believed Premier Alison Redford won votes back to her party in the election by saying Alberta would be laughed off the international stage for denying climate change.

Smith says she hedged on the issue because she wasn’t sure where her party members stood, but says in recent days they’ve sent a strong message to her that climate change is a reality.


 
Filed under:

Alberta Wildrose leader Danielle Smith now says she believes in climate change

  1. Wow … that last paragraph says it all. “Smith says she hedged on the issue because she wasn’t sure where her party members stood, but says in recent days they’ve sent a strong message to her that climate change is a reality.” Since when is it up to the members of a political party to determine whether climate change is a reality?

    More science, less crazy, please!

    • More science, less crazy…thank you!

      • The problem is that climate change has nothing to do with science anymore and everything to do with politics.

        Smith clearly thought that the science would break through and show that AGW is nothing more than a myth.

        However, there is simply too much political capital involved to operate from such a naive base.

        For the truth to come back to politics, those who actually understand AGW is a myth must start controlling the conversation in a smarter way.

    • Well there’s leadership for you….when you believe what you’re told to.

      • Isn’t that what you liberals do? Believe what you are told? You guys look at 17 years of “pause” in warming, which no one predicted and none of you can explain, and then chant “the science is settled, the science is settled”. It really is too bad that Smith has caved on this issue, but you super smart “science is my religion” puzzlewits are truly laughable.

        • Please, enough of the ignorance.

          • Ok, no more ignorance. Feel better? Now find someone who predicted the last decade and a half of nearly zero warming or even someone who can explain why it happened. If you have success, do feel free to let me know. The models of the climate guys all got it wrong. They all predicted higher temperatures than we have observed. Science, in the “scientific method” as opposed to “science is settled” sense, would seem to require some amendments to the current theory. Would it not?

          • Jonathan….the planet is continuing to warm, and the climate is continuing to change.

            97% of the world’s scientists agree. So what you ‘believe’ is irrelevant.

          • *sigh*…alright Emily, you’ve got me there, the climate is indeed continuing to change. I will note that a) it always has changed and b) I never said it didn’t. As for whether it is warming, well, RSS and UAH data show between .01 and .028 degrees of warming in the last decade, so maybe something like one quarter of a degree per century? It’s warming, I’ll give you that, but it sure is small. So small that it doesn’t matter, in fact. Now, it may accelerate from here, or not, but neither you nor I nor anyone can predict it. If they could predict it, they would have predicted this “pause” in warming. The data show that the climate models were wrong. Data is something that is useful in science, in case you were confused.

            Also, as Michael Crighton said, “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” You should memorize that one. And about that 97% agreement, are you sure? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

            I will paraphrase Reagan: It’s not that you are ignorant, it’s that you know so much that isn’t so.

            Update: My apologies, but I read the RSS data as .01 degrees of warming per decade when it was actually -.01 degrees per decade. So it is possible we have even had a very, very small amount of cooling the last ten years, though I am content to allow that it is likely we have simply had a very small amount of warming.

          • Jonathan the 5th UN scientific report is out….stop listening to bullshit.

          • I see, so you have read it? More specifically, have you read the parts that were written by scientists or the parts that were written by politicians? Also, is it possible to acquire knowledge in other places than UN reports?

            If you are telling me that anything you don’t agree with is automatically “bullshit”, all while failing to give me even one fact to back your position, then I’m very quickly going to lose interest in you. On the other hand, if you could actually engage and grapple with ideas and facts, and not just repeat some variation of “we have already decided, shut up”, then we can talk.

          • Jonathan unless you’re a climatologist….you’re wasting time.

            This is not open for debate. Go away.

          • “This is not open for debate.” — Behold, the intelligent, scientific, tolerant, open minded, introspective, intellectually curious left. You’ve made my day, Emily. Everything I suspected about you is confirmed.

          • You’re trying to debate the theory of relativity here….or gravity or quantum physics….and you aren’t equipped to do so

            Go away.

          • Umm, no, I don’t have the math skills to deal with relativity or quantum physics, so I am not trying to debate them. I am debating you, and it is evident that I am overqualified for that, so it’s best I move on.

