Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell Challenges the Teabaggers on Evolution & Climate Change


The Right Honourable Kim Campbell is the former Conservative Prime Minister of Canada. I never voted for her party but I'm proud of her today. She took on Congressman Jack Kingston (R, Georgia) recently on the Bill Maher show and showed him how stupid he was for denying climate change and evolution.

Even intelligent conservatives in Canada know about science. Unfortunately, many of today's leaders of the Conservative Party don't qualify as "intelligent." However, I don't know of any Canadian federal politician who would publicly confess to such ignorance about science as Jack Kingston.




31 comments :

  1. Notice the answer to whether he believes in evolution:

    I came from God, not from a monkey.

    Doesn't that tell a lot about anti-evolution?

    Just to mention a few points:

    Evolution is equivalenced to one small thing, that humans, like every other living thing, have their place in nature. (Later on, he repeats some of the standard creationist mistakes about evolution, but the first thing he mentions is the monkey thing.)

    If he thinks that he came from God, is he going to deny the science of reproductive biology? Reproductive biology, not evolution, is about where any individual came from.

    Does he deny that monkeys are creatures of God?

    TomS

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's hope Mrs. Campbell gets invited to a next episode and schools Maher on vaccination.

    "Adaptation is not the same as evolution". At least Kingston got one thing right. For the wrong reason, though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Canadian Conservatives are for the most part to the left of US Democrats! So this isn't saying much looked at one way. But the other thing is that the US considering its developed status has some of the dumbest legislators, bureaucrat/executives and judiciary at all levels. F'instance the current crop of conservative judges on the US Supreme Court wouldn't qualify for a traffic court in Europe! Roberts especially is a legal mediocrity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You should look up the meaning of 'teabagger' on the internet. It has other meanings than the way you use it here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SHE is a conservative????? In the USA she'd be branded a liberal elitist.

    Then again, in my stupid country, anyone who can speak in complete sentences is branded an "elitist".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, if the lady said there is total consensus then that's it, it's settled, there is a total consensus. Right. Done.

    Don't you see, Larry, just how complex must be the framework of beliefs for proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming? (That's the issue, not "climate change"). The must believe in all of these:

    1. There is very strong, nearly unprecedented warming of the planet.
    2. The increase in anthropogenic green house gases is directly responsible for almost all of the increase in global temperatures.
    3. The increase in carbon dioxide is indirectly causing a far greater increase than by carbon dioxide alone due to positive feedback effects.
    4. The overall impact of increased carbon dioxide, both direct and indirect, is going to be very dramatic, in the range of 2 to 5 degrees C over the next century.
    5. The rise of temperature in the range of 2-5 degrees will have terrible, catastrophic effects on human existence.
    6. There is no effective way in which to counter any of these effects other than to decrease carbon dioxide emissions - geoengineering cannot work.

    Now let's review the status of the above propositions:
    1. Probably true. Although in the wake of ClimateGate it has become clear that the amplitude of the effect is not nearly as certain as alarmists claim.
    2. May not be true. There is NO unequivocal proof for that proposition.
    3. May not be true. The evidence for positive feedback loop comes solely from models of the utmost simplicity. None of these models has been experimentally tested.
    4. May not be true. Easily so. There is exactly zero evidence that any of the current models has any quantitative predictive power.
    5. May not be true at all. For the most part, this one amounts only to a wild guess.
    6. Probably true but far, far from certain. One of the problems is that alarmists refuse to even consider any steps in this direction.

    Aa you can see, each of the points is rather uncertain. Which means that the likelihood that the strong version of AGW theory is correct is not very high. I used to believe in AGW just fine. As I am no expert, it was pure belief - after all, I was told that there is total consensus. Then there was ClimateGate that exposed the fishy undercurrent of the global warming scientific and political battle. I started to read wider and whenever possible went to the original sources. I am still not an expert but I do know a thig or two about models and I know the extend of BS in science and how peer review and consensus building work in real life. My conclusions now: 1) There is no consensus, 2) There is nothing that we know solidly enough to justify most of the drastic economic measures proposed by proponents of AGW theory.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re Harriet

    Just for the information of Ms.Harriet, the Canadian Minister for Science, one Gary Goodyear, is a chiropractor, as well as an evolution denier. At least the current president of the US makes competent appointments in this area (e.g. Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, Nobel Prize winning research physician Harold Varmus as one of his science advisers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @DK

    If you watch the video you'll see that the discussion is about the existence of global warming. Jack Kingston denies that the Earth is getting warmer.

