Why the Tories must shake an association with climate skepticism

Conservatives were among the first to note climate change’s dangers. Here’s why it should be in their future, too.

trudeau cop21

Politicians of all stripes—including, at far right, Conservative MP Ed Fast—took part in this photo-op at Paris’s COP21 climate summit. (Justin Trudeau Twitter)

This post was written by Mark Cameron and Tom Chervinsky, the executive director and vice-president of operations, respectively, of Canadians for Clean Prosperity.

This year’s Paris climate conference has been far more successful in moving toward a substantive global agreement than most if not all of the previous rounds, from Kyoto to Copenhagen. One of the reasons for this success is that governments of all political stripes are playing a key role in the discussions.

Related: Meet the woman leading Canada’s climate-summit negotiations

In Canada and the United States, support for climate action is usually associated with left-wing ideology, while the right is often associated with climate skepticism and resistance to change. But this has not always been the case, nor does it reflect reality across the global political landscape. Let’s not forget that Margaret Thatcher, a trained scientist, was one of the first world leaders to warn about global warming, and that George H.W. Bush was one of the architects of the International Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Rio Earth Summit. Conservative free-market economists from Arthur Laffer to Greg Mankiw have been among the strongest supporters of carbon pricing. And today, conservative governments like those in Germany and the U.K. both stand at the forefront of climate leadership.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been clear about the nature of the threat, saying, “climate change threatens both our security and our economic development.” Germany has been a leader in implementing renewable energy and in financing low-carbon investment in developing countries.”

Related: Our profile of Angela Merkel, the real leader of the free world

Similarly, U.K. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has been working to build long-term solutions to emissions, including bringing in a floor price on carbon. This February, before the U.K. elections, the leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democratic, and Labour parties signed a joint agreement to seek a binding international climate deal, phase out coal-fired power, and to agree to binding national carbon budgets. This remarkable political consensus has largely removed climate change as a contentious issue in U.K. politics.

Even Australia, long seen as a climate laggard, is changing. Its new prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has said: “we know that the consequences of unchecked global warming would be catastrophic … We as a human species have a deep and abiding obligation to this planet and to the generations that will come after us.” Consistent with this change of tone, Australia is now signalling support for carbon markets and quietly turning its current climate change plan into a form of carbon pricing.

Canada, too, has seen climate leadership from conservatives. Brian Mulroney first signed on to the International Framework Convention of Climate Change in 1992, and it was British Columbia’s centre-right government that first introduced a price on carbon. B.C.’s example has clearly demonstrated that when implemented with sound economic principles—like using every dollar to lower taxes on businesses and families—a price on carbon and serious climate action can be paired with economic growth and real prosperity.

Of course, Canada has its climate skeptics and many of them identify as conservatives, but the conservative movement also includes luminaries like Preston Manning, Jean Charest, and David Frum, who have been clear about the need for market solutions to address this major threat to our economies and future prosperity. Indeed, in the last election, polling showed that a majority of Conservative voters thought Canada should take further measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As federal Conservatives think about renewing their party, and new conservative opposition leaders in Alberta and Ontario respond to the climate policies of their governments, Canadian conservatives should think about where they want to position themselves—with climate skepticism and intransigence, or with conservative leaders like Merkel, Cameron and Turnbull who are trying to provide economically sensible, market-oriented solutions to the challenge of climate change. A successful result in Paris, with the strong participation of conservative governments internationally, should make this choice a little clearer.


Why the Tories must shake an association with climate skepticism

  1. It is not skepticism about climate change but difficulty swallowing the hypocrisy when people like Obama are targeting Alberta for not doing enough and at the same time are selling record amounts of coal to China which in the past days has had record amounts of pollution in its capital city. The oilsands in Alberta are responsible for 8 percent of Canada’s emissions yet somehow get world recognition as a horrific emitter. Meanwhile, Obama is fracking like crazy, which we now know causes earth quakes and is planning to drill in the arctic. For some reason it is okay for Canadian provinces to buy oil from Nigeria, Saudia Arabia and South America even though that drilling causes emissions and the transport via ocean tankers is dangerous to the environment, not to mention that these countries they buy from have governments with terrible human rights records.

    • I think it’s time to update your facts (and therefore your opinion) with the current decade. I found this graph hosted online by an interested party : http://oilsands.alberta.ca/images/Global_Sources_of_Emissions_2010.jpg

      According to this oil industry backed website, oil sands accounted for 9% of CO2 emissions of Canada back in 2010. Are you seriously suggesting that this share went down in the last 5 years?

