Conservative Introspection, Seriously?

In the aftermath of the recent Federal Election, an election that almost seemed to be the Conservative's to lose, there has been anger (particularly on the Prairies where approximately 60% of voters made that party their choice), frustration and, finally, some self-examination to determine what went wrong.

Some knives have been out for party leader Andrew Scheer.  Some Senators have jumped ship, citing a loss in support for Scheer's leadership, one former Conservative MP has described some of Scheer's personal beliefs as a "stinking albatross" around the neck of the party, or at least the neck of the leader.

One commentator suggested that it's hypocritical to focus on Scheer's socially conservative views in comparison to the personal views of other party leaders.

Andrew Scheer has fired two of his top aides, apparently with the view that tinkering with the message or massaging the communication process or the strategy, things will be better next time.

The question will be, of course, whether this will be enough.

I'd like to propose a few ideas about the results and where I think the real problems lie.

Social Conservatism as an issue:

Although the Conservative Party doesn't have a lock on socially conservative "values", it is something they pay at least lip service to and the party does tend to pander to the segment of society that holds such values close to their hearts.  Specifically, issues like LGBTQ rights, abortion, gay marriage, all fall into this category.  Although the majority of society has moved on, social conservatives like Scheer and, I assume, many of the party's supporters, still see each of the issues mentioned as "wrong".  Not content with avoiding such practices themselves, social conservatives have been determined to force their views on the whole of society.  Personally, I find it difficult to rationalize such determination with claims that the Conservatives believe in individual liberty and a smaller role for government and its regulations.  Given the election results, I'd guess that many voters see some inconsistency there as well.

Fiscal Responsibility as an issue:

The Conservatives have turned it into a mantra: "balance the budget", "stop mortgaging our children's future", and so on.  Let's get real here.  Under Harper, approximately $162 BILLION was added to the National Debt.  There is NO government, Conservative or Liberal, that has managed to avoid at least some annual budget deficit.  To claim that Harper was on track to do that is nonsense.  His government stole from other programs in a smoke and mirrors effort to make things look good.  Cuts to programs for veterans, for example.  To steadfastly hold that government budgets must be run like your household budget is silly.  They are not even remotely in the same ballpark.  What matters more is the debt to GDP ratio, but since that's a concept that politicians don't think voters would understand, it's avoided in favour of constant harping about a balanced budget.  So my suggestion would be to stop appealing to the least-economically-educated voter out there and stop treating Canadians as fiscal idiots.

Immigration as an issue:

Although the Conservative Party managed to stay away from the extreme xenophobic position of the "People's Party of Canada", the fact remains that the Conservative tent recently included advocates of the "snitch line" for "barbaric cultural practices".  Party supporters are often heard demanding that they "get their country back".  Despite beliefs to the contrary, immigrants work harder, are often better educated and tend to take education generally more seriously than "old stock" Canadians.  It would seem that most voters are repulsed by negative views of immigrants and are not afraid of some cultural diversity in their midst.

Climate Change and the Environment as an issue:

Finally, for now, the big elephant in the room.  Every single successive report that has come out in the past few years is painting a gloomier picture of the future for our planet.  The data is there.  The closer we look and the more we learn, the worse the situation seems.  The Liberal approach has been more happy talk with insufficient action, but the Conservatives are definitely and firmly anchored in the 1950s on this issue.  Their supporters claim any or all of the following: climate change isn't happening, it's not as bad as the "alarmists" say it is, humans can't be causing this, Canada is too insignificant a contributor for us to do anything about it, there's nothing we can do anyway, it would cost too much, too many jobs would be lost....  You get the picture.  Labeling Scheer as "Mr Deny" rather hit the mark.  And the tactic of appealing to populist anger over something so insignificant as that "carbon tax"?  That in itself shows what Conservatives really believe.  Concerns and growing fear about the effects of climate change are only going to increase.  Until the Conservatives climb out of their caves and have an honest look around at what's happening, they are destined to become more and more irrelevant.  Come up with a real plan to address climate change boys.  Stop pandering to the climate holocaust deniers in your base.  The facts just aren't in your favour.