          • You don’t have the math skills to debate climate either. Which is why I said goodbye sometime ago.

          • And did it take into account the very warm climate that was prevalent in the early middle ages preceding the mini ice age which NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and AD 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. Why was it warm prior to 1550. Hint: It wasn’t the industrial revolution. The UN report is bullshit.

          • I know you kooks are sure you have a better understanding of climatology than climatologists, so write a paper already.
            Submit it to Nature, and wait for your Nobel to be announced.
            Seriously. If you believe your own nonsense, you’re really wasting your time and doing a great disservice to the rest of us by not immediately doing so.

          • Huh? Try coherence. I have simply pointed to the fact(you know, facts, the things scientists seek?) that warming has paused, or at least slowed, when climate models predicted an acceleration. Have you a fact to add? Or does science end for you after you have repeated, like a drone, “the science is settled”?

          • “I have simply…”

            You have simply decided that you have a greater understanding of climatology than climatologists. It’s made clear from your expression of disappointment at Smith’s acceptance of the science.

            As to the “facts” you’ve pointed out – it’s nonsense. The IPCC doesn’t make annual temperature predictions. The IPCC projects long-term trends which aren’t determined by considering isolated short-term periods.

          • You have to be kidding, lenny. The climate models ALL predicted that warming would be much, much higher over the last ten years than it has been. That is a fact. Calling it nonsense does not alter reality, much as you wish it would. The RSS and UAH data are facts as well. I didn’t conjur them. They are. Whether you wish them to be or not, they are. I have been extremely patient with you and Emily while you said that I don’t “believe” in science, as if science were something one believes in rather than a means of acquiring knowledge. You have accused me of thinking I know more than climatologists. That is untrue. I think I know more than you, and given that my introduction of facts to the debate is dismissed by you and others as “bullshit” or “nonsense”, it seems plain that I am correct. As for the IPCC, when scientists provide papers to politicians, and those politicians then decide what it “means”, perhaps it is time for me to call “bullshit”. When you have a fact to put forward, lenny, I am ready to hear it. But if all you can do is say “you are dumb, shut up”, then please, shut up.

          • You don’t seem to understand that assertions(the entirety of your comments) requires no facts to rebut.

            Tell me, In 2006 were you concerned that the IPCC was understating warming because it was exceeding predictions?
            If you experience warmer days at the end of May than at the beginning, are you concerned that daylength no longer predicts warmer temperatures and there won’t be a summer?

          • Are you suggesting that RSS and UAH data are “assertions”? If so, you are a moron. If you are not, I withdraw the moron comment. Even ignoring that, however, your arrogance is breathtaking. You have been repeatedly asked for any facts that could help me understand your position, but you are sticking with “my mind is made up, so shut up”. Typical.

          • Nobody is disputing the temperature record (well, except for the kooks when it suits them).

            The assertion is that warming isn’t happening, or is negligible based on 10 years of data.

            Waving your arms and pretending you can’t read what a wrote isn’t going to help you.

            So again, in 2006 were you concerned that the IPCC was understating warming because it was exceeding predictions?
            If you experience warmer days at the end of May than at the beginning, are you concerned that daylength no longer predicts warmer temperatures and there won’t be a summer?

          • You said that assertions were “the entirety” of my comments, but the RSS and UAH data are facts and they were part of my comments. So it’s a bit rich to accuse me of pretending not to read what you wrote.

            The RSS data is not talking about no warming in ten years to 2008 anyway. It reveals no warming for 15 years up to 2013. It is shocking that this type of information doesn’t even begin to interest you.

            In 2006 I was not concerned about global warming. Nor was I concerned in 1992 or any time since. There are many scientists who do not “believe” in the “consensus”, but you will no doubt just make some foolish circular argument that they are not then real scientists. The whole game for you is to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid because SCIENCE. Yet if you came across a scientist who disagreed you would dismiss them immediately.

            If you can show me someone who predicted this pause in warming or who can explain why all the climate models got the predictions wrong, I’m listening. If all you have is “shut up because science” then I am out of time.