      Also, outlining the fact that another country is pretty bad in CO2 emissions is no argument to remain passive.

  2. Once folks tire of paying through the nose to stop “climate change” someone in the press will finally start doing their job and asking the scientists who don’t believe the debate is over. In 30 years, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, and then ask where all the money went.

    What a farce. Any time someone insists that the debate is over….you have to ask yourself what they are afraid of.

    • By ” the scientists who don’t believe the debate is over” jameshalifax means the hereditary British peer who claims to have cured AIDS and the common cold with a journalism degree, an Australian mining geologist who believes that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans, and an ecologist who has never practiced in his field, let alone the field of climate science.
      They haven’t published a single paper between the lot of them, but they make some nice videos that jameshalifax has watched on the yooo toooob and if you’d just watch them you’d know what a fraud it all is!



    • I’m going to guess you’re still mourning the ban on CFCs.

  3. Before the Cons think they will be re-elected in the next election, they are also going to have to get over their skepticism(or come to terms with) the legalization of pot, assisted dying with dignity, and abortion, because if legal pot is introduced and it works out, good chance the public would not want a government in power who wants to dismantle these new policies. Finally, the cons need to get over the fact, they no longer run this country and the new liberal government has a right to run this country on their own terms, not on their(cons)terms, so cool your jets for another 4 years conservatives.

    • Well I must say, you Libs certainly got over your skepticism that a majority govt. with only 39 percent of the popular vote has a mandate to make changes to the way the country is run now that it is your choice in power. I suppose we won’t be hearing any more of that phrase “but 60 percent didn’t vote for this govt. from you guys.” like we did constantly during Harper’s reign. Frankly, I don’t have an issue with anything you mentioned. I live in a progressive city that elected the first Muslim mayor in the country. If you think Calgary is some back woods, you are wrong. To pretend that Alberta needs to be squashed while other countries and provinces continue to create much higher emissions is pretty foolish. If the feds want a cut of the money when the Saudi’s finally turn down the taps, Justin should just ask Rachel Notley. I am sure she will be more than happy to hand it over.

      • ” To pretend that Alberta needs to be squashed while other countries and provinces continue to create much higher emissions is pretty foolish.”

        This is complete and utter nonsense.
        If Alberta was a country it would produce the highest per capita emissions in the world. Alberta is not only the largest emitter in the country, but Albertans produce more than five times the emissions of the average British Columbian, Ontarian or Quebecer.

    • Lefties kill me. The lack of self-awareness in a bunch of people whose historic legacy includes such humanitarian luminaries as Joe Stalin, Karl Marx, Mao, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez trying to sell the idea that conservatives just need to be “lefties like us” and all will be well, is beyond ironic.
      The skepticism about climate change does not stem from our disbelief in natural cycles, which climate change most certainly appears to be, but the magical way in which EVERY proposed solution to the supposed problem, looks just like Marxism dressed up in a new green coat.
      We’ve seen that movie before, and we know how it ends. Screaming, running, shooting, blood, all that stuff.

      • I’m certainly not encouraging Conservative to be “lefties like us”.
        I would encourage Conservatives to continue to express their belief that climate change is a global Marxist conspiracy.
        And please encourage you leaders to stop being shy about expressing this belief, especially during the next election.

        • Back in Soviet Russia, (and in Castro’s Cuba, etc) you could always tell the true believers from the proletariat. The true believers in Communism were the ones being driven around in limousines, shopping at the stores reserved for the upper level apparatchiks, and spending weekends at their country dachas, all while expressing disdain for capitalism and property and greed and all that.
          It’s sort of like how you can tell the true believers in global warming from the lowly non-compliant proletariat. The true believers are the ones flying hither and yon in private jets, to winter time conferences in sunny locales, so as to discuss among themselves how all this global warming is making it so much harder to decide whether it’s Kitzbuhl or Whistler for New Years.
          Nope. No resemblance there.

          • Yes, and you can tell idiotic climate deniers by their peculiar climatic beliefs, like that Paris in December is a “sunny locale”. And their penchant for throwing irrelevant comparisons or tangents into the discussion, like caricatures of Soviet hypocrisy, and think that somehow informs the discussion.

