‘The science is clear’

by Aaron Wherry

Picking up where questions on Monday and Tuesday had failed to receive a straightforward answer, Megan Leslie tried again this afternoon to clarify Joe Oliver’s views on climate change. Here’s how that went.

Megan Leslie: Monsieur le Président, hier j’ai donné un break au ministre des Ressources naturelles afin qu’il prenne le temps de penser à ses réponses. On ne sait toujours pas si le ministre se range dans le camp des radicaux qui nient l’existence des changements climatiques ou s’il accepte le fait que la science explique les changements climatiques. Alors, qu’en est-il? Est-ce que le ministre croit à la science des changements climatiques, oui ou non?

Joe Oliver: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite gave me a break because I was not here. The science is clear that human beings cause global warming. Our government has shown its support with investments of over $10 billion to support a cleaner environment and fight climate change through innovation. What I do not believe in is the NDPs ideologically driven Luddite battle against thousands of jobs in Canada. Does the NDP want to deny Canadian families jobs and a secure future, yes or no?

Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the minister back so I can continue to ask him questions. He says that the science is clear but on Tuesday he said a number of scientists do not believe in climate change. The minister should know his file because he is the minister, so let us assume that he has done his research. Could he enlighten us as to which scientists these are, what exactly are they saying, and does he agree with them?

Joe Oliver: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will not take yes for an answer, so I will now go on to the subject of jobs. Maybe the NDP will listen to a Canada building trades union which says right now the process is being subverted, needlessly delayed at the cost of Canadian jobs. We need to reform the system to encourage new investment in Canadian infrastructure. This process needs to be expeditious and not stifle investment and job creation.

Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, we almost received an answer there. I am pleased to hear that the minister might believe in the science, but clearly the government’s actions, or inaction, demonstrates that it does not believe it is actually a problem. From withdrawing from Kyoto, cancelling the eco-energy retrofit program, refusing to regulate emissions in the oil sands, it is clear the government has no track record on environment. My question to the Minister of Natural Resources is: Instead of associating with fringe climate denier groups, when will he come forward with a national energy strategy that would tackle climate change and bring us forward to the green economy of the future?

Joe Oliver: Monsieur le Président, le NPD fait la sourde oreille lorsqu’il s’agit de la création d’emplois dans le secteur de l’énergie, ainsi qu’il tourne le dos aux travailleurs. Peut-être qu’il devrait écouter Buzz Hargrove, l’ancien chef syndical de TCA, qui a dit que nous ne devrions pas arrêter l’ajout de travail dans les sables bitumineux, puisque nous avons besoin d’emplois.




Browse

‘The science is clear’

  1. The science is clear, the minister is not.

    • No, he’s answered it now. “The science is clear that human beings cause global warming.”

      I suppose it could still be argued that he hasn’t said he believes it’s significant or is a cause for concern, but those questions weren’t asked.  I’m still sad that it took him so long to come out with a clear answer to a pretty simple question but I’m assuming he had to get PMO approval or something and the red tape involved in whether an MP can have a belief or not probably takes a couple days to get through.That said, he has answered it. Let’s move on to the more important and interesting questions of what the government is doing and if it’s the right balance for Canada.

      • My point was that while he was clear on one part….he wasn’t clear on what they planned to do about it….beyond calling Dippers ‘luddites’.

        • Shows how little you know. Conservative Innovation™ has developed a gazebo that actually removes carbon from the atmosphere. They will be appearing in Conservative ridings all across Canada. 
           If you’re smart, you’ll vote accordingly.

          • LOL no, I’ll admit you got me there…I guess I’m not up on gazebo tech!

  2. The science is clear, but our ideology is clearer.

  3. good on oliver for throwing crumbs at the idiot environmentalists while steadfastly ignoring their agenda.

    anybody who says “the science is clear” and unlike Oliver actually means it, has no clue what the science says.  try it. next time some pathetic scold who tries to fashion himself a personality out of environmental activism tells you “the science is clear”, just ask them what the science is.  they cant answer that, they’ll just respond that experts are saying this or that, not the actual substantive science.

    • Yes actually, other people do know what the science says….they aren’t guessing at it, or referring to the musings of Glenn Beck.

      •  can you tell me what it is then?  or are you just a parrot that cant address the substantive issues?

        • Sure….you got 6 hours?

          Or, you could just use your google button.

          •  no i know perfectly what the science is which is why i can disagree with it.  you on the other hand only pretend to know what it is and claim to agree with it but instead you only believe what the experts tell you.  which is fine, but dont try to scold skeptics who understand vastly more than you.

            IPCC’s claims of catastrophe rest not just on the greenhouse effect, but on strong positive feedbacks resulting from the relatively mild warming caused by human emissions.  these positive feedbacks are yet to be observed in nature and they exist only in the computer models.  Empirical evidence points to slightly negative feedbacks

          • You know nothing about science….but I’ll bet you’re big on Glenn Beck

          • Thank you for your contribution, I predicted in my first post that if some uneducated greenie loser (e.g. OriginalEmily1) claims that “the science is clear”, they are in fact incapable of discussing this science substantially.  You have performed exactly according to my prediction, as if you were a trained monkey.

            Thank you monkey.

          • Picking a few sentences out of a complex subject, and then claiming you understand the ‘science’ of it doesn’t count I’m afraid.

            You’ve tried it with evolution, and now you’re trying it with climate science…..and it simply doesn’t work.

            You won’t understand the big words, but maybe you can get someone to explain them to you.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

          • Evolution?  Are you on drugs?  I never discussed evolution with you.

            But I can discuss climate science for hours and wipe the floor with you monkey.