    Do you deny that the Earth is getting warmer?

    Most of your other points are worth discussing but only after you've accepted the hard scientific fact of global warming.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Larry, I am convinced that there is a warming going on. Although it seems to me that we don't know for sure its amplitude.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This man who think he came from God should grab a mirror and take a close look at his hairy, sweaty asshole and tell me what's divine about it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This man who think he came from God should grab a mirror and take a close look at his hairy, sweaty asshole and tell me what's divine about it.

    It's where all the best Bible quotes and theistic on-the-spot talking points come from. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I came from God, not from a monkey.

    If we came from God, why is there still God? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. "At least the current president of the US makes competent appointments in this area (e.g. Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, Nobel Prize winning research physician Harold Varmus as one of his science advisers. "

    Yes, that is absolutely true. I, along with many liberals, am happy with President Obama's science picks. Though some atheists have a problem with Francis Collins at NIH, I think he is a good choice too.

    My issue is that she has the label of CONSERVATIVE; to admit that science has any validity would be the death knell of a conservative in US politics.

    If you want to get nauseated, check this out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88l5ql_FQ

    ReplyDelete
  14. @DK My conclusions now: 1) There is no consensus, 2) There is nothing that we know solidly enough to justify most of the drastic economic measures proposed by proponents of AGW theory.

    When it comes to scientific questions, we'd definitely wish to get at the truth, and not propagate 'useful fictions'. But I guess one thing we know solidly enough is that the prime suspect in AGW is a finite resource. Once we've squeezed the sands of Alberta dry, and drained a reopened Deepwater Horizon (I'd recommend going in from below, so nobody sees), we can stop worrying about AGW, and start worrying about something else. Whether that justifies economic measures is a political question, but the bottom line is that a drop in consumption, however motivated, is a deferment of the problem. It is a day we will have to face eventually, but I can see merit in delaying it, irrespective of the status of AGW.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "there was ClimateGate that exposed the fishy undercurrent of the global warming scientific and political battle."

    Except that it really didn't. 10,000 emails and only a handful, when read out of context and without background knowledge, sort of looked like something was 'fishy', primarily to those that doubted it in the first place?

    Not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Except that it really didn't. 10,000 emails and only a handful, when read out of context and without background knowledge

    Except that it did. Very much so.

    Eduardo Zorita and Hans von Storch have the most immediate first hand experience with the scientists belonging to the alarmist clique. Read what they think about it:

    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  17. While watching the clip I noticed the question, "Do you believe in evolution?" was asked several times. I am always curious by what people really mean when they ask this question. As a high school biology teacher, I am often asked the question by my students. What they are often really asking is "Do you believe in god or do you believe in evolution?", using "believe in" to mean faith.

    When a scientist says they believe in evolution, other scientists know what they mean, but when a person of faith hears this, they are probably thinking "Hey, this person believes in evolution in the same way that I believe in god". I think using the work belief when talking about evolution creates confusion for some people, especially those that don't understand science that well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Larry

    I think the time is long past when those of us who support the science on global climate change cease using the term global warming. It is inaccurate in that while the overall temperature of the planet is rising (climate), that rise expresses itself in different ways in different places. Some will get hotter and some will get colder et.c. A much better term, and one that does not give deniers something to hang as red herring on is Global Climate Change

    @DK

    Well, if DK says there is no consensus then that's it, it's settled, there is no consensus. Right. Done.

    as in DK you presented opinion dressed up as fact. Nice try but a massive fail. Try presenting published peer reviewed research, by climate scientists, and then it will be worth discussing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. as in DK you presented opinion dressed up as fact.

    Do you understand what a combination of words "my conclusions" means? Sounds like you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  20. For all you Sandwalk fans that think so-called global warming is settled science, have you seen the “Global Warming Petition Project” at http://www.petitionproject.org/ ? If over 30,000 American scientists have signed this petition (including 9,000 with PhDs)
    are willing to publicly identify themselves as being ‘skeptical’ about human caused climate catastrophe, does that qualify as a chink in scientific consensus? Especially when one considers the many more that wish to avoid being publicly mocked or professionally ostracized (I know two personally). Is there a similar open/public list of pro global warming scientists?

    ReplyDelete
  21. DougAlder says,

    I think the time is long past when those of us who support the science on global climate change cease using the term global warming. It is inaccurate in that while the overall temperature of the planet is rising (climate), that rise expresses itself in different ways in different places. Some will get hotter and some will get colder et.c. A much better term, and one that does not give deniers something to hang as red herring on is Global Climate Change.