          • Is Bill Greenwood really Stephen Harper? I love it when they go off on a rhetorical, ideological spin/tangent that has virtually nothing to do with the issue. Enough Canadians finally figured out Harper was lying to them for 9 years.

  4. Skepticism is an essential part of science, even for science that seems settled.

    The science of classical mechanics was “settled” until one skeptic, Albert Einstein, obliterated the paradigm with special relativity.

    The science of electromagnetism was “settled” until a few skeptics, Albert Einstein, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg obliterated it with the theory of the photoelectric effect, wave dynanics, and the uncertainty principle.

    There are even interesting twists in the theory of evolution and in genetics, because scientists remained skeptical of the theory, and kept on pushing the limits.

    One of the problems with climate science is that the raw data sets are hoarded, in violation of one of the basic principles of good science, in that all data should be public data. Unless one swears fealty to the orthodoxy, one cannot access the data. Makes climate science somewhat unscientific.

    Much of climate science is based on modelling. Models should always be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism, especially when the critical raw temperature data is hoarded.

    Real science is unafraid of standing naked before skeptics. Many climate scientists, especially the hoarders of the critical temperature data sets, are afraid to stand naked before the skeptics.

    Further, one does not need international agreements to take action on climate change.

    Arguably, international agreements slow real effective action, and are are really the attempt by the powers-that-be to profiteer The international process is really a sham to by the world’s 1%, banksters, and oligarchs to profiteer off of action on climate change, and to sustain the existing world power structure and order.

    Energy has always been a thorn in the side of the banksters. There are really two types of “spice” in the world. Money and energy. Energy is real. Money is ephemeral, conjured out of nothing by central banks. So there is always this tension between the real economy (rooted in the energy spice) and the financialized economy (rooted in the debt spice, money conjured out of nothing).

    Reality, the real economy, in the end has always prevented total control by the financialized economy (smoke and mirrors).

    The war on carbon is a coup attempt by the banksters to financialize the real economy, to make one ring of money/debt through the financialization of energy/carbon, something the banksters have failed to do so far.

    What coordinated international action is about is not about take action on climate change, it is about the the attempt to financialize energy (and in corollary, financialize the real economy). The one ring of money and debt to rule the world and to enslave people to banksters.

    If carbon is the enemy, there is no need for international agreements. One can just act locally, and price carbon. But that does not work for the banksters. Banksters want to be the intermediary between the people and their government with carbon as they are with money/debt. A simple pricing of carbon within the economy does not enable the banksters to gain greater power.

    From an international perspective, the American Deep State has been in a century long alliance with the radical Sunni Wahhabist Saudi state…where the United States would turn a blind eye to Wahhabist evangelism/radicalization of the Muslim world if the Saudi priced oil in US dollars. i.e. the petrodollar wa s a truce that worked for fifty years between the money spice and the energy spice that maintained American hegemony and bankster control.

    But the petrodollar era is ending, and the banksters and the American Deep State need a new way to financialize energy other than the petrodollar, and that is why instead of taking action on climate change, there are these interminable international conferences attempting to find a successor to the petrodollar as a means to financialize energy and control of the real economy by banksters.

    • “There are even interesting twists in the theory of evolution and in genetics, because scientists remained skeptical of the theory…”

      And isn’t that the point – scientists remained skeptical. As opposed to self-taught Internet pseudo-scientists who are stupid and arrogant enough to believe that they’re capable of positive contribution to climate science. Pseudo-scientists who seem to invariably believe that any single factoid proves – proves! – that the entire field is a giant conspiracy.

      But you’d never believe a stupid conspiracy theory, would y—-holy hell! Banksters financializing the American Deep State? Where the hell do you get this crap?

      • TJcook- All that aside, here’s the deal. In order to achieve the goals of the climate alarmists, humanity is being told that we must abandon energy sources that have evolved into almost miraculously versatile tools. The key word is “evolved”. If we abandon carbon fuels in a non-evolutionary fashion as has been proscribed, the known costs will be enormous on a humanitarian scale. The social and economic upheavals will be on a scale not previously known, and that’s the core of the problem.
        We’re being told to experience a massive inevitable downside in order to stave off a hypothetical and unknown downside. We’re being asked to commit economic and social suicide in order to stave off a hypothetical problem of unknown veracity and severity.
        It’s like stampeding the entire village off the cliff to certain death because someone thinks they see a lion in the grass just beyond the edge of town,and no one should be eaten by a lion. That makes no sense, but that’s the line the warm-mongers push.
        That problem is compounded by the very alarming tendency for the warmists to adopt the kinds of rhetoric and tactics that we saw in every Marxist/Leninist movement. Add to that the clear tendency towards Marxism among a sizeable number of “green” groups, and you get the picture. As I said earlier, this always ends with running, screaming, and shooting.