          • Alright, so pretend it’s 2006. Warming over the past 15! *gasp* years(shocking, I know) has proceeded much faster than predicted. Are you concerned that warming has been underestimated?

          • The oceans have warmed in the last 10 years. The Arctic permafrost line has continued to edge northward. We in Canada must realize that: Canada is the no. 1 GHG polluter per ca pita. The Oil Sands are the largest, single source of GHG in the world.

          • I believe Australia and the US might have edged past us.

          • The oceans have warmed? Thank you, that is an assertion that I can actually check on. As for the Arctic, am I correct in thinking that the temperature dropped considerably this summer? I believe sea ice has recovered dramatically. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/21/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-6-arctic-sea-ice-has-most-definitely-turned-the-corner-maslowski-is-falsified/

            Also, Antarctic sea ice is increasing, isn’t it? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/a-new-record-the-most-sea-ice-in-antarctica-in-30-years-by-extent-and-by-volume/

            It could be that the surface temp of some portions of the ocean are rising. Has anyone predicted that or shown why it would happen or demonstrated that it is happening because of man’s GHG emissions? If those things have occured, can you point me to them?

          • “I believe sea ice has recovered dramatically.”

            *snort*
            Funny stuff.

          • That’s right, lenny, no need to respond to the substance of an argument or grapple with the ideas of other people. Just keep repeating that it is the way you see it and there is no need to even entertain it.

          • Uh, you don’t know that the red text indicates a link?

          • Yes, it was as funny as you claimed but adds nothing. The predictions were that by 2013 there would be no arctic sea ice by the end of summer, yet there is more ice than the last several years. And that’s a cute comment about links, have you bothered to click on the ones I posted for you? I realize that it’s difficult for you to take in new information that doesn’t already have a tidy home in your mind, but try. I am still waiting for you or anyone to find someone who predicted the temperature levels we have observed, or even someone who can explain why the climate models all got it wrong. Saying climate is variable is so weak. If you predict disaster, and it doesn’t come, you don’t get to say you meant it would be disaster-ish.

          • No. Nowhere in the IPCC has it ever been predicted that ice would be gone by 2013.

            Climate is indeed variable. If you think that the IPCC each year will be warmer than the next or that each year there will be less sea ice than the previous, you’ve been mislead.
            In fact, those graphs add a lot that you could learn from. The second illustrates the absurdity of declaring that sea ice is “recovering” based on one data point. And on to the second: Do you understand what the dotted “mean” line is?

          • Oh, well it is nice to see that variability is now acknowledged. In the past the “deniers” were mocked for claiming that variability could be responsible for much of the warming that was observed. Now that observed temperatures have stalled, paused, or whatever, you wish to fall back on variability. Sounds good to me.
            Listen, lenny, you seem to be really choked about the number of years we are looking at. Is there some number that pleases you? 15 years is obviously no good. Do you prefer 30, or 50, or maybe we could use 500? Since the Vikings were farming in Greenland about 1000 years ago, would that be better? Warmer 1000 years ago than now…are you “concerned” about that? See I am not concerned. You keep asking if I am at all concerned, but my only concern is that people like you are trying to limit economic growth to “save” the planet. I won’t argue with you any more. Let’s agree that you are right and then we can wait to see what actually happens.

          • You don’t get it. In 2006, when the previous 15 years showed a warming rate far greater than projected, it was scientists attributing natural variation(at the time deniers were busy denier that it was warming at all).
            If variation “sounds good” to you don’t understand what it means – temperatures will range both above and below a rising trendline.

            And no, temperatures in Southern Greenland aren’t a proxy for the globe.

          • Uh-huh. So you see a rising trendline, that’s fine. But rising from what point? In which year should we start our trendline? What is the “right” temperature for the planet? And if our actions are contributing to the rising temperatures, what percentage are our fault? Does anyone know? Help a guy out here.

          • We’re talking about the projected trend and the data points that fall both above and below it. (Though interestingly, those that fall below it invalidate the projection, whereas those the fall above it invalidate the data!)

            If you really want to understand the topic, there’s the IPCC report and the numerous papers referenced therein.

