With all of the serious challenges and American threats facing Canada, I am incensed that Danielle Smith and the UCP have given SO much oxygen to the extreme fringe minority of Albertan separatists.
She is shamelessly putting her own power and party above the continued existence of AB and Canada.
What a waste of time, energy, and resources, all while Albertans beg for better health care and education funding.
Smith has engineered herself into a corner and is dragging down everyone with her.
Has there ever been such an incompetent, reckless, arrogant premier?
She's a smooth-talking but utterly irresponsible and dangerous leader.
The simmering Conservative civil war will explode over this. Bring it on, and let's hope most of the damage stays contained within conservative world.
I don't think Smith is incompetent. This is the job she was given by her peers at the Fraser Institute, the Canada West Foundation et al, and she's doing it the way she sees fit. Is she a dangerous ideologue? Absolutely.
The UCP (Ultimate Control Party) is arguably a separatist party. The Parti Albertois if you will.
The most apt comparison I've for heard for her Sovereignty Association ("A Sovereign Alberta Within A United Canada") is a 'Free Ramblin Single Dude in a Dedicated Marital Union.'
A “free” Alberta, they claim, would be able to build a pipeline through Montana, Idaho and Washington. Like it wasn’t the USA that stopped that pipeline. The lies aren’t even remotely clever. I am one of the many that plans to pack up and leave if it becomes necessary. As someone currently on CPP-disability that is a no brainer. It might be costly to pack up and go but my mental health will not survive a “free”
I am happy that my resolve has these losers in a panic. Good!
I’ve lived here all my life (unlike most of these separatists) but I will leave in a heartbeat. If they actually separate.
Can’t reason with crazy.
I’ve never been across Canada but there are a-lot of places to try out.
I find it interesting how those 'monies recovered from the Canadian government' are portrayed as some kind of ongoing benefit. If there were any money "returned" it would most likely be a one time payout. With the numbers they produced out of thin air, the federal money would be gone withing a year. They add a "What if ... " list; but, it is shown as if that is going to happen. The question those supporters must ask themselves is in all reality, how likely are those "What ifs" to come about? With no taxes personal or corporate, where will the money come from IF the demand for oil tanks, even with increased royalties (which is within the power of the UCP to do right now). I really find the comment on their page about "sovereignty being protected by the USA. to totally ignore the reality of those other "sovereign" states like Peurto Rico and those south pacific paradises whose sovereignty they 'protect'. Of course those who support this notion claim they want freedom. BUT. they have already given up a major freedom, and that is the freedom to think rationally. That is not accidental, that is a choice they have made.
It is magical thinking of the same flavour that duped the British into voting for Brexit.
The promised windfalls never materialised, because they were a complete fabrication to begin with.
Separatist economics are based on a Tiktok-deep understanding of equalization and transfer, and how currency unions actually have to work to remain stable.
At least in the 1970s and 80s, the separatist genies stayed in their bottle because bad ideas don't travel far when unassisted.
Now we have social media, which fools uninformed dilettantes into thinking that they know more than scholars and subject-matter experts. It's like rocket fuel for stupid.
You've coined a cogent phrase there, "rocket fuel for stupid." I also like Cory Doctorow's "enshittification of the internet."
In the name of our children, but actually in the name of ALL OF US and civilization as we have known it, countries are finally starting to BAN the destructive algorithms and platforms of the big-tech billionaire psycho bros. They can all be distilled now into the name GROK, with all the evil cyborg vibe that emanates from the richest man in the world, now a "trillionaire" fantasizing about moving our fragile species to MARS FFS.
And speaking of "magical thinking," it is NOT just a coincidence that religion is employed by most of these groups/guys as foundational because the GOD MYTH is after all the origin story AND the EPITOME of that kind of "thinking." Critical thinking is anathema to that continued hegemony, even in our "modern" world, and our continued knee-jerk, faux respect for that delusion is a master class in JUST how"brainwashable" way too many of us are. No wonder we're being slapped across the face with the current "post-truth" world, because to quote a famous poet, "TRUTH is beauty, beauty truth; that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Seriously?! The separatists can threaten to force all Albertans to live as Americans (which would be the end result, but federalists are “wackos” who shouldn’t be able to threaten to leave Alberta? IKrony indeed.