        • “All that aside…”

          Wow. You’re not going to address anything I said, but you have more to say. I’m not sure who you expect to convince with that approach, but whatever.

          “If we abandon carbon fuels in a non-evolutionary fashion as has been proscribed…”

          Well, obviously. The Paris agreement doesn’t call for an abrupt shutdown of carbon fuels, it calls for a transition. Each country is expected to transition at a rate that’s appropriate for its economy. The “core of the problem” you describe doesn’t exist.

          “We’re being told to experience a massive inevitable downside in order to…”


          “We’re being told to experience a massive inevitable downside in order to…”

          Still nope.

          “Add to that the clear tendency towards Marxism among a sizeable number of “green” groups,..”

          Sources? Evidence? Anything? Didn’t think so.

          Dude, you need to figure out who is using phrases like “climate alarmists” and “warmists” (never mind “American Deep state”) and stop reading them. It’s blatant propaganda and it makes you sound like a crazy person.

          I actually think we’d agree on a lot of things, but you have to let go of this conspiracy theory.

          • Virtually every so-called “green” group advocates for more government control over all aspects of society, and especially over industry. The resemblance to Marxism in many aspects is self evident, them solidified by the complete adherence to leftist dogma across a wide swath of “environmentalism”.
            Carbon fuels have evolved to become the fuel and energy source of modern society simply because they are efficient and versatile.
            Coal is tremendously efficient in that the amount of energy per pound is tremendous. This then means that the amount of land required for a power plant is quite small. By comparison, all of the wind and solar installed capacity in North America is roughly the equivalent of the 25th largest coal plant in the United States. You would have to build a wind farm stretching from the front of the Rockies 100 miles east, and from North of Edmonton to the Mexican border just to replace the 4 or 5 largest coal plants on the continent. At the same time, the price of electricity would have to rise dramatically, and multiple governments would have to forego hundreds of millions in annual royalty payments from coal leases. Each of those windmills would have to be replaced every 15-20 years at the very most. How sustainable does that sound to you?
            That still doesn’t address the instability that would add to the electrical grid. Brownouts and blackouts would be the norm. Sound fun yet?
            Oil, on the other hand is literally a miracle resource. If you had walked into JP Getty’s offices 100 years ago and tried to tell him that there were even a quarter of the uses we have found for petroleum products to be exploited, he’d have called you crazy and kicked you out.
            Many of the by-products of oil that we utilize today can only exist as the result of refining petroleum for fuel. If there is no fuel, there is no by-product created to be exploited. That list alone is mind boggling. Which ones are you willing to live without?
            That leads us back to the tax question. Governments everywhere derive billions of dollars from every aspect of the petroleum industry. Every aspect. Given that, which government departments and services are you specifically willing to eradicate in order for civil government to survive within a far smaller fiscal envelope?
            That, my friend is where the rubber meets the road. We can’t afford the government’s we have now. I know where I’d cut just to make it affordable in a world where carbon energy supplies billions of dollars of revenue. What would you cut in order to make government small enough to be sustained with billions, or hundreds of billions fewr dollars available?
            If you’re not willing or able to address THAT, then you haven’t spent nearly enough time looking at this issue. The ball is most definitely back in your court.

          • I ask you for evidence of Marxism in the green movement and you tell me that it’s self-evident.

            You tell me carbon fuels are awesome (which they are), and also supply incredibly useful things like plastic. But you don’t address the point of this discussion – dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and what that’s doing to the climate. Kinda hard to discuss climate change when you won’t even talk about it.

            Wow, all these dire predictions of the impacts of building alternative energy. And yet nobody is planning to do the rash, disruptive things you describe. It’s a giant straw man, including the pseudo-argument that fossil fuels provide tax dollars, so if we burn less I’m supposed to tell you what government function I would cut.

            Wow. I’m not sure the ball is in my court – you don’t seem to have seen the ball, you certainly didn’t take a swing at it, and I’m not even sure you’re on the court.