Those are four areas where the Conservatives managed to park themselves on the wrong side of the issue and where, I believe. voters found them deficient.  So it's not that you didn't repeat your message often and loudly enough or that you didn't tweak that message quite the right way.  It's your adherence to beliefs that are simply not supported by the evidence.

The real reason why enough voters didn't swing to the Conservatives would seem to be a sincere lack of confidence that the party knew what it was talking about and that the party and it's leader could be trusted or believed.  You want to change that, fix your policy positions first.

Just Another Climate Change Denial Story

This making the rounds on Facebook, apparently a place where old stories get recycled again, and again, and again....

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

This "documentary" first appeared on BBC4 way back in early 2007.  Despite the intervening 12 years, it's still being pushed forward as "evidence" that human-caused climate change isn't really a thing.  I decided to take a look at their "evidence" and their "experts" to see what I could find.

The "Evidence":

Here is a quick summary of the claims made in the "expose" and what science actually says about each one.

First, producer Martin Durkin has a reputation for this kind of sensationalist, pseudo-science material.  You can read about him in the link below.

The Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC)  produced a rebuttal to Durkin's vodeo.  It is in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2.  In particular, the claim that the earth's temperature is tied to solar activity is discussed in Part 2.  If you watch the graph displayed on the original video, you will notice that it ends at 1970.  What is doesn't show is how, in the subsequent 30 to 40 years, the earth's temperature has continued to increase, rapidly, while solar activity decreases.

Another of the video's main contentions is that since CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere it simply couldn't be a major factor in warming the planet.  This is also addressed in the ABC videos, where scientists point out that there is a carbon cycle and that CO2 produced (primarily by living things) is matched by CO2 taken up by plants, for example.  This balance has existed for centuries but human emissions of fossil CO2 from coal and oil is disrupting that balance.  It is well-known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the current problem is that we are adding vast quantities to the atmosphere that weren't there before and that aren't being absorbed, hence the increase in atmospheric CO2.

The Main Contributors - Who Are They?

There were 22 names listed as main contributors to the video.  I decided to check up on just a few of them, in no particular order, although there were a few names I had heard of.

Tim Ball: has a PhD in historical Geography and although he's listed in this video as a Professor in the Climatology Department of the University of Winnipeg, that university doesn't have such a Department.  He's been a "consultant to the Exxon-funded "Friends of Science".

Nir Shaviv: has degrees in Physics to the Doctorate level who claims that he is not funded by oil companies.  He is skeptical of human-caused climate change but stresses that there are many reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels.  Unfortunately for his theory, the sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions, as explained here.

Piers Corbyn:  yes, the older brother of the UK Labour Party leader.  Piers is a regular speaker at climate science denial events, he calls climate science the "tool of globalists" with George Soros as a kingpin and has appeared with various conspiracy theorists, including Holocaust denier Nicholas Kellerstrom.  He has a Masters degree in Astrophysics and founded the weather forecasting company WeatherAction.

Federick Singer: is a climate change skeptic going back many years.  Some of his favourite myths have been listed here.  He's been around long enough to have been involved in misinformation regarding links between cigarette smoking and cancer, funded by the tobacco industry.  More recently, he has served as a consultant to Exxon, Shell, Unocal, Ford and GM, among others, all companies with a vested interest in promoting the oil industry.  He seems to operate as a hired gun, so to speak.

Margaret Thatcher: served as PM in the UK during the 1980s.  At that time, she identified climate change as a serous problem.  Subsequent to that, she seemed to have a change of heart, apparently because of the "anti-capitalist" arguments of groups concerned about global warming. Apparently, a book of hers outlining "her position" was partly ghost-written after her death. So it's questionable whether what you read about her position is actually her position.  Thatcher, of course, was concerned about the effects climate change actions might have on the economy.  More on her position can be found here.

Paul Driessen: has an undergraduate degree in Biology.  He has associations with such organizations as the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based  "free-market think tank" that has been at the forefront of the climate change denial movement.  Although it doesn't release information about where it gets its funding from these days, in the past, it has received large donations from Exxon-Mobile.  The organization has also worked as advocate for the tobacco industry.