It is (beyond) time for those Albertans standing silent to wake up to this real threat. Time to have those conversations with those you know and discuss the implications of what is being proposed. I am so pleased that people like Lisa, Duane Bratt and others are speaking out. It will help wake everyone up. As for the UCP, they are now clearly showing that the leadership has always been Wildrose with a separatist agenda.
What I worry about is the power of propaganda in this age of Facebook and Twitter and YouTube "influencers". All supported by a provincial government whose leader goes to Mar-A-Lago for meetings with Trump but continues to babble incoherently about "sovereignty within a united Canada". The Brexit effect.
What the media studiously leave unspoken is the fact that the Forever Canadian campaign collected nearly half a million signatures to have the question "Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?" put to the people. Let's keep reminding everyone of this. And keep reminding everyone that separating is what Trump wants us to do. Let's continue with a strong, spontaneous grassroots campaign to put the dangerous separatist fantasy to rest once and for all.
Given that these folks of no country, who are not generally known for appreciating nuance, were responding to survey findings, I'm inclined to inquire about how Canadians could get this nuanced detail into a response to a multiple choice question.
But then, I'm not really moved by thier selective need for details.
Excellent, Lisa, I sent this piece to a friend who teaches at Dartmouth who asks me to send him concise intelligent “reads” from here re yet another potential breakup of Canada..
Not agreeing with your take on this Lisa Young. In the 1rst place the people signing the forms right from Jan. 5th/26 to May 5th/26 is to have enough signature's counted to forward the program to the next step. Then it is up to the Alberta Government, the Law & Elections of Canada to have a question on a ballot so Albertan's can have a province wide vote. As far as everyone speculating about what Alberta decides to do is a pretence of fear.
Excellent and succinct article with vital historical CONTEXT, the thing entirely MISSING from this ignorant bunch of guys riding a wave of faux "revolution," aware only that THAT and the FREEDUMB mantra is indeed a key part of American identity just as EVOLUTION is Canada's defining ethos.
Thought of another way, consider the beaver vs. the eagle, and which is DOWN TO EARTH where we all happen to LIVE....
Canada is operating on a scam. And that scam is anthropogenic climate change. Net Zero is the objective, and it will destroy Canada as a confederation.
Climate change is real and we have to deal with it. It's cowardly to hide away from reality in a dimwitted fantasy where nothing changes and you get everything without working for it just by whining your head off.
Perhaps you should read my comment again. And please can the vitriol. It is not becoming. I said “anthropogenic climate change is a scam.” Not climate change, which is real, historical and will continue. The hubris is to think that we can actually do something about it. That is what anthropogenic climate change is all about. You’ll remember that is how the whole sorry show started. The “anthropogenic” was dropped when climate alarmists discovered people weren’t buying it. But climate change, well, certainly, because again, that does happen. What is unfortunate is the belief that there are methods to control, or affect the climate. That is the scam. There are forces at work much more complex and greater than we can understand or command. The billions, no trillions, that are being spent to control the changes in climate that yes, will come, would be better spent to act. Prepare for the changes to come. Anything else is a scam. Carney with his net zero is operating a scam. Brookfield benefits from the scam. Canada suffers due to the scam. Cheers!
No scam, and I was referring to anthropogenic climate change which we have caused by burning too many fossil fuels and other practices which cause CO2 emissions to rise. And yes, we can do something about it and we must because it will continue to cause more damage the more emissions we produce. Humans have been affecting the environment for thousands of years.
Try reading “Through The Looking Glass: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Science” by Paul MacRae. I know it will be hard work for you to get out of your echo chamber, but give it a try. It will debunk the storyline in realclimate.org. Cheers!
An ex-journalist who is not a scientist. An elderly long time climate change denier. You can't debunk scientists by writing BS. You have to be able to understand the science, not just repeat tired old denier arguments.
Thanks for being so crystal clear on where the desire for separation is coming from.......but if the science is accurate, its going to take more than taking your leave of one country to protect you from climate change. Particularly if in your new found republic you continue to believe you can mountain top removal for coal, frack for fossil gas and in situ mine for tar and have all the water you'll need in perpetuity.....never mind convince climate savvy B.C. to let you keep using TMX or the pipe that carries liquified frack gas to Kitamat.
Reality has you more boxed in than you might imagine.
John, it's not ideology. It's just physics. They are there to understand for anybody curious enough to want to learn. (And they are not even that complicated, which is one reason why climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels was identified as a risk as early as a century ago.)
The science supporting anthropogenic climate change is now so solid, so overwhelming in both its mechanistic logic and its empirical evidence, that to reject it requires abject ignorance, wilful denial, or both.
What's left of the opposition is so far removed from science and so full of nonsense (your "Through The Looking Glass: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Science" is a great example) that to debunk it requires starting at Adam and Eve. That is exhausting and vexing. It is also not an accident that this is so. There are vested interests working very hard to keep people confused.
If you cannot see it now, than I can only conclude it is because you do not wish to. Perhaps what you wish instead is for things to be different.
On that point, I can relate. But reality doesn't care what you or I think. Change will happen whether we like it or not. I prefer to face it and engage with the facts honestly and with courage. Surely that is what God intends.
Thanks Stephen. Appreciate your concern. You take care now. Oh, and learn how to not check your skepticism at the door. And no, it is not just physics. If you think scientists understand all the mechanisms involved with climate, you have way more faith than me. Mind you, isn’t theoretical physics now being described as being quasi religious and though that seems off topic it isn’t. Science is not a religion. It is just a human activity for those with enough intelligence and curiosity to try and figure out the world around them. Yeah, that includes climate scientists.
I’m sure you know about graphs. And the purpose of the graph is to show what you want it to show. Each axis and data point tell a story. Expand one axis and the changes seem more dramatic. Expand another axis so the scale is logrithmic and most people won’t understand the implications. Furthermore, climate scientists generate graphs using assumptions. Every factor that goes into the graph has its assumptions. It is the assumptions that generate the graph.
Perhaps you would say no, they have temperature data. The data doesn’t lie. Uh huh. You assume it doesn’t lie but have you checked the source of the data and that when the device creating the data point is way off or missing the data point is fudged to what the “scientists” think it should be, after all their pay checks from governments depend on it. That happens to about half the data. So the data and the graph as a result do lie. Having seen dozens of climate models, I am skeptical.
Factually, it is impossible to be a good scientist without some skepticism. You might believe as a scientist something is true, even anthropogenic climate change. But knowing that science is a human activity subject to error, if you are not somewhat skeptical you have moved into the realm of faith and religion. I am sure you are aware that all of science is up for revision when necessary, faith and religion are not.
I am skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. Climate change no. Anthropogenic climate change, yes.
While all this sounds very reasonable John.....the facts of climate science leave little room for scepticism. I think the problem for many is they continue to believe in classical cause and effect.........situations where the science can say with certainty that X is so. That laboratory science, where we reduce the variables and arrive at solutions that can be repeated.......and thus supported by peer review, has given us many useful things. Vaccines being one of them.
Climate science is different. It's big systems science......a kind of inquiry called Chaos Theory, because it deals with phenomena where there are unknowns on both sides of the equation. In that kind of big systems study (the study of weather patterns being one example) you don't arrive at Certainty.
OUR CULTURE HAS A HARD TIME LETTING GO OF ITS DESIRE FOR CERTAINTY.
I capitalize that point because its crucial. We can't be certain of where the next climate disaster will strike.......but we can make predictions based on the PATTERNS that a warming world reveals. And yes, some bright scientists foresaw the long term effects of burning fossil fuels a century ago......but those predictions were easy to ignore then.
Today, and especially with the advent of the computer, scientists can feed so many of earth's variables into the mix, that patterns can be seen going forward. This is what CLIMATE SCIENCE has been doing for a few decades now....so they have real data, in real time, telling them that if anything...THEIR PREDICTIONS WERE TOO CONSERVATIVE. I capitalize that to underscore that global warming is moving faster than they imagined it would.
That is likely mostly due to POSSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOPS...and there is nothing positive for life on earth about them. That is because positive feedback pushes the system forward even faster. Back when I fought nuclear power in the Peace River I learned about them. If a nuclear power plant contains one of these positive feedback loops......it means that in the case of a potential melt down, the positive feedback loop pushes the system even faster toward a Chernobyl like event.
Positive feedback loops are killers. Here's one of them working already in northern Canada. 1. A drier weather patterns=drought=increased risk of fire= hotter temperatures with less water vapour in the air=fire beasts. In FIRE WEATHER John Valliant described the Fort MacMurray fire as a beast with an energy just short of a nuclear explosion.
So Climate Change for us means drought, hot summers, more fire in the boreal and those fires are new John. HOTTER, MORE EXPLOSIVE. He said some of the homes in Fort Mac burned to the foundations in 5 minutes or less.
All of the new weather extremes are evidence of global warming. But you won't get repeatability......expect wider and wilder variations....hotter fires, wilder floods, longer droughts, new kinds of storms that do more damage. Mother Nature is searching for equilibrium and having more difficulty finding it......
Scepticism is all very well. But refusing to look at the evidence because you can't reduce it to two ideas, one of them wrong, isn't scepticism John. It's simple think...simple mindedness.........or a determination to ignore the new big picture evidence our scientists have amassed from studying the large weather patterns that working together, produce the Climate we live under.
We might live in a Culture of the Same........work hard to believe there is nothing new under the sun.. But that's a delusion. We all know by now that the climate is changing.....and faster than it ever has in our lifetime. Trying to pretend that its scepticism that wants our old stable world to continue is silly. It's nostalgia that wants the past to continue into the future. Unfortunately we've burned too much fossil fuel for that to be achieved.
Well, I see you are a real believer and really, nothing will change your mind. And yeah, so am I, but from a different perspective, so please spare me the diatribe. Even if I went into debunking what the Realclimate.org presents as fact, you would not believe it, so truly, it would be a waste of time. Cheers and be safe.
Thanks John. It's great to know there are people who still use 20 year-old science denial talking points. All that money from Shell & Esso didn't go to waste.
Try reading “Through The Looking Glass: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Science” by Paul MacRae. I know it will be hard work for you to get out of your echo chamber, but give it a try. And thanks Greg. It’s nice to know some are still drinking the Kool-aid. Cheers!
John, I apologize for disagreeing with you. I looked at Paul MacRae's website and it's a treasure trove of outmoded & long-debunked science denial talking points. Mr. MacRae says he's a journalist, but clearly has an axe to grind and avoids any mention of actual science.
It's kind of fascinating to see the old and well-used insults you're throwing around here:
"you're drinking the kool-aid"
"you're in an echo chamber"
These are not arguments about the climate, or science, or separatism in Alberta - just personal attacks. And they're nonsensical, especially when you don't seem to have anything else to offer on this subject.
Given the above, it seems likely that you might be the one in his echo chamber, enjoying some tasty Kool-Aid. Cheers!
No need to apologize Greg. Disagree with gusto. We will not see eye to eye on this. I’ve disagreed with the “settled science” for a while now, simply because it is riddled with error and false assumptions and yes, probably some true though I have not seen which yet. Yes, for me some of the “outmoded & long debunked” criticisms of climate change still carry some water. My only criticism is that you call disagreeing with climate science predictions “science denial talking points,” moving climate science from science to religion and proselytization, elevating the belief that climate science cannot be wrong. May I suggest reading some works on the Philosophy of Science. Perhaps Karl Popper, but there are others.
Perhaps your criticism of me using “old and well-used insults” is deserved, but you manage to fall into that same trap. 🫤 Cheers.
Cite one! valid scientific source from a reputable , refereed scientific journal to support your claim-not from TikTok or You Tube, but an actual, valid scientific source. While you'r'e at it, please provide us with your academic/scientific credentials. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. You can't, and you know it. And: in case it never occurred to you, anthropogenic climate change refers to causation-not to remedies.
With all of the serious challenges and American threats facing Canada, I am incensed that Danielle Smith and the UCP have given SO much oxygen to the extreme fringe minority of Albertan separatists.
She is shamelessly putting her own power and party above the continued existence of AB and Canada.
What a waste of time, energy, and resources, all while Albertans beg for better health care and education funding.
Smith has engineered herself into a corner and is dragging down everyone with her.
Has there ever been such an incompetent, reckless, arrogant premier?
She's a smooth-talking but utterly irresponsible and dangerous leader.
The simmering Conservative civil war will explode over this. Bring it on, and let's hope most of the damage stays contained within conservative world.
I don't think Smith is incompetent. This is the job she was given by her peers at the Fraser Institute, the Canada West Foundation et al, and she's doing it the way she sees fit. Is she a dangerous ideologue? Absolutely.
The UCP (Ultimate Control Party) is arguably a separatist party. The Parti Albertois if you will.
The most apt comparison I've for heard for her Sovereignty Association ("A Sovereign Alberta Within A United Canada") is a 'Free Ramblin Single Dude in a Dedicated Marital Union.'
Love the acronym. I plan to use it from here and forward. UCP (Ultimate Control Party) 🙌🙌🇨🇦
A “free” Alberta, they claim, would be able to build a pipeline through Montana, Idaho and Washington. Like it wasn’t the USA that stopped that pipeline. The lies aren’t even remotely clever. I am one of the many that plans to pack up and leave if it becomes necessary. As someone currently on CPP-disability that is a no brainer. It might be costly to pack up and go but my mental health will not survive a “free”
I am happy that my resolve has these losers in a panic. Good!
I’ve lived here all my life (unlike most of these separatists) but I will leave in a heartbeat. If they actually separate.
Can’t reason with crazy.
I’ve never been across Canada but there are a-lot of places to try out.
Thanks Lisa. The inconvenient truths, consistently and incessantly put forward, is what is needed to educate and calm these aggrieved souls.
Good points all around. Thank you for publishing this, Lisa. 👍
I find it interesting how those 'monies recovered from the Canadian government' are portrayed as some kind of ongoing benefit. If there were any money "returned" it would most likely be a one time payout. With the numbers they produced out of thin air, the federal money would be gone withing a year. They add a "What if ... " list; but, it is shown as if that is going to happen. The question those supporters must ask themselves is in all reality, how likely are those "What ifs" to come about? With no taxes personal or corporate, where will the money come from IF the demand for oil tanks, even with increased royalties (which is within the power of the UCP to do right now). I really find the comment on their page about "sovereignty being protected by the USA. to totally ignore the reality of those other "sovereign" states like Peurto Rico and those south pacific paradises whose sovereignty they 'protect'. Of course those who support this notion claim they want freedom. BUT. they have already given up a major freedom, and that is the freedom to think rationally. That is not accidental, that is a choice they have made.
It is magical thinking of the same flavour that duped the British into voting for Brexit.
The promised windfalls never materialised, because they were a complete fabrication to begin with.
Separatist economics are based on a Tiktok-deep understanding of equalization and transfer, and how currency unions actually have to work to remain stable.
At least in the 1970s and 80s, the separatist genies stayed in their bottle because bad ideas don't travel far when unassisted.
Now we have social media, which fools uninformed dilettantes into thinking that they know more than scholars and subject-matter experts. It's like rocket fuel for stupid.
Lord help us.
You've coined a cogent phrase there, "rocket fuel for stupid." I also like Cory Doctorow's "enshittification of the internet."
In the name of our children, but actually in the name of ALL OF US and civilization as we have known it, countries are finally starting to BAN the destructive algorithms and platforms of the big-tech billionaire psycho bros. They can all be distilled now into the name GROK, with all the evil cyborg vibe that emanates from the richest man in the world, now a "trillionaire" fantasizing about moving our fragile species to MARS FFS.
And speaking of "magical thinking," it is NOT just a coincidence that religion is employed by most of these groups/guys as foundational because the GOD MYTH is after all the origin story AND the EPITOME of that kind of "thinking." Critical thinking is anathema to that continued hegemony, even in our "modern" world, and our continued knee-jerk, faux respect for that delusion is a master class in JUST how"brainwashable" way too many of us are. No wonder we're being slapped across the face with the current "post-truth" world, because to quote a famous poet, "TRUTH is beauty, beauty truth; that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Seriously?! The separatists can threaten to force all Albertans to live as Americans (which would be the end result, but federalists are “wackos” who shouldn’t be able to threaten to leave Alberta? IKrony indeed.
Beautifully stated. I love the Paula Simons quotation: We are privileged to live in a country that values peace and inclusion and the rule of law.
"Peace, order, and good governance."
The UCP are posers in the extreme.
Spot on, as usual!
And "confederating" for the win!!
It is (beyond) time for those Albertans standing silent to wake up to this real threat. Time to have those conversations with those you know and discuss the implications of what is being proposed. I am so pleased that people like Lisa, Duane Bratt and others are speaking out. It will help wake everyone up. As for the UCP, they are now clearly showing that the leadership has always been Wildrose with a separatist agenda.
What I worry about is the power of propaganda in this age of Facebook and Twitter and YouTube "influencers". All supported by a provincial government whose leader goes to Mar-A-Lago for meetings with Trump but continues to babble incoherently about "sovereignty within a united Canada". The Brexit effect.
What the media studiously leave unspoken is the fact that the Forever Canadian campaign collected nearly half a million signatures to have the question "Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?" put to the people. Let's keep reminding everyone of this. And keep reminding everyone that separating is what Trump wants us to do. Let's continue with a strong, spontaneous grassroots campaign to put the dangerous separatist fantasy to rest once and for all.
February 15. Happy Flag Day Canada 🇨🇦
Given that these folks of no country, who are not generally known for appreciating nuance, were responding to survey findings, I'm inclined to inquire about how Canadians could get this nuanced detail into a response to a multiple choice question.
But then, I'm not really moved by thier selective need for details.
Excellent, Lisa, I sent this piece to a friend who teaches at Dartmouth who asks me to send him concise intelligent “reads” from here re yet another potential breakup of Canada..
Not agreeing with your take on this Lisa Young. In the 1rst place the people signing the forms right from Jan. 5th/26 to May 5th/26 is to have enough signature's counted to forward the program to the next step. Then it is up to the Alberta Government, the Law & Elections of Canada to have a question on a ballot so Albertan's can have a province wide vote. As far as everyone speculating about what Alberta decides to do is a pretence of fear.
Excellent and succinct article with vital historical CONTEXT, the thing entirely MISSING from this ignorant bunch of guys riding a wave of faux "revolution," aware only that THAT and the FREEDUMB mantra is indeed a key part of American identity just as EVOLUTION is Canada's defining ethos.
Thought of another way, consider the beaver vs. the eagle, and which is DOWN TO EARTH where we all happen to LIVE....
Canada is operating on a scam. And that scam is anthropogenic climate change. Net Zero is the objective, and it will destroy Canada as a confederation.
Climate change is real and we have to deal with it. It's cowardly to hide away from reality in a dimwitted fantasy where nothing changes and you get everything without working for it just by whining your head off.
Perhaps you should read my comment again. And please can the vitriol. It is not becoming. I said “anthropogenic climate change is a scam.” Not climate change, which is real, historical and will continue. The hubris is to think that we can actually do something about it. That is what anthropogenic climate change is all about. You’ll remember that is how the whole sorry show started. The “anthropogenic” was dropped when climate alarmists discovered people weren’t buying it. But climate change, well, certainly, because again, that does happen. What is unfortunate is the belief that there are methods to control, or affect the climate. That is the scam. There are forces at work much more complex and greater than we can understand or command. The billions, no trillions, that are being spent to control the changes in climate that yes, will come, would be better spent to act. Prepare for the changes to come. Anything else is a scam. Carney with his net zero is operating a scam. Brookfield benefits from the scam. Canada suffers due to the scam. Cheers!
No scam, and I was referring to anthropogenic climate change which we have caused by burning too many fossil fuels and other practices which cause CO2 emissions to rise. And yes, we can do something about it and we must because it will continue to cause more damage the more emissions we produce. Humans have been affecting the environment for thousands of years.
And it's not too complex to understand, you just have to be smart enough to listen to the scientists. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Try reading “Through The Looking Glass: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Science” by Paul MacRae. I know it will be hard work for you to get out of your echo chamber, but give it a try. It will debunk the storyline in realclimate.org. Cheers!
An ex-journalist who is not a scientist. An elderly long time climate change denier. You can't debunk scientists by writing BS. You have to be able to understand the science, not just repeat tired old denier arguments.
While we are citing books about the war on science:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/10/michael-mann-peter-hotez-science-seige-book-review-trump/
I haven't read it myself, but they are both highly credible in their fields.
READ MY COMMENT.
Thanks for being so crystal clear on where the desire for separation is coming from.......but if the science is accurate, its going to take more than taking your leave of one country to protect you from climate change. Particularly if in your new found republic you continue to believe you can mountain top removal for coal, frack for fossil gas and in situ mine for tar and have all the water you'll need in perpetuity.....never mind convince climate savvy B.C. to let you keep using TMX or the pipe that carries liquified frack gas to Kitamat.
Reality has you more boxed in than you might imagine.
John, it's not ideology. It's just physics. They are there to understand for anybody curious enough to want to learn. (And they are not even that complicated, which is one reason why climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels was identified as a risk as early as a century ago.)
The science supporting anthropogenic climate change is now so solid, so overwhelming in both its mechanistic logic and its empirical evidence, that to reject it requires abject ignorance, wilful denial, or both.
What's left of the opposition is so far removed from science and so full of nonsense (your "Through The Looking Glass: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Science" is a great example) that to debunk it requires starting at Adam and Eve. That is exhausting and vexing. It is also not an accident that this is so. There are vested interests working very hard to keep people confused.
If you cannot see it now, than I can only conclude it is because you do not wish to. Perhaps what you wish instead is for things to be different.
On that point, I can relate. But reality doesn't care what you or I think. Change will happen whether we like it or not. I prefer to face it and engage with the facts honestly and with courage. Surely that is what God intends.
Thanks Stephen. Appreciate your concern. You take care now. Oh, and learn how to not check your skepticism at the door. And no, it is not just physics. If you think scientists understand all the mechanisms involved with climate, you have way more faith than me. Mind you, isn’t theoretical physics now being described as being quasi religious and though that seems off topic it isn’t. Science is not a religion. It is just a human activity for those with enough intelligence and curiosity to try and figure out the world around them. Yeah, that includes climate scientists.
I’m sure you know about graphs. And the purpose of the graph is to show what you want it to show. Each axis and data point tell a story. Expand one axis and the changes seem more dramatic. Expand another axis so the scale is logrithmic and most people won’t understand the implications. Furthermore, climate scientists generate graphs using assumptions. Every factor that goes into the graph has its assumptions. It is the assumptions that generate the graph.
Perhaps you would say no, they have temperature data. The data doesn’t lie. Uh huh. You assume it doesn’t lie but have you checked the source of the data and that when the device creating the data point is way off or missing the data point is fudged to what the “scientists” think it should be, after all their pay checks from governments depend on it. That happens to about half the data. So the data and the graph as a result do lie. Having seen dozens of climate models, I am skeptical.
Factually, it is impossible to be a good scientist without some skepticism. You might believe as a scientist something is true, even anthropogenic climate change. But knowing that science is a human activity subject to error, if you are not somewhat skeptical you have moved into the realm of faith and religion. I am sure you are aware that all of science is up for revision when necessary, faith and religion are not.
I am skeptical of anthropogenic climate change. Climate change no. Anthropogenic climate change, yes.
Cheers!
While all this sounds very reasonable John.....the facts of climate science leave little room for scepticism. I think the problem for many is they continue to believe in classical cause and effect.........situations where the science can say with certainty that X is so. That laboratory science, where we reduce the variables and arrive at solutions that can be repeated.......and thus supported by peer review, has given us many useful things. Vaccines being one of them.
Climate science is different. It's big systems science......a kind of inquiry called Chaos Theory, because it deals with phenomena where there are unknowns on both sides of the equation. In that kind of big systems study (the study of weather patterns being one example) you don't arrive at Certainty.
OUR CULTURE HAS A HARD TIME LETTING GO OF ITS DESIRE FOR CERTAINTY.
I capitalize that point because its crucial. We can't be certain of where the next climate disaster will strike.......but we can make predictions based on the PATTERNS that a warming world reveals. And yes, some bright scientists foresaw the long term effects of burning fossil fuels a century ago......but those predictions were easy to ignore then.
Today, and especially with the advent of the computer, scientists can feed so many of earth's variables into the mix, that patterns can be seen going forward. This is what CLIMATE SCIENCE has been doing for a few decades now....so they have real data, in real time, telling them that if anything...THEIR PREDICTIONS WERE TOO CONSERVATIVE. I capitalize that to underscore that global warming is moving faster than they imagined it would.
That is likely mostly due to POSSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOPS...and there is nothing positive for life on earth about them. That is because positive feedback pushes the system forward even faster. Back when I fought nuclear power in the Peace River I learned about them. If a nuclear power plant contains one of these positive feedback loops......it means that in the case of a potential melt down, the positive feedback loop pushes the system even faster toward a Chernobyl like event.
