Here’s an interesting article about the Wildrose candidates. Albertans in particular should read, because it looks like these folks may be in your Cabinet and running your government in a little while: Election spotlight turns to untested Wildrose candidates.
Yes, I recall Smith stating as much as soon as she arrived on the scene. It’s funny that she thinks being a right-wing economist in an oil-producing region lends her opinion weight. I’m sure her so-called skepticism has nothing to do with her being a free-market libertopian.
I’m really hoping this isn’t a once-in-a-lifetime electoral shift, because that means I’d be stuck with these . . . these . . . Republicans until I a) leave Alberta, or b) die.
Not necessarily: Globe and Mail article reviewing dynasty politics in Canada suggests that Canadians have generally moved away from that trend: CRUNCHING NUMBERS: Toppling Alberta PCs would be historic – but Wildrose might not rule for long
Of course, Alberta is Alberta, so who knows? It’s the province of rugged individualists who just happen to move in lockstep in their voting patterns. 
That is a weird thing about Alberta - historically, being elected to power as the provincial government seemed to be your ticket to remaining in power until you wanted to get out.
Oh well - we have a moderating influence on the right-wing conservatives here from the Saskatchewan socialists, the Ontario liberals, and the BC communists. 
It’s almost sad he doesn’t realize his endorsement is having the exact opposite effect that he intended. Almost.
It pains me my MP is this stupid.
The question “Is the science on global warming settled?” is simply a political trap.
The fact is, saying ‘the science is settled’ is factually wrong and it’s a gross generalization. It’s like trying to boil down the creationist/evolutionist divide by asking, “Do you think the science of biology is settled?” Of course it’s not. Science is never settled, and there’s a hell of a lot more to biology than evolution. But asking you to declare which ‘side’ you are on with such a grossly generalized question is useful if you want to show ‘overwhelming consensus’ or shut down debate completely.
If you asked me if the science of global warming is settled, I would respond “Hell no!”. And yet, I believe the earth is warming, that CO2 is helping to cause that warming, and that man is contributing to the CO2 levels that are measurably increasing. However, the people who advocate a range of policy options from cap and trade to carbon taxes to outright shutdowns of carbon-producing energy or industry WANT the debate to be a binary choice: Either the ‘science is settled’, in which case you must do exactly as they demand, or you don’t believe it is, in which case you’re a denialist moron to be ridiculed.
In reality, there’s a VERY long distance between believing that CO2 is helping to cause the earth to warm, and believing that we are headed for disaster, that the IPCC is capable of predicting exactly what disasters await 100 years from now, and knowing what the right policy prescriptions are. And as you move away from the very basic science of CO2 energy absorption and simple measures of CO2 content, the science gets murkier and murkier. Long-range predictions of future climate based on tuned models of a complex system are speculative at best. There are legitimate questions to be asked about feedback mechanisms, the role of the ocean and the sun, how circulation patterns change to moderate heat production, etc.
With all respect, Sam, I’m not buying it. I think Danielle Smith and her campaign managers are nothing short of geniuses - she’s played “Plausible deniability” in the campaign absolutely brilliantly.
Seriously. She didn’t say “We believe that climate change is a real concern and we believe human CO2 emissions are part of the problem except we have some concerns with the research of this specific paper showing blah blah blah”. She’s not arguing based on some sort of intra-scientific schism on the exact mechanism. Her quote is “We have always said the science isn’t settled and we need to continue to monitor the debate”.
OK, so what is it that isn’t settled? What’s the debate? Be specific. Impress me with the depth of her knowledge on this issue. How is what she said anything but a statement that she doesn’t believe that climate change is happening, and/or isn’t caused by human activities? Because that’s the actual “debate” that’s happening in the public (but not scientific community) about climate change, isn’t it? Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.
Why does it matter as long as the pollution issue is being addressed? The goal should be for all industry to not allow any pollution whether it is CO2 or any other deemed pollutant. The reality is that it is very hard to accomplish that.
She should be saying, “We will rationally decrease the levels of pollution without beggaring our province in doing so”. If her stance is that, I don’t care if she doesn’t believe in global cooling, global warming, climate change, or whatever other flavour of the day issue the environmentalists are pushing.
The reality is also that no one is calling for zero pollution.
Well, she isn’t.
It isn’t. Her stance is is that “the science isn’t settled.”
I wonder why she’d say something like that? My experience with the libertarian types tells me it’s because doing something about the issue is against her ideology. If there’s no problem, there’s no reason to do anything regulations-wise that might cut into the profits of the corporations she represents. I see no reason to take her opinions on climate science any more seriously than I would James Inhofe’s.
And it matters because I don’t want to live under a government run by a party that willfully promotes ignorance to the detriment of its constituents for the sake of corporations. If I wanted that I’d have taken that job in the States, or voted for the PCs.
Those corporations that employ people? The ones that if they moved somewhere else wouldn’t employ people? Those ones?
In case you missed it, the PCs won. Do you feel abused living in one of the better off countries in the world where unemployment is in the single digits?
Yeah, those ones. I suppose they’d just up and take our natural resources with them when they go, too.
Yes, I know. But I didn’t want them to, so I didn’t vote for them. And I don’t want Smith to win either for similar reasons, so I won’t be voting for her party either.
Not yet. I suppose as long as I, personally, don’t die in a hospital hallway waiting for medical attention things are peachy. But I, personally, wouldn’t be affected by you losing your job either. So if everything is fine so long as I don’t feel abused, and if a government whose purpose is other than to cater to corporations leads to you losing your job, and if you being unemployed doesn’t lead to me feeling abused, then everything’s fine even if you lose your job. Whether or not I personally feel abused is, apparently, the yardstick by which we should measure our government’s performance, after all.
And if I’m supposed to credit the right with the fact that I have a job, do I get to blame them for the fact that I’m woefully underpaid for someone with my background and experience?
This is a specious argument.
Does anyone else find the Sun newspaper cover with a big picture of Danielle Smith with the headline beside her saying, “BOSS PUTS OUT…Wildfire” a little bit horrifying? Really? We had to go there?
Worse than the Herald quoting Nenshi saying WILDROSE IS THE ANSWER FOR CALGARY’s next lrt line?
Couldn’t belive that when I saw it. I guess headline writers gotta sell newspapers.
I think I prefer a quiz, like this one. It says I should vote Liberal, but I also am pretty high on New Democratic issues.
Doctors, Nurses and hospital staff work for free now? Hospitals and the supporting infrastructure build and maintain themselves? Where do you think this money comes from if you make the rules that corporations work under worse than competing jurisdictions. Did you miss what happened when the PC’s mucked around with the royalty rates a few years ago?
I’ll refresh your memory: Companies leave or spend less. Yes, they don’t take the resources with them, they stay safe in the ground where they don’t generate any money to pay for things like hospitals and schools and roads and all the other things that you seem to think just exist by themselves.
I don’t think they exist by themselves. Stop making things up and pretending I said them.
Well stop assuming that supporting corporations doing business in our province is a bad thing. Its their bloody job. Along with ensuring the environment is protected and hospitals run, etc.
Stop making things up and pretending I said them.