          • The trend that is projected from where? If you or I or the IPCC see a trend there must be some point whence the trend began. There must also be some rationale for using that point. If temperatures were higher before the industrial revolution(they were) then drawing a trendline from 10, or 20, or 50 years back that shows increasing temps does not necessarily mean a) disaster or b) a man caused increase.
            Here is the basic point. You feel that the earth is going to melt, that it is our fault, and that we must fix it: I do not. You can’t simply say “look, it got warmer so we must have done it and we must stop it”. Yet that is your position. It has not been established how far or how fast the globe will warm, or even if it will continue to do so. You think it will. I don’t. The scientists are trying to figure this out, but, and this is the key point, they have not figured it out yet. The models were wrong, and the seas are not rising at the rate that was predicted. The observed temperatures are outside the statistical margin of error for every model in existence. They were wrong. How many times do you have to hear that before you rethink it. In science, if you have a theory that does not match the observed result, your theory is flawed, perhaps partially or perhaps utterly. But it IS flawed. Why is that so hard to admit? That maybe you don’t know? You are sure I don’t know what the temp will be in fifty years, and I’m sure you are right. What gives you such confidence that computer programs that got it wrong the last 15 years, and the 15 years before that, are going to be right over the next 50, or even the next 5? Such blind faith is admired in some circles, but certainly not in the halls of higher learning.

          • Having been shown where your first collection of falsehoods were wrong, you simply trot out a whole new set and continue repeating the old ones.

            Your claim that scientists are still trying to “figure out” if it will warm is false.

            Your claims that models are wrong about temperatures and sea levels are false.

            But, as I said, being convinced that you’ve overturned the field of climate science, I can’t see that you have any option but to write up your revolutionary findings, submit them to Nature, save us all from economic destruction, and wait for Nobel prize to be delivered.

          • Your last paragraph says it all, doesn’t it? I claimed no expertise, and do not seek a Nobel, nor do I believe myself extraordinary in any way. I asked many questions that you ignored, or sneered at, etc. Your whole strategy is “Introduce strawman, knock down strawman. Insult opponent. Repeat.” You claim “science” has established the truth, when science is supposed to be a search for those facts that might lead to the truth. “It’s all been decided, so shut up” is your attitude. So I will, lenny. In twenty years we will know who was right or wrong on this, but frankly it won’t matter. Because if I am wrong, I will admit it. If you are wrong, I would bet money you won’t. Guys like you in the seventies were just as arrogant about their prediction that we were entering an ice age, and now the same crew is flapping their arms about the heat. But you take the last word, friend. You want me to shut up, so I will.

          • Let’s address you latest misinformation dump:

            “I claimed no expertise…”

            You’ve clearly claimed to have turned the field of climate science on it’s head(not to mention biology, ecology and physics) . Whereas scientists with the same data have demonstrated:
            1. a high probability that significant human-caused warming is occuring and will continue into the future.
            2. the warming will have negative consequences
            You have claimed that:
            1. The warming rate is between .01 and .028 per century and is “So small that it doesn’t matter…”

            “”It’s all been decided, so shut up” is your attitude.”
            I realize you are looking for an “out,” but far from telling you to “shut up”, I’ve told you that you have a responsibility to share your work with the world. Of course the way to do that in science is to publish. I have no doubt that such significant work as overturning the consensus on climate would be snapped up by Science or Nature and likely earn the Nobel. I appreciate your selflessness in not being interested in prizes, but don’t you have a responsibility to the rest of us to save us from the folly of addressing climate change?

            ” Your whole strategy is “Introduce strawman, knock down strawman.”
            Without producing a single strawman in my comments that assertion has no credibility.

            ” You claim “science” has established the truth, when science is supposed to be a search for those facts that might lead to the truth.”
            There’s a strawman. But, oops, it’s not from my comments.

            “Guys like you in the seventies were just as arrogant about their prediction that we were entering an ice age, and now the same crew is flapping their arms about the heat.”
            Wrong again.

            ” Because if I am wrong, I will admit it. If you are wrong, I would bet money you won’t.”