            Wow wikipedia links, you must be a super scientizer for using those. 

            Tell me monkey, in your own words, what there a piece of empirical evidence convinced you that global warming was real?  Or do you just believe whatever dirty hippies say?

            There is no empirical evidence to support the notion that the mild CO2 caused warming is amplified by the water vapor feedback.  Zero, nada, zilch.

            But go ahead and quote wikipedia monkey, after all, that’s what I expect a good monkey to do.

  4. Leslie has had a good run with this humourous tongue in cheek line of questioning, but here on the 4th day it’s starting to become a little stale and she’s startring to sound a little too precious and  too cute for amyone to take her seriously. It’s starting to become a little game more than a serious issue.

    • It’s always been a serious issue….it’s past time ministers of the crown figured that out.

      • Translation:  the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  5. Oh FFS, what the hell does Megan Leslie or Joe Oliver or Aaron Wherry know about Global Warming or Climate Change or anything to do with a Planet that is so complex and ancient and constantly evolving that it baffles even those scientists that spend a lifetime studying it.

    Oh, and how could Oliver take seriously a question from a woman who insists on wearing her grandmother/s  red pearls with a red and green flopping dress that looks like it was stitched together from her Aunt Eleanor/s old dining room table cloth.

      • While you are up on your high horse why don/t you take that link and direct it towards the old soul wearing her grandmother/s pearls who chose to veer off from her elected duties to act as a useful Opposition Member, and refer to Oliver as a –grumpy old man.

    • Why golly yes….this planet is such a vast and complex place we’ll never understand anything about it, much less other planets and space.

      So why try?

      We might as well go back to the caves, and call it a day.

    • You’re doing fashion commentary now,  sister?

    • Are you sure this is how you want to attack the good Member’s line of questioning?

  6. Age and accomplishment beat bratty and bellicose every time :-)  That’s a clear answer and evidence based at that, but socialists fundamentally believe there is no objective reality and that everyone’s (often self-serving) perception is equally valid.  

    So they reject the $10 billion and vast amount of evidence (and at least some real accomplishments and efforts) that Oliver presented and that a glance at Environment Canada’s website would confirm:  Ten billion.  Investments in clean energy and climate research.  A quite large increase in funding at Environment, and arguably better results on climate change – and also non-overhyped issues like clean air and water – than the Liberals.  Put that in your hash pipe and smoke it, pinkos.

    • Oh goodness no….all us socialists and pinkos out here would never dream of ‘overhyping’ things like clean air and water.   Who needs em?  Certainly not capitalists….unless of course you can make a buck on them.


      • and also non-overhyped issues like clean air and water”

        I’m clearly stating clean air and water are “non-overhyped”.  This is the opportunity cost of AGW hysteria: real environmental issues are ignored.

        Hate blinds, and impairs reading comprehension.

        • Yes, ‘hate blinds, and impairs reading comprehension’……so stop it.

  7. One can forgive Mr. Oliver for bowing to the media pressure to “believe”.  He is, after all, a political animal who does not want the leftist firestorm in the media for suggesting that he is not a ”believer ” which is political heresy among the academic chattering classes.  However, politics and science are, notwithstanding the left’s attempt to co opt certain “science” in the name of marxism/anti capitalism, quite distinct. 

    One can also forgive the commenters here (taking their cue from a relatively ignorant and highly agenda driven media who know precious little about the science behind the earth’s temperature) into believing lock, stock and barrel, the political AGW theory.

    However, those who study the the whole environement, including that massive firey ball of flame in the sky (rather than a minuscule, results driven objective of finding man complicit in earthly misdeeds) know very well that the Earth’s temperature has been radically changing since the Earth’s inception, that the mandaur minimum, and other heating and cooling phenomonah that pre-dated man’s carbon revolution (miles thickness of ice from the ice age melted for reasons we know cannot be due to Dodge Durangos) are a continuous cycle, which has precious little to do with the marxist anti-captitalism that has co-opted the environmental movement.

    We can forgive the Marxists for their last gasp at governmental economic control of the economy, in the name of saving us all from a certain firey death (uncomfortably accompanied by ice breakers having to save Alaskan communities from an icy death), and we can forgive the the psudo scientists, previously languishing in Art’s lounges in universities, who for awhile became king makers determining  who should have energy and who should not, and we can certainly forgive the politicians for preying upon Man’s fears of the end of our world as we know it (still waiting for New York to go under water, as was predicted about twenty years ago by the eco loons).

    It is all forgivable.  The rediculous theory that man could control the temperature of the planet through taxes (and government control), preyed upon the most basic vices and weaknesses of us all.  But particularly of those on the left, who saw one last opportunity of state control (perhaps even worldwide state control), but who now are reduced to medieval forms of public taunting admissions of “believing” while they grasp onto the fading last great hope of a socialist utopia.  Yes, like all forms of socialism gone by, this green soclialism was doomed to crumble under the wieght of reality.

    • Once again: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, or “Every dog I’ve seen today is black, therefore all dogs are black.”

    • Speaking of state control, I see PetroChina bought up some more of our oil and gas assets today… 

  8. Save Energy First!

    Energy efficiency should be the first item on Canada’s energy agenda.
    Canada is about to spend billions on new oil sands projects, pipelines,
    nuclear and fossil-fuel power stations, hydroelectric dams, solar projects,
    and wind farms. But as we prepare to generate more energy, it makes
    sense to save energy first.

    We need to get serious about energy efficiency. The global
    economy is struggling and governments want to create jobs. This is a
    huge opportunity for Canadian governments to help Canadian families save
    energy. Making our homes more energy-efficient creates jobs in all
    communities. http://www.SaveEnergyFirst.ca

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *