Year 3, Month 5, Day 3: Mighty Lak A Rose…

I don’t usually pay much attention to Canadian politics. But recently the Wildrose party in Alberta has been attracting some attention with their remarkably stupid statements about climate change. The former PM of Norway has some choice words for these dingalings, in an interview in Toronto’s Globe and Mail:

The scientific basis for climate change has come under attack in Canada. Alberta’s Wildrose Party believes the link between human activity and global warming is inconclusive. How do you respond?

That is anti-scientific and naive. Politicians and others that question the science, that’s not the right thing to do. We have to base ourselves on evidence.

What message do you have for political leaders dealing with environmental issues?

It is important not to be influenced by, and inspired by, laissez-faire attitudes, which first had an impact before the [U.S.] financial crisis and [the BP oil spill] in the Gulf of Mexico. When you liberalize regulations, and you leave it more to companies, whether banks or oil companies, I don’t think this is the right way to go. You have to have governance. You must have serious and strict regulations.

She’s so sweet and forgiving, no? Not me. Sent April 24:

While many words come to mind when describing politicians who have embraced climate-change denial for electoral advantage, “naive,” the adjective employed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, is not one of them. To win the approval of conservative voters, Wildrose candidates are following the path marked out by Tea Party activists in the United States: reject ideologically problematic facts and expertise; exploit ignorance; sow confusion.

While voters may have many reasons for misunderstanding the work of climate scientists, politicians must be held to a higher standard. It is (or should be) their business to understand the real-world consequences of the policies they promote, and to take responsibility for the choices they advocate. The evidence for human causes of climate change is overwhelming and unequivocal; any politician arguing otherwise is either self-deluded or mendacious, and there is nothing ingenuous about either folly or lies. To describe denialism as “naive” is, well, naive.

Warren Senders