Alberta Wildrose leader Smith again under fire for hedging on reality of climate change -

Alberta Wildrose leader Smith again under fire for hedging on reality of climate change


EDMONTON – Alberta Opposition Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith is coming under fire for refusing to say whether she believes climate change exists.

NDP Leader Brian Mason says Smith is being quote “weasely” by refusing to say if she believes in the science of greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time promising action to combat it.

Smith told reporters this week that her party is looking to pass resolutions at its weekend convention to fight climate change, but declined to say what her personal opinion is on the matter.

Smith said she is quote — “not a scientist” — but said clearly the international community expects the province to take action to fight climate change.

Climate change is considered one of the key issues that torpedoed the Wildrose party’s hope of winning government in the 2012 election.

After Smith was roundly booed at a late-campaign forum for saying the science of climate change is not settled, Premier Alison Redford wooed voters by reminding them that a leader who doesn’t acknowledge climate change would be an international laughingstock.

Filed under:

Alberta Wildrose leader Smith again under fire for hedging on reality of climate change

  1. Rejoice everyone, for the globe stopped warming well over a decade ago despite continued CO2 increases.

    We need to stop wasting billions of dollars on pointless carbon strangulation of our economy and put that money into useful endeavours, like reducing real pollution.

    • Ah, no.

      And no.

      • Heh heh heh… the data don’t lie.

        The stark difference between the predictions and the observations puts the lie to the hypotheses that developed those predictions.

        • No, the data doesn’t lie.

          But when you pretend long term climate trends can be measured by considering a 10 to 15 year period, you certainly do.

          In 2006, were you declaring warming to be exceeding predictions? Heh heh heh

          • sorry lenny but it’s “the data don’t lie”. Data is plural.

          • It’s the difference between the observations and the predictions, Lenny.

            In 2006 we could already see that the models claimed slightly over half the warming rate that the observations showed from 1910-1940, claimed continued warming during the cooling period that followed, and matched only the warming from the 1970s to 2000.

            Substantial aspects of temperature variation were not being captured in the models, and that is still the case today.

            They are, to put it kindly, inadequate, and more likely just plain wrong.

          • BTW, in 2005 the warming rate was not exceeding the predictions.

          • So, were you shrieking about models underestimating warming in 2006?The
            IPCC no more predicts that each year will be warmer than the last, than
            daylength predicts that each day in the spring will be warmer than the
            day before.

          • The model outputs DO NOT MATCH the data.

            The model outputs sometimes show higher rates of temperature change and sometimes lower rates of temperature change, compared to the observations, and over multidecadal timeframes.

            The models cannot even ‘predict the past’, much less be relied upon for the future.

          • Yes, short-term rates of change are sometimes higher or lower because models don’t predict short-term temperatures..

            Do you believe that if temperatures do not uniformly rise throughout the spring, that rising daylength has failed to predict rising temperatures?

          • Decades at a time is hardly ‘short term’.

            The models do not incorporate the 60 year cyclicity of the ENSO index, for example, despite that being evidence of some powerful driver of temperatures.

          • The standard averaging period for climate is 30 years. So yes, the 10 year+ you’re on about is indeed short-term.
            ENSO causes variability not long-term changes.

          • Changes in the ENSO index over sixty years (long enough for you? 60 years?) are connected with important changes in temperatures.

            Ignoring those is what has left the CAGW alarmists extrapolating the most recent thirty year warming to arrive at their assumed future temperature changes.

            This chart from Akasofu illustrates the source and result of the error:

          • I think the point people are trying to make is the climate models was based on CO2. We have more CO2 now but the temperature has not changed. If you look at the long term like 10,000 years well the earth was coming out of an ice age.

          • Ah, I see the point.

            So if temps in the first week May are higher than the last week of the month, despite having longer daylength, we can rest easy that daylength doesn’t affect temperature.