Positive feedback loops are killers. Here's one of them working already in northern Canada. 1. A drier weather patterns=drought=increased risk of fire= hotter temperatures with less water vapour in the air=fire beasts. In FIRE WEATHER John Valliant described the Fort MacMurray fire as a beast with an energy just short of a nuclear explosion.
So Climate Change for us means drought, hot summers, more fire in the boreal and those fires are new John. HOTTER, MORE EXPLOSIVE. He said some of the homes in Fort Mac burned to the foundations in 5 minutes or less.
All of the new weather extremes are evidence of global warming. But you won't get repeatability......expect wider and wilder variations....hotter fires, wilder floods, longer droughts, new kinds of storms that do more damage. Mother Nature is searching for equilibrium and having more difficulty finding it......
Scepticism is all very well. But refusing to look at the evidence because you can't reduce it to two ideas, one of them wrong, isn't scepticism John. It's simple think...simple mindedness.........or a determination to ignore the new big picture evidence our scientists have amassed from studying the large weather patterns that working together, produce the Climate we live under.
We might live in a Culture of the Same........work hard to believe there is nothing new under the sun.. But that's a delusion. We all know by now that the climate is changing.....and faster than it ever has in our lifetime. Trying to pretend that its scepticism that wants our old stable world to continue is silly. It's nostalgia that wants the past to continue into the future. Unfortunately we've burned too much fossil fuel for that to be achieved.
There's the insanity.
You're just AFRAID of the truth; as Jack Nicolson said, "you can't HANDLE the truth."
It's actually a classic trait of "conservatives," studies have been done, google it.
It's also what holds you guys together, your SUITE OF STUPIDITY.
The right wing has NEVER been more wrong.
Well, I see you are a real believer and really, nothing will change your mind. And yeah, so am I, but from a different perspective, so please spare me the diatribe. Even if I went into debunking what the Realclimate.org presents as fact, you would not believe it, so truly, it would be a waste of time. Cheers and be safe.
Thanks John. It's great to know there are people who still use 20 year-old science denial talking points. All that money from Shell & Esso didn't go to waste.
Hahahaha
Try reading “Through The Looking Glass: A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Science” by Paul MacRae. I know it will be hard work for you to get out of your echo chamber, but give it a try. And thanks Greg. It’s nice to know some are still drinking the Kool-aid. Cheers!
John, I apologize for disagreeing with you. I looked at Paul MacRae's website and it's a treasure trove of outmoded & long-debunked science denial talking points. Mr. MacRae says he's a journalist, but clearly has an axe to grind and avoids any mention of actual science.
It's kind of fascinating to see the old and well-used insults you're throwing around here:
"you're drinking the kool-aid"
"you're in an echo chamber"
These are not arguments about the climate, or science, or separatism in Alberta - just personal attacks. And they're nonsensical, especially when you don't seem to have anything else to offer on this subject.
Given the above, it seems likely that you might be the one in his echo chamber, enjoying some tasty Kool-Aid. Cheers!
No need to apologize Greg. Disagree with gusto. We will not see eye to eye on this. I’ve disagreed with the “settled science” for a while now, simply because it is riddled with error and false assumptions and yes, probably some true though I have not seen which yet. Yes, for me some of the “outmoded & long debunked” criticisms of climate change still carry some water. My only criticism is that you call disagreeing with climate science predictions “science denial talking points,” moving climate science from science to religion and proselytization, elevating the belief that climate science cannot be wrong. May I suggest reading some works on the Philosophy of Science. Perhaps Karl Popper, but there are others.
Perhaps your criticism of me using “old and well-used insults” is deserved, but you manage to fall into that same trap. 🫤 Cheers.
You can't debunk it because they are doing the science and you are probably just wasting your time reading liars online.
Cite one! valid scientific source from a reputable , refereed scientific journal to support your claim-not from TikTok or You Tube, but an actual, valid scientific source. While you'r'e at it, please provide us with your academic/scientific credentials. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. You can't, and you know it. And: in case it never occurred to you, anthropogenic climate change refers to causation-not to remedies.
What's your "perspective" on GRAVITY?