Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'The very opposite of intellectual totalitarianism'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, February 26, 2010 1:09am - 168 Comments

Maxime Bernier considers the reaction to his comments on climate change and rallies his supporters.

This is why it is so important to have an open and balanced public debate. This is the very opposite of the intellectual totalitarianism of those who would like to stamp out every dissident voice.

As I said in my Calgary speech some weeks ago, we should be the lobby of the silent majority, this majority which is not represented by the interest groups that we hear about all the time in public debates, but who will pay for the policies being adopted in the end. I encourage all those who feel concerned by this question to make themselves heard, either by leaving a comment on this blog, writing to your elected officials or to newspapers. Thank you to those who’ve done it. I can assure you that you are having an impact.

Tags: Beauce, Calgary, climate change, climategate, global warming, Maxime Bernier

More by Aaron Wherry

kcm

i don't think they'll accept a francophone Quebecer as PM..the west wants in still. [ i'm not suggesting racism] unless the Cons are a lot more mature than i give them credit for, i'd say this has the potential to split the con coalition…Harper does well to keep Bernier outside, but if this keeps up the old maxim : better inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in, will come into play.
i take your pont about Palin…to be fair though does Bernier = Palin?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"i take your pont about Palin…to be fair though does Bernier = Palin?"

Not at all. Palin is a first class idiot (read Game Change, very revealing). Bernier is not. I think that he lacks political savvy but he's actually solid on policy though I completely disagree with them. I'd love to know who is on his "campaign" team, though.

http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

You talking to me? or do you know what Bernier means?
kcm

Gaunilion takes the long view…the enlightenment was an infringement of the doctrine of infallibility.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

That is laughable!!! First of all, FOIA is a requisite for basically anybody who gets government funding, so esentially every government dept. is able to respond to them in a reasonable fashion. The fact that these "scientists" were unable to respond AT ALL is a testament to their incompetence.

Secondly, they NEVER REPLIED to the FOIA requests. The only time they invested in them was trying to suppress the very information that was sought out.

Thirdly, if these "scientists" were even half honest, the data would be publicly available to anybody who wanted it. But they're not honest, so they lied and covered up the fact that their data was completely bunk instead.

Fourthly, who's paying you to make this stuff up?

kcm

Wow! It almost sounds like you know what you're talking about! Never trust someone who so emphatically ust KNOWS what happened, and just KNOWS why!!! Especially when they're commenting on a story whose details transpired largely on the net.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Having a garaunteed veto for two years is "giving up their power"?
kcm

There's no satisfying people like you, is there? You'll only be truly happy when scientists are lower on the totem pole than used car salesmen, or intellectuals generally.
kcm

There's no satisfying people like you, is there? You'll only be truly happy when scientists are lower on the totem pole than used car salesmen, or intellectuals generally.
Lord Kitchener's Own

No, the Bloc agreeing not to vote against any bills their federalist counterparts put forward for two years is "giving up their power". The notion of a "veto" is something you just made up in your head.
Standing By

I guess I have the same three questions about Bernier's leadership prospects as anyone else who has ever worked around or met the man, which are:

1. How is possible for someone with a sub-normal IQ to get an economics degree and a law degree from accredited Canadian post-secondary institutions?

2. Is it possible for someone with a sub-normal IQ to be a viable candidate for national leadership?

3. Would people vote for a national leader with a sub-normal IQ?

I fear the answers to these questions are "yes", "yes" and "quite possibly".

Sigh…

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

" Is it possible for someone with a sub-normal IQ to be a viable candidate for national leadership?"

If the people voting for you are rightwingers, absolutely. Bush made it to the White House and Sarah Palin is the toast of the rightwing town.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

"Is it possible for someone with a sub-normal IQ to be a viable candidate for national leadership?"

Have you heard the names Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi?

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

This scientific debate thing is easy, just look at a couple of web sites, and mention tree rings or ice cores or something. Nothing to it and it absolves you of making the policy choices and decisions that ought to be your field as a politician.

Join us for our next two episodes in which Max looks through one of those surveyor thingies at the site of the Fort McMurray Water Reclamation project to demonstate he is au courant with infrastructure development and then dresses as the third backup goalie for the Croatia game in order to set a course for Canadian sports policy.

Wasn't Max also at the Berlin Wall with Sarkozy?
Lord Kitchener's Own

OK, last attempt.

You wrote: "Max is right. No one is allowed to question lest they be called crazy".

I replied to you by calling you crazy.