            Hilarious. It takes a lot of chutzpah to say that for a guy who, without missing a beat, just posts more disinformation after it’s been demonstrated to him that he’s wrong that sea ice is recovering, wrong that sea level projections were wrong, wrong that models were wrong, wrong that scientists previously ignored natural variation, wrong that northern sea ice was supposed to be gone by 2013, and hasn’t pointed to a single error in any of my comments.

            “I asked many questions that you ignored, or sneered at, etc.”
            I don’t know what you’re specifically referring to, but, as I said, if they’re genuine questions you’d be best served by familiarizing yourself with the IPCC report and any of the hundreds of papers it references.
            I’m happy to keep correcting whatever misinformation you choose to post, as frustrating as that may be for you. If calling me a “sneer(ing)” “arrogant” “moron” helps to ease the pain, feel free.

          • You are sure taking a lot of guff from these misinformed people.
            Earth cycles have been going around as long earth.
            The USA has had HAARP since Verianam war fooling around with weather,either making rain for a month early so arms couldn’t get thru Ho Chin Trail. Now they are creating earth quakes, tidal waves with HAARP. What’s with all these chem trails containing aluminum,barium,strontium, all on metallic side. Did they screw up something? I heard HAARP is burning a whole thru ionosphere.
            If it’s UN/NWO the sneaky bastards, it’s about money & politics.
            These other people probably listen to controlled media and have no idea what critical thinking is.

          • Since we have about the fewest people per sq km it should work out nicely.

            What is the ideal temperature for the oceans? How do you measure that?

            The perma-frost moving north ward is a good thing isn’t it? More trees etc? More animals and birds?

          • Except that as the permafrost melts, the frozen vegetation in the now unfrozen swampy morass starts to decay, big time. The resulting methane produced, even more than cow farts and troll posts exacerbates the already perilous situation. Rinse, lather and repeat.

          • Your just a paid troll.
            Go back under your rock.

          • LOL Cons…..who get shills to post on every comment site in the country…..have no idea of what trolls are.

        • I live in Phoenix Arizona and I can tell you from personal experience that there has been no “pause” in global warming. Every year is hotter than the last. It’s almost November and by now I’ve usually turned off the A/C but not this year.

  2. Welcome to Sir Issac Newtons third law of physics Mrs. Smith. I hope you also read about his 1st and 2nd laws of physics, they help to understand the world in each we have to live.

    • Ms. Smith will get back to you after she’s asked her party members who this “Sir Isaac Newton” fellow may be and whether or not he is simply a figment of the imagination. She doesn’t believe it herself, but she’ll take their word for it.

    • She knows what Newtons are, silly! Cookies…

      But what does ‘Fizzicks’ mean?

  3. “Smith says she hedged on the issue because she wasn’t sure where her party members stood, but says in recent days they’ve sent a strong message to her that climate change is a reality.”
    I fail to see where this indicates any change in “belief”. Perhaps a change in policy, but belief?
    I think this might well indicate a major problem with this party. As a leader, her beliefs should help set the agenda. Being a party sockpuppet isn’t leadership, it just being a PR flack.

    • I guess there’s two theories on that: should you reflect and enforce the values your voter/member base supports, or should you promote what you think is best regardless of what they actually want since you may be in a position to be better-informed?

      Personally, I have always believed in a somewhat paternalistic view on politics and that politicians should do what is best for the citizens and their jurisdiction (city, province, nation) regardless of what their citizens may actually want. That’s because citizens are usually pretty poorly-informed on issues, or lack the education and expertise to form a really good judgement. This is why I am typically not moved on how well issues poll, unless it is a purely moral issue of some kind.

  4. if one has the ability to observe it is obvious that climate change is a fact but …does one have the ability to conserve is more imporant

    • As if we have any effect on it one way or another. Like the BS about conserving water and low flush toilets. HA- – Only if you live in a desert. The planet has the same amount of water it has had for millions of years. Over population of desert communities such as Tucson, AZ can decrease the water table due to use beyond what was natural and requires conservation, but most areas not passing through a drought period need not conserve. This is just more ways to control people.