    I used to think that way but now I realize that's it's really quite silly. I live in a part of the world where things are likely to become much more pleasant because of climate change. Does that mean I should encourage it?

    Of course not. The overall direction of global climate change is in the direction of a warmer planet and that has consequences that are quite different from a change where the Earth is getting cooler or some parts of the world are getting cooler.

    Ocean levels will all over the planet will rise because the climate is warming—not just changing. My fellow citizens in Toronto need to be concerned about the effect that this WARMING will have on coastal areas and that's why we need to emphasize that overall WARMING is going to cause problems that are different from the cooling of some parts of the Earth. They need to be convinced that this is a problem they should worry about even if it means that winters will become a lot more pleasant here.

    It's not global CHANGE that we should fear, it's global WARMING.

    ReplyDelete
  22. My fellow citizens in Toronto need to be concerned about the effect that this WARMING will have on coastal areas

    Here is a very simple check:

    See if real estate prices in coastal areas are dropping in comparison to inland areas. Betcha they are not. This alone should tell you something.

    ReplyDelete
  23. DK says,

    This alone should tell you something.

    Agreed. It tells me a great deal.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Denny: Petitions! This has the whiff of those lists of scientists that deny evolution. The most useful graphic to represent the signatories might be a series of concentric circles indicating approximate distance of qualification from a subject of relevance. I suspect that few evolutionary biologists deny evolution, but as we move through the biological disciplines and outwards, we may see an increasing proportion. Likewise with the science of climate change. And as for doctors and vets ... I mean, FFS! I would not expect anyone to take my biochemistry degree as evidence of anything (including the validity of my opinion on a biochemical controversy).

    From the petition:

    "The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind".

    How, how and how? We actually need these emissions to protect the environment and our health? Yeesh. I understand (though don't buy) the economic and more emotional 'freedom' arguments, but this is pure hogwash.

    Either way, here's the thing: Oil will run out. Quickly or more slowly, it's our choice, but I vote for slowly - where do I sign?

    ReplyDelete
  25. DK:

    See if real estate prices in coastal areas are dropping in comparison to inland areas.

    They didn't drop in Pompeii, even after the devastating earthquake in A.D. 63. People were still living there happily on the slopes of Vesuvius in August of A.D. 79, despite all the warnings the mountain gave them.

    Sad to say, that's the bulk of humanity in a nutshell.

    ReplyDelete
  26. DK says,

    See if real estate prices in coastal areas are dropping in comparison to inland areas.

    I understand there's some real bargains in Micronesia. Have you invested?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I understand there's some real bargains in Micronesia. Have you invested?

    I am sure I could find some if I had the money. Equally sure, there are quite a few I wouldn't even consider. Some of the latter would have to do with the global warming, yes. Once again, the record/trend is clear - a warming.

    The real issues are what part of it is anthropogenic and whether we can/should do anything about it. Anyone saying that these issues are settle is a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  28. DK:

    The real issues are what part of it is anthropogenic and whether we can/should do anything about it.

    Even if it turns out not to be the fault of anything we're doing, do you see no positive benefit to finding ways to do the things we do while reducing or eliminating the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants we put into the environment? If, decades from now, it turns out we're mistaken and it's happening for reasons nothing to do with us, we still come out with a cleaner environment. But if we're right... what do we do about those lost decades if we just sat on our asses all that time and waited for the results before we taking any action...?

    People who are always urging us to accept Jesus before it's too late ought to be able to relate, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  29. People who are always urging us to accept Jesus before it's too late ought to be able to relate, after all.

    Good analogy. Alarmist do indeed have a lot in common with religious nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lone Primate:People who are always urging us to accept Jesus before it's too late ought to be able to relate, after all.

    DK: Good analogy. Alarmist do indeed have a lot in common with religious nuts.


    Funny thing, perspective! "Global warming is bullshit!" amounts to many peoples' sole scientific opinion. Those who hold two scientific opinions often have "Evolution is bullshit!" as their first pick.

    On AGW, I am actually agnostic - though, as I've said, finite resources is a plenty good enough reason for me to support Kyoto etc. But ISTM that the deniers often display a strong streak of zeal - ideologically motivated rather than religiously, but we hear far too often that it's all just a socialist tax-raising enterprise-shackling Big Government plot. Whereas to me, denial is ... well, as I say, funny thing, perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  31. DK:

    Good analogy. Alarmist do indeed have a lot in common with religious nuts.

    While others bear a shocking resemblance to ostriches. See? Evolution MUST be true. :)

    ReplyDelete