[Newsbot]

Title: Climate change science �not settled' says Wildrose leader Danielle Smith
Category: Provincial Politics
Posted By: Alta_redneck
Date: 2012-04-17 07:33:08
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

To be fair, she did clairfy thos online comments. She meant AWG is not settled.

She's still not the best candidate for leader, but the news will over blow any gaffe they percieve.

[SprCForr]

What's next I wonder?

"Bears shit in the woods says Danielle Smith"

The MSM is getting really annoying.

[BartSimpson]

Saying that 'climate change science' is not settled is true whether or not you are pro or con on AGW. Science is never settled. That's the nature of science. As new information comes in conclusions have to change.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Saying that 'climate change science' is not settled is true whether or not you are pro or con on AGW. Science is never settled. That's the nature of science. As new information comes in conclusions have to change.

I agree. Gravity is not settled. Pretty damn close tho.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Saying that 'climate change science' is not settled is true whether or not you are pro or con on AGW. Science is never settled. That's the nature of science. As new information comes in conclusions have to change.

I agree. Gravity is not settled. Pretty damn close tho.

There's still arguments as to whether or not gravity is a particle or perhaps a superdimensional property. I'm leaning towards the latter on my rational side but hoping for the former on my more creative side.

If gravity can be identified as a particle then it becomes entirely plausible to consider artificial gravity in space.

Which would be most

[andyt]

I also read somewhere that gravity may not be the same throughout the universe, same with the other forces. That there's actually a spectrum of force strength in the universe.

[mentalfloss]

Some scientist just called her a flat-earther.

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Some scientist just called her a flat-earther.

Which is not true so that says more about the scientist than it does about Danielle. The pro-AGW folks just don't see how slinging epithets hurts both their professionalism and their credibility by reducing them to just another shrill political special interest group.

[andyt]

Sure. Unfortunately when the scientist gives a nuanced response, it's whoosh over Joe the Plumber's head, while people like Smith can spout any bullshit they want, and it sticks.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Sure. Unfortunately when the scientist gives a nuanced response, it's whoosh over Joe the Plumber's head, while people like Smith can spout any bullshit they want, and it sticks.

Yep, it's unfair that only trailer park white trash gets a pass on acting like trailer park white trash. Someone with a Ph.D is held to higher standard. Terribly unfair, isn't it?

Meanwhile, on the topic of science if the science is sound and can stand up to scrutiny then it will prevail.

Which is exactly what galls some of us on the not-buying-the-alarmism side of the argument when we're told to shut up, that the science is in and that the debate is over because that's not science at all.

[gonavy47]

This just in... New Scientific Theory, "Ursa species thought to defecate in boreal areas." Film at eleven.

[PluggyRug]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

Sure. Unfortunately when the scientist gives a nuanced response, it's whoosh over Joe the Plumber's head, while people like Smith can spout any bullshit they want, and it sticks.

Yep, it's unfair that only trailer park white trash gets a pass on acting like trailer park white trash. Someone with a Ph.D is held to higher standard. Terribly unfair, isn't it?

Meanwhile, on the topic of science if the science is sound and can stand up to scrutiny then it will prevail.

Which is exactly what galls some of us on the not-buying-the-alarmism side of the argument when we're told to shut up, that the science is in and that the debate is over because that's not science at all.

Proper scientific research will always hold itself open to scrutiny and never close the book. Unfortunately some (not all) AGW proponents dare not open the book as it may contain truths which they consider blasphemous.

[ShepherdsDog]

What those 'fanatics' believe in isn't science. It's dogma and rhetoric disguised as science.

[Zipperfish]

She's just walking the political fine line. Saying that the "science isn't settled" (technically true) yet dodging the question on whether or not she believed that human CO2 emisssions are changing the global climate. By dodgin that question she avoids getting caught in a technical argument.

It makes sense, because Alberta makes a lot of money off of oil, and will not be as affected by global warming as other areas. So they choose to not believe. The science doesn't really come into the equation. Dollar signs trump science, every time.