      • There are many cities and communities that are growing faster than the supply of potable water, Vancouver and the lower BC mainland is one. Alberta is another. Alberta, 30 years ago had approx. 3% of the fresh water in Canada, now they have shortly over 1%.
        Here is a prediction. 15 years from now, water will be a very expensive commodity throughout Alberta.

        • And that is specific to location, which is what my example was. It is not just all over the US (my location), it is in regard to: Did you use up all your water supply? Then move where there is plentiful water.

          This BS of me having to have a toilet that needs flushing twice and can’t keep clean, or having a shower head that puts out a weak little spray because someone else lives in an area that can’t support that many people is nuts and I resent my supposed representatives in Washington legislating my having to put up with it. I lived in Tucson, AZ back in the 70s for about 1-1/2 years and learned about their water table dropping due to all the people moving there from the east. We left and came back to where we were, where we get our water from the major river nearby and it has never dried up or even came close. In fact, the only supply problem is an occasional spring when we have too d&%$mn much water.

  5. Believes in climate change?
    She should.
    It has been changing for thousands of years.
    After all the Vikings used to have huge farms in Greenland – not they are covered in ice.
    However to think the world will be drowned in water within the next generation as many do – is a buit far fetched.
    I do not support green efforts in Canada and will not – until someone actually makes some changes in China, India, Pakistan, Maylasia and more
    Canada’s footprint is so tiny as to be nearly invisible.

    • That’s it! Let’s follow China’s and Pakistan’s lead… but why stop at climate change, let’s go whole hog on women’s rights. education, democracy, etc., etc.

      • What is the matter? Can’t discuss facts? Do you have anything of sense to contribute to the discussion, or just bombastic rhetoric? Maybe you just don’t know what to say.

    • You are right in thinking that there are worse polluters than Canada. But, Canada is the highest GHG polluter per population in the world. The Oil Sands is the largest, single source of GHG in the world. We cannot be proud of that. And there is lots we can do to remedy that. We just need people who care.

  6. Authentic, sincere road-to-Damascus conversion or new, convenient, voter-friendly political posture? Her kindred spirit in the PMO has been known to pay lip-service to such “policies”, too, when it suited his political needs of the moment.

  7. The climate is always changing.

    The real questions are:

    1. How much change is actually happening?
    2. Is it a bad thing?

    3. How much is caused by man?
    4. Can we consciously effect the weather if we decide it’s bad?

    5. Is it cheaper to mitigate the bad effects or to try to stop whatever we’re doing that causes bad changes in the weather?

    I don’t think any of these questions have been answered conclusively enough to pillory people with different opinions. I suspect,however, given government’s normal level of competence, that the answer to 4. is “no” but that the opportunity for corruption, the desire by some to control society and political grandstanding will make it inevitable we’ll try.

  8. Climate change and global warming are not articles of faith! Belief does not enter into it. Science is knowledge based and, as such, has reduced much currency in a near-fundamental province whose ‘leaders’ have subordinated science to ideology for the sake of the petroleum internationals’ profits.

  9. So an opinion poll will convince her but the science didn’t? If her party members wanted her to deal with UFOs, would that be her next policy platform?

  10. It is disappointing to hear, but she building a party of some older farts.2nd gov’t parties do this all the time,it gives them a bigger foot in door.NWO is running our bank and we pay compound interest on our on money,that was PE Trudeau and the next 5 guys elected to PM. Bilderberg/Rockefeller are running show.

    Schwartz $B tells Harper what to do to.

    Why on earth would anybody invest countries money on F-35’s when the USA gov’t is trying to dump this highly expense mistake?
    Does anyone read bible the next war will be missiles, not planes and tanks etc.
    Not happy about new Europe deal we get 23% &we send 7%, sounds like NAFTA.
    China sends posionous junk here and we don’t send it back, gov’t lets people sick and die bc of a trade deal-UN.These other countries use chemicals that were ban here generations ago. sounds like gov’t giving a deal to farmers that use big company seeds and chemicals, Monsanto,pioneer,bayer, J&J, who is ruining country,spineless PM’s, since Diefenbaker.