Was my use of ironic humour really too subtle for you?
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

No. The coalition government would have only survived as long as the Bloc supported it. That is a veto in every way but in it's name. A Rose by any other name… and all that.
Craig O

Thank you for not responding to my point whatsoever…

Let's give you the benefit of every doubt here (mostly because I'm currently too lazy to address some of the things you've said here which range from valid to misleading to downright irrelevant). The IPCC is not synonymous with climate science. It does not control the field of climatology. If we throw out everything it says, we are still left with thousands of reputable climate scientists who reach the basic conclusions of the AGW theory (though doubtlessly they differ in their views of the details and consequences).

Neither Bernier, nor you, have addressed climate science, only the politics surrounding it. Yes, some climatologists are opportunistic and deceitful. So are many skeptics. It doesn't matter. Are CO2 concentrations rising? Will that lead to a significant rise in the earth's temperatures? If so, what are the general implications? These are the questions that matter and there's more than enough untainted data to make reasonable conclusions about what could happen and what to do about it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Except they signed an agreement that they would not vote against the Coalition government in a confidence motion. So the only way for the government to *not* survive, would be if the Bloc went back on their word.

While I realize that's S.O.P. for Harper's crew, if the Bloc has been one thing, it's that it's been honest about what it wants and intends to do.
Craig O

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f…

Take a look at the rich countries who have met their obligations and those who haven't. The Scandinavian countries have hardly been suffering since they signed. France's economy has been one of the more resilient G8 countries during the recession and Germany, which has pretty much kept the EU going through the recession, was damn close to its target.

On the flip side, look at the countries who missed their obligations. Besides Canada, we're in stellar company – all four of the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) who are now major drags on the EU, and you can throw Ireland in their too. Japan hasn't looked too hot over the last two decades either.

My point here is not that meeting Kyoto obligations makes the economy better, only that there's very little evidence that meeting them makes the economy worse – if Kyoto were truly "a scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations", those who met their targets should be doing a whole lot worse than they are now.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

"So the only way for the government to *not* survive, would be if the Bloc went back on their word".

You mean like Iggy did the moment he became leader?

And signing an agreement to vote for policy that you haven't seen – for two whole years, noless – wouldn't come without some strings attached. What did the coalition promise the Bloc to get them to agree to something so reckless? An EFFECTIVE veto over policy.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Non-written strings are worth the paper they're written on. Besides think really hard about what the Bloc stood to gain if the Liberals and NDP were making policy. Those two parties have had almost a historical favortism toward Quebec, with the biggest question being which one fawns over them more.

They wouldn't even need a veto, written, effective, or otherwise, in order to see Quebec making great gains out of the coalition.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com/?s=skeptics
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Who cares about facts or proof when Holly Stick, and many others, have feelings that obviously trump reality. I wonder where Harper ever got the idea that agw is scheme to transfer wealth?

"The British Government, as revealed by the EU’s Official Journal, has allocated £60 million of taxpayers’ money to be spent on buying carbon credits from the Third World for the use of government buildings and other official purposes – so that our civil servants can continue to benefit from the CO2 emissions needed to keep their offices warm and lit. " Sunday Telegraph, Feb 20, 2010
Holly Stick

No, that is a lie, sourstud.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation." Sunday Times, Nov 29, 2009

Holly Stick

False. Your story is by Jonathan Leake, who has a history of getting things wrong:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate…

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/leakeng-ship.h…

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"The climate expert at the centre of a media storm over the release of emails onto the internet has admitted that he did not follow correct procedures over a key scientific paper.

In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost." Guardian, Feb 15, 2010

Are you saying Phil Jones is a liar?

Holly Stick

No, you smearing denialists keep lying about what he says. How about you provide a link for your quotation so I can see if it ia another dishonest quote by Leake or one of the other misrepresenters.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

No, you're lying. Who's paying you to aid in the cover up?

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

If you'd like to be enlightened, there are many more like it: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
Holly Stick

No, what you have written about Phil Jones are lies. Here is the real story: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/201…

See also my Economist link above.

What you have written about climate science are also lies, Go through this list and refute all of these papers, before you can honestly say there was no proof of AGW.
Holly Stick

Here's the list: disprove these, wise guy.

http://www.desmogblog.com/common-sense-and-attack…
AT1

Not sure where you get that idea Holly.
Nothing the CRU has done appears to be verifiable! The problem remains that CRU record keeping was abysmal. The MET office is now organizing an independent effort to redo what CRU had purportedly done for the last decade, and keep it in the public domain. I don't know you, but if my employer decided that my last 10 yrs or research needed a do-over, I'd be a wee bit embarrassed.