As to the reality of climate change (II)


Asked, via e-mail, whether Environment Minister Jim Prentice believes in “anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming,” Mr. Prentice’s press secretary sends along the following response.



As to the reality of climate change (II)

  1. Not the one-word answer I'd have liked, but I wish all politicians were this pithy and direct.

  2. Cool. Wherry, could you ask Stelmach's office next? And then Danielle Smith?

    • Seconded!

    • And just for kicks, could you run this one by Gary Goodyear again?

    • Because asking the Minister of the Environment for his views on the biggest environmental issue and one on which a major Conservative MP just took a diametrically opposite view from his own party is… not relevant? really partisan reaching? trying to force a story narrative? what? what's the complaint? Help us out here CR.

      • There's no complaint at all. If I was complaining, I would have made it much more obvious. I was simply pointing to Stelmach and Smith as examples of Canadian politicians who also walk a very thin line on the AGW issue.

  3. Was the explanation of anthropogenic inserted in the email for Prentice's benefit or in the blog for ours?

  4. Follow-up: So why aren't you doing anything about it? Do we have to wait until Harper and gang are raptured away first?

    • He's just following the lead of Chretien and Martin. They were raptured away, and it changed nothing. I really wish that rapture would come and swallow up your comments on this board too.

  5. Could we stop using the word "believe" in this context? We're not talking about religious systems or our Olympic medal hopes. The correct word would be "accept", I'd suggest.

    • "We're not talking about religious systems…"

      That's debatable. I think "believe" is right.

      • Just like one can choose to "believe" in evolution?

        • Or gravity.

          • Surely it's obvious that AGW is not on as a solid a footing as General Relativity.

            Come to think of it, I doubt anything in Climate Science, even those things on which there is true consensus, is on as a solid a footing as established theories in Physics. It's the nature of the beast.

          • surely it's obvious that AGW is on more solid footing as any religious systems.

    • "Have confidence in the scientific validity", perhaps?

      I'd say believe is more appropriate than accept, though neither has the right connotation.

    • "The correct word would be "accept", I'd suggest. "

      Or perhaps "do you subscribe to…" would be more accurate yet. AGW is primarily accepted (or rejected) wisdom and very few of us have enough data to make an informed decision.

      I'm a skeptic, btw.

    • You could say the science is robust; that is, it has many lines of evidence which stand up to testing.

      • "…In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt. IPCC described these factors as ‘virtually certain' or ‘unequivocal'. The attribution of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity is also pretty well established – that is ‘highly likely' and the anticipation that further warming will continue as CO2 levels continue to rise is a well supported conclusion. To the extent that anyone has said that the scientific debate is over, this is what they are referring to. In answer to colloquial questions like “Is anthropogenic warming real?”, the answer is yes with high confidence…"


        • And 95% certainty that the Hymalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 too!

      • You could also say much of the science is complete Hog Wash!

        • Of course you'd be wrong, but don't let that stop you.

Sign in to comment.