Patrick Moore: is a past-president of Greenpeace, although he left in 1986 over "differences in policy".  Here are just a few "differences in policy" as examples: Moore was against nuclear energy in the 1970s but he's now in favour of it;  He's a proponent of GMOs, something Greenpeace is against; he's attacked Greta Thunberg, describing her as "...Nazi propaganda" and "evil".  He has also described her as a "puppet" with a mental disorder; he has also supported the use of the weedkiller glyphosate and once claimed it was so safe he'd drink a quart of it, an offer which, when challenged, he refused.

Carl Wunsch: an oceanographer.  He has claimed that his views on this video were taken out of context and "grossly distorted".  A letter from Mr Wunsch explaining his position appears here.  It is worth noting that his letter was written in 2007 and the bad news about our role in climate change continues to come in.  Specifically, he said this: "There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading."

Nigel Lawson (aka: Lord Lawson of Blaby): The Guardian had this tongue in cheek article about the gentleman.  If, indeed, he does exist, he's currently 87 years old, and if he has any credentials in any areas of science, I was unable to find them.  He has, it is reported, taken part in a debate where he claimed that Antarctic ice volumes hadn't decreased, a claim that has been refuted by satellite data.  Lord Lawson, on the other hand, had no evidence to support his claim.

Patrick Michaels: does not contest that the climate is warming, but he contends that the changes will be minor and perhaps even beneficial.  His 30 years of climate change denial is discussed here, and his ties to the energy industry for funding is outlined briefly here.  Michaels is another in a long list of those who supported the tobacco industry in past years, using the same tactics he now uses against the science of climate change.

Martin Durkin: is the TV producer who directed this video.  His credentials are rather unflatteringly described on RationalWiki.  He is interviewed in a two-part ABC production.  Links are given above.

John Christy: is an actual climate scientist.  Along with a colleague, he collaborated on satellite data to argue that the troposphere was cooling, not warming.  Unfortunately, his peers subsequently showed that his data was faulty.  Christy and his colleague also support the intelligent design movement which claims that evolution is false.

Nigel Calder: was an editor and writer for the New Scientist magazine.  Calder said that climate change science has been invaded by sophistry about man-made global warming.  As early as 1980, he predicted that by 2030 "the much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide 'greenhouse' [will fail] to occur; instead, there [will be] renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age".  Unfortunately, Calder died in 2014 and will be likely unable to witness the full outcome of his prophesy.

To Summarize:

To sum up, and with the caveat that I haven't tried to track down particulars about everyone associated with this video, I can say this: far, far too many of these "experts" are very old (cranks?) and some are now dead.  I can understand why some of the older generation would be afraid of change, but I do hope that's more of a stereotype than reality.  But seriously, why would anyone want to jeopardize their children's future by spreading such misinformation?

There would also seem to be a good number of "experts" who have received funding from the energy industry which raises the question of conflict of interest.

So what does real science have to say on the matter?

The Union of Concerned Scientists published an article back in 2009 (updated in 2017) that considered this very issue, whether solar radiation could be responsible for the heating that the earth is experiencing.  That article can be read here.  Their conclusion, briefly, was that although changes in solar radiation do affect the earth's climate over very long periods of time, the warming we're experiencing now can't be attributed to solar radiation.  The article also has a set of useful charts that compare increasing temperatures with volcanic activity, solar radiation and anthropogenic (human) factors.

In fact, if you Google "solar radiation and climate change", you will find many articles from reputable institutions that show, quite clearly, that blaming climate change on solar activity is a failed line of discussion.

One good article is from Carbon Brief.  It points out, once again, that solar activity has been deceasing recently while earth's temperature has been increasing.  As well, the upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming, a clear sign of greenhouse gas-induced warming.

To finish off.... It's almost incomprehensible how otherwise sensible people can claim that climate change is a hoax and that "the climate is always changing - it's natural".  Just look at what's going on and how rapidly climate disruptions are increasing.  If you can handle the gloomy reality, have a look at this article, Last Days of the Anthropocene.  Hard to claim that it's fiction.

It would be easy to go on, but I think the conclusion is pretty clear.  As much as climate science deniers and "skeptics" want to believe it, the sun isn't the source of our planet's troubles.  As Pogo put it decades ago, "We have seen the enemy and it is us".

Carbon Emissions and Economics

Although politicians might not have the courage to deal with climate change, despite the evidence, the investment community is starting to look at things differently.

The question for them is whether they can make more money for their investment clients in green energy or whether traditional oil and gas will continue to be the cash cow to best on.

For some investment firms, traditional seems to be still the way to go.  RBC is one, being one of the underwriters of the upcoming public sale of shares in Saudi Aramco.

Encana, though, has just announced that it is relocating to the USA, citing difficulty in raising money.  It's not clear whether this strategy will help much as some American drillers have been saying that they're having trouble raising capital as well.

Much of this story appeared in this article recently, which also referenced a report from business service Bloomberg that some investment funds have decided that they can make money by betting that companies that aren't addressing climate change are going to get weaker.  These investment funds are shorting shares of these companies in the expectation that they can make money as the shares drop in value.  And, in another report, there is news that green energy companies are doing the best of all energy companies.

Of course, there is still talk of expanding oil and gas production in many countries, not the least of which is Canada.  This will, of course, drive prices down, and although that might spur consumption of those fossil fuel products, low prices are seen as a problem for investors.

And then there is that pipeline leak in North Dakota.  That export line is now closed and the gap between Canadian and US crude widened even further.  



This is just business economics talk.  The other story hasn't changed.  Climate change is happening, and happening more rapidly than expected.  This article in Canadian Geographic tells the story.

Campaign Lies. One Small Example

Near the end of the recent election campaign, I found this in my mailbox from the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC):

At least some of what was on this mail out didn't ring true, so I did was I suppose few voters would bother to do: I downloaded the NDP's campaign platform and had a look.

The full document was easily downloaded here.

First, the NDP says quite clearly that what they want to do is "decriminalize" drugs, not "legalize" them.  This might seem like a small point to some people, but there is an important difference.  Decriminalizing drugs means that drug addiction will be treated as a public health problem, not a criminal problem.  This means, according to all the research, better and more effective treatment for people with drug problems.  A good example of how this might work can be seen in Portugal, as described in this article.  It's probably worth reminding everyone how well the "war on drugs" has worked out.

Of course, we know why the Conservatives decided to call this "legalizing hard drugs".  It's the typical Conservative tactic of spreading fear, especially about a topic most people don't know much about.  We know, of course, that Conservatives in general aren't in favour of safe injection sites, overdose kits, or any of those kinds of proactive tactics designed to save lives.  Shame on them.

I had a look on the page mentioned to see if the NDP had decided to ban all gas powered cars and trucks.  Couldn't find anything remotely like that on any pages near there.  So what are the Conservatives talking about here?  More fear tactics or an outright lie?  The latter, I suspect.

Finally, on raising the national carbon tax.  We know, of course, that the Conservatives, led by Mr Deny, have no plan for dealing with the growing climate crisis, choosing only to wave their arms and jump up and down about that "job-killing carbon tax".

Reasonable people, of course, know that we needed to start addressing human-caused climate change quite a few years ago and that a carbon tax is just one strategy in any climate action plan and that such a carbon tax would have to increase over time if users of carbon-based fuels are going to have an incentive to reduce their use..  Not for the Conservatives, though.  They would rather pretend there isn't a problem.

So, what we have here is misinformation and clear lies.  Just a couple of reasons why I will never vote Conservative until that party grows some integrity and develops policies that will actually help, not just play on the fears of some voters.  I understand the Conservatives are entering a post-election phase where they will try to understand why they were unable to appeal to more voters.  I'd have a suggestion or two: develop some policies that will actually help deal with some of the problems that we have and get with the 21st Century when it comes to climate change.