            Again: find some new sources. Your own arguments aren’t even internally consistent, and they’re stuffed full of bullsh*t.

  5. I have to object to the inaccurate and misleading use of the word “skepticism” here. “Denialism” is a more accurate word. “Scientific skepticism” accurately refers to the level of scientific rigor that is employed by climate scientists in reaching their conclusions. Scientific skepticism is built into the scientific process of quantifying uncertainty in all measurements and predictions. A science-based weather forecast, for example, always gives a probability of precipitation for the next day in addition to the quantity. Climate scientists do the same for long-term forecasts when making predictions for the next 100 years. They provide a range of possible values that quantify the uncertainty in temperature, precipitation, storms events, and sea-level. Economists, governments, and business can then use these to better anticipate changes in future climate. It is the climate scientists who should be referred to as “skeptics” because it is they who continually ask the tough, technical questions about how accurate a particular temperature measurement is and the degree of certainty in a given conclusion.

    Scientific skepticism is not employed by climate change denialists. Rather denialists seek to create doubt in the mind of the public to discredit the scientific data and conclusions politically. They will rehash old scientific debates, provide bad analysis, manufacture caveats, and attack climate scientists personally. In other words, they wish to manufacture political skepticism, not partake in scientific skepticism. This is done by using public forums in outrightly denying the validity of the state-of-the-art data and methodolgies that atmospheric physicists, physical oceanographers, and glaciologists employ to reach their conclusions. Denialists don’t use facts and figures to calculate scientific uncertainty the way skeptics do: they use the media to create doubt.

    I understand the reluctance of journalists unfamiliar with the actual science to use the word “denialism” because of it’s similar use in Holocaust denial. But it is simply a fact that denialism in any kind political movement are defined by attempts to politically discredit an overwhelming body of objective, scholarly evidence for ideological purposes. One should not let political correctness interfere with an accurate description of a political movement just because some people will have their feelings hurt.

    There are legitimate questions to be asked about how much global warming will cost compared to the switch from fossil fuels. Skepticism in this area is legitimate. But in order for governments and businesses to make these economic calculations responsibly, you need to accept the numbers and quantified uncertainties provided by the physical science, just like you need to accept uncertainties in the effects of gravity when launching a satellite. Denying the legitimacy of the science will make it impossible to make responsible calculations that are becoming more and more crucial as the rate of climate change increases.

    • Guy- You make a good argument, but unfortunately, much of what you ascribe to the “denialists” are the tactics of the alarmists. We are asked to believe that researchers who rely on the billions of dollars in tax-funded grants are not motivated by money, but that scientists not on board the warming train are in the pockets of “big energy”. We are asked to believe that the warmists have no political motives, and that the skeptics are solely politically motivated. We’re asked to believe that skeptics don’t use facts and figures, when it is their facts and figures that have led to our own skepticism, while at the same time we have seen obfuscation of data, and outright fiddling with historical records on the warming side. Our skepticism is driven by the actions and observed political beliefs of the warmists.
      Time and again, we are told that climate change is the most pressing crisis of our time, yet hunger and disease will kill more children in the next hour than climate change has ever harmed. Sectarian Muslim violence will kill more people this afternoon, than climate change has ever harmed. The climate has always changed, and humanity has always moved on. Get used to it.
      Then think about the very real human costs of a forced adaptation to a supposedly carbon free energy world. Our reliance on fossil fuels is the result of natural evolution of technology and energy supply. We thrive on fossil fuels simply because they are tremendously efficient. To force ourselves to turn our backs on that WILL result in a massive, and extremely costly in human terms, disruption with NO FORESEEABLE outcome. The climate change activist crowd wants to believe that, in a world of ISIS and Iran and North Korea, ALL nations will hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” as the West plunges itself off of the cliff of modernity. Ask yourself how much of the greatest civilization ever known will be left in 100 years if we abandon ourselves over fears of a strictly hypothetical climate scenario. And make no mistake, the scenarios painted by the warmists are completely and utterly hypothetical. As is, admittedly, mine.
      But, if your doctor told you he thought you had cancer but could never really know for sure,and that the only course of action was a very expensive set of treatments guaranteed to leave you weak and debilitated and would likely end up killing you and that you had to pay for the treatments up front in case you died, how much sand would you tell him to pound? That’s where we’re at here.
      And now think about one more thing about the “climate crisis.” If it’s truly a crisis, why haven’t they banned things like air travel? Why aren’t we looking at strict rationing of energy use? Why wouldn’t the Europeans send every refugee back to where they came from, where they would use far less energy than they will in Europe reading by coal fired light, heating their Northern European homes with coal fired electricity, and eating foods grown and transported with diesel fired machinery? The list of those kind of questions is as long as “Gone With the Wind”.
      The warmists want us to believe in the myth of voluntary carbon reduction, yet any thinking person knows that once that door is open, it will be anything but voluntary. 50+ years of public education and increased taxation has led to a 50% reduction in the number of smokers. The idea that we can get massive reductions in energy use, which will mean that we will have to get millions of people to act against their own self-interests (we can’t get public employees to act against their own perceived self-interests, and we’re constantly told they’re selfless) voluntarily in the face of a hypothetical (there’s that word again) crisis is simply ludicrous. That leaves the other option to ponder.
      How much of the power of the state are the warmists willing to engage in order to stave off the “greatest crisis of our time?” Think of all that other stuff, and then ask yourself if the climate crisis is so great that YOU are willing to see Soviet and Maoist style government action in order to forestall that crisis? Are you willing to believe, as some warmists do, that skeptics should be jailed without trial? Are you willing to believe that those who use “too much” energy should be punished? You can be jailed without trial for the crime of having an unauthorized chicken, with which to feed your family, in Cuba.
      How far down that road do you want to go? How far? Think about all of that before you answer. Freedom can still thrive in a world where the climate has changed, but freedom cannot live in a world where we have thrown away everything because we’re afraid that the climate might be changing.

