Today in the Edmonton Journal they published this letter about Climate Change:
Re: " 'Lack of climate change consensus' puts feds, Alta. on collision course; Cap-and-trade program, emission reduction targets would unfairly penalize province, Wildrose Alliance leader says," by Danielle Smith, Ideas, May 12."There is clear scientific consensus" Bramley boldly declares, yet on the same Letters page today another writer noted that there's an entire page on Wikipedia directed to scientists who disagree with Global Warming. Maybe Bramley just isn't aware of this...but I don't think that's the case.
Danielle Smith is wrong when she writes that "there is no scientific consensus on the extent to which man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are affecting the climate ... and on what policy-makers should do to address it."
The world's major National Science Academies, including Canada's, have unanimously declared that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," and have called on all governments to work together to cut global emissions by 50 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050.
There is clear scientific consensus, and the world's senior scientific bodies could hardly have made it clearer what needs to be done. There is abundant analysis showing that Canada can meet and exceed the federal government's emission-reduction target, and that -- contrary to what Smith claims -- we can do so while growing a strong economy in Alberta and elsewhere. Politicians must listen, and act.
Matthew Bramley, director, climate change, Pembina Institute
So lets investigate Matthew Bramley. This is what he looks like in case you ever need to torment him on a snowy May afternoon in Edmonton. But more importantly, lets look at his job: director of climate change at Pembina Institute. The Pembina institute, commonly and mistakenly referred to as a "think-tank" is in fact a Soros-style money laundering outfit that is all about lining the pockets of liberals and encouraging more liberal (ie. bad) policy, particularly in Alberta. ["bad policy is our business, and under Stelmach business is good" was recently rejected as a fundraising slogan by Pembina. -ed] The problem is that Bramley has a vested interest in keeping the climate change scam going. The moment he starts accepting its all a load of bullshit is the exact moment that he's suddenly -- suddenly! -- out of a job.
Unlike scientists who once worked for an oil company and might do so again, Bramley is what the climate change chicken littles like to call bought and paid for -- at least, that's what they call it when they get to use it as a debating point. Not entirely sure when Bramley will admit that he's very very interested in climate change being real, and will be penniless on the streets if it turns out to be false.
Now lets look to an old canard of the climate change nutsos, which Bramley (like the good servant boy he is) brings up right quick:
There is clear scientific consensus, and the world's senior scientific bodies could hardly have made it clearer what needs to be done.What "needs to be done"? If any of the 'scientists' have said "what needs to be done" then you can discount them immediately. Science, at least in theory, shouldn't care what needs to be done. What these scientists are pushing is a political agenda: governments should do Y because of X. But if you look carefully, that's not their job: its the job of us, as liberty-loving individuals, to decide what we want to do (ideally, government wouldn't do anything). As one of the lone voices in the field of government for those who actually believe in their rights as individuals, Danielle Smith is in a unique position to affect such change. Like it or not, Bramley, its her job (and ours!) to decide, based on the reality we're faced with, to decide how to handle it.
And if the answer is "deal with climate change and keep doing what we're doing", what should the scientists have against that? They can tell us if X is happening or not (which you may find several of them lose interest in doing without the ability to tell us to do the Y that they wanted to do anyways), and should let us know about ramifications and paths to take in the various Ys we consider so that we know what the end result Z would look like, but the decision on how to act is rightly in the hands of the people.
That would be you, dear reader: the same people whose economic prosperity Bramley is willing to sell out in order to satisfy his own. You know what he looks like. Maybe he should be getting a lecture in "how to butt the hell out" the next time you see him: even if its +30 in February.