      • “We are asked to believe that researchers who rely on the billions of dollars in tax-funded grants are not motivated by money, but that scientists not on board the warming train are in the pockets of “big energy”.”

        The IPCC is not funded by grants.

        There are no scientists that dispute global warming. Only scientists, who have all been demonstrated to cherry pick data or commit other serious methodology errors , that dispute the anthropogenic theory: http://www.techinsider.io/global-warming-denier-studies-not-replicable-2015-9

        “while at the same time we have seen obfuscation of data, and outright fiddling with historical records on the warming side”

        Can you refer to something specific? It’s easy to make such vague claims.

        “Time and again, we are told that climate change is the most pressing crisis of our time, yet hunger and disease will kill more children in the next hour than climate change has ever harmed.”

        Your usage of the word “harmed” is interesting. You’re comparing different things, as being short on food, for e.g., is harmful. And this makes your assertion completely ridiculous. There of millions of children that suffered from the same hunger you mention because of climate change.

        “The climate has always changed, and humanity has always moved on. Get used to it.”

        Except those were natural changes, not human caused changes. Will you get used to the millions of immigrants forcing their way in other countries, including Canada, because they have to move on?

        “to a supposedly carbon free energy world.” – No one is proposing a carbon free world, you are seriously imagining things here.

        “Our reliance on fossil fuels is the result of natural evolution of technology and energy supply.”

        And getting rid of fossil fuels will be the result of natural evolution of technology and energy supply. Why do you insist in keeping fossil fuels?

        “We thrive on fossil fuels simply because they are tremendously efficient.”

        Only if you exclude the massive externalities of fossil fuels. If you include them, they are the most costly source of energy currently in use: http://www.wsj.com/articles/imf-estimates-trillions-in-hidden-fossil-fuel-costs-1431958586

        “To force ourselves to turn our backs on that WILL result in a massive, and extremely costly in human terms, disruption with NO FORESEEABLE outcome.”

        What you are describing is the outcome of burning all fossil fuels in a short lapse of time. The costs are already massive, like I mentioned, and the impacts are very real in human terms.

        “Ask yourself how much of the greatest civilization ever known will be left in 100 years if we abandon ourselves over fears of a strictly hypothetical climate scenario.”

        We do ask ourselves that, and we hope as much as possible will be left, and that’s why we think people like you are a problem.

  6. In the process of losing leadership credibility on energy and environment policy the politicians, who remain scientifically illiterate, remain at the top of the list……and while dragging down the remaining credibility of any scientists associated with their cause, they also destroy the credibility of the mainstream news media…… which also remain scientifically illiterate……. I cannot find enough solid evidence to buy in to the AGW agenda….. but have taken precautionary steps such as driving a PHEV…. next will be all BEV, cutting back on transportation etc. Time will tell……

Sign in to comment.