I say all of this because I have questions for Michael Shermer.² He has assessed the science surrounding climate change and published saying that: 1. the Earth is warming, and 2. this warming is caused by human activity, in particular CO2 production. This is great. ³

But Shermer has also published saying that there will only be “moderate warming with moderate changes.” He leans heavily on the analysis of Bjorn Lomborg and concludes that:

In my opinion we need to chill out on all extremist plans that entail expenses best described as Brobdingnagian, require our intervention into developing countries best portrayed as imperialistic, or involve state controls best portrayed as fascistic. Give green technologies and free markets a chance.

I should note that Chris Mooney of Desmog Blog has a podcast and an article about his interactions with Shermer and it’s definitely worth a listen and a read.

But my questions for Shermer have a slightly different approach. Like Skeptic Magazine readers, I am deeply interested in the way folks form beliefs about reality. And I am also interested in public relations and professional influence peddlers. And like the Tobacco industry’s interests in government spending and regulation of cigarettes, the oil industry has always had interests when it comes to government spending and regulations relating to climate change.

Continued retreating denial

I respect Shermer’s credentials and his approach on countless topics. From religion to dowsing rods to priming and junk science, Shermer is, in my opinion, right about many things. And he’s the first person to say that we shouldn’t believe him simply because he says so. Kudos.

But it does seem to me a little suspicious that he espouses a particular political ideology. He is a libertarian. Now I too have a political ideology (not libertarianism). ⁴ My point is not to say that clear thinking individuals can’t or shouldn’t have ideological leanings. My point is that is does seem to be a bit more than a coincidence that Shermer’s ideology is also the ideology that informs Conservatives and Republicans who are aligned against accepting or doing anything about climate change.

That is to say, Republicans and Conservatives have been lead deniers of climate change for thirty years. And now that denying climate change is untenable, they are denying that it’s worth doing something about it. So my question to Shermer is, is this grounds for suspicion?

There appears to be a structure and purpose to the shape that denial takes. The stages of climate change denial are well documented. The denier first denies that the Earth is warming. Then when they can’t sustain this, they deny that it’s caused by humans. Then when they discover that it is caused by human consumption, they deny that there is anything we can do about. Then when they realize that this is untenable, they deny that it’s worth doing anything about it. Then when they are forced to admit that we can and should do something about it, they deny that government should have any real active role in doing something about it.

The goal, at every stage of denial, is to deny that we should do something collectively. This defense of the status quo, is a defense of oil industry interests. It is also a defense of Libertarianism. Let’s call this continued retreating denial.

Warrant for skepticism

Shermer himself agrees that Republicans and Conservatives need to stop denying the fact of anthropogenic climate change. But he aligns with Republicans and Conservatives to affirm that we should continue to deny doing anything about climate change.

But here’s the thing. There is a huge oil lobby. There is a massive cover up campaign. The oil industry has intentionally confused the public about the scientific consensus. The Conservatives and the Republicans continue to deny the fact of climate change, and they do so because they deny that government ought to be in the position of regulator. And Shermer shares a political ideology with the Republicans. And Shermer denies that government ought to do something about it. Perhaps most importantly, Shermer relies heavily on Bjorn Lomborg, who’s other books and analysis on the topic of climate change have fit the pattern of continued retreating denial. Lomborg’s recent book, Cool It, which Shermer purports to be depending on for his analysis, was reviewed by economist Frank Ackerman of Tufts, saying that, “Lomborg has a weak grasp of some of the essential details and commits elementary mistakes, with little or no citation of sources that would explain his results.”⁵ Finally, and also importantly, many of the groups that lobbied against tobacco reform are the same groups lobbying against climate change mitigation and energy reform. They are also the same groups lobbying against other state interventions, like healthcare. They are the same groups.

So, Shermer. This appears to be enough evidence, structured in a predictable manner, to warrant deeper investigation into your social and political bias on this matter. Isn’t it? Wouldn’t you be skeptical?

But my intent is not to extoll the virtues of DePape or her act of protest. Instead, I want to say why David Akin,¹ of Sun Media, has written so poorly on the topic.

The only reason I even read the posting by Akin, is that Mike Moffatt tweeted a link to it calling it brilliant. Looking back now, I wonder if Moffatt actually read it.²

I find two glaring problems with Akin’s analysis. He thinks acts of protest are too often shortcuts that lack impulse control and that DePape is not committed to making long term social change. Most importantly, he doesn’t understand what democracy is.

Akin fails to understand the concept of democracy

Democracy is not simply about having national elections. Many countries have elections, but fail to meet a basic threshold of democracy. Democracy is not simply yes or no, on or off, black or white. It doesn’t work that way.

Democracy is a matter of degree. Most people get this intuitively. When more people vote, we have more democracy. When the electorate is better educated on issues, we have more democracy. When people’s human rights are protected, we have more democracy. When the power of corporations and rich people to spend money on elections and lobby government is curtailed by regulation, then we have more democracy. When people who wield power are expected to account for and justify their power, then we have more democracy. When citizens are able to elect representatives that reflect their values and interests, then we have more democracy.³

Seriously, Akin, are your following this? It’s not brain surgery.

When DePape called for a “Canadian version of an Arab spring,”⁴ she was calling for democratic renewal. She was saying that we need more democracy.

She thinks this, and I think this, and most Canadians think this. And in part, we think this because Stephen Harper wants less democracy. The Conservative Party of Canada wants less democracy because it is bad for some businesses. Democracy is bad for Big Tobacco. Democracy is bad for Big Oil. Democracy is bad for any business that knows that the community wants to make them accountable. Part of democracy is regulatory oversight on behalf of community interests. But regulatory oversight is bad for many business interests; notably, interests from Alberta that pay for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the business media that cheerlead for them. The speech from the throne didn’t even mention climate change.⁵

Akin pretends to not to understand this. It is, after all, his job to not understand this.

Akin’s article gives no evidence and yet frames DePape as being not interested in hard work or commitment

Akin’s entire article works to frame Brigette DePape as someone who prefers shortcuts. But a protest is not, as a rule, a shortcut. To say so reveals just how out of touch Akin is with the challenges of making social change. A protest, is the symbolic nub of a larger analysis and commitment to progressive social change. This larger analysis and commitment to social change, Brigette DePape has in spades.

That said, some protests fail to be effective. This one has not failed in it’s symbolic power. Akin certainly has not provided any evidence that it failed. He has written at length about the virtues of diligence and perseverance and the value of taking the long view. Great. DePape probably, and I certainly, agree with these virtues. By simply asserting otherwise, without evidence is inappropriate.

If Akin simply disagrees with her claims, just say so. If Akin simply thinks she shouldn’t have stood up to Harper this way, just say so. Akin is, I believe, a Libertarian. He probably doesn’t believe in climate change. And, like other rich people, he probably hates paying progressive taxes. But if this is his problem with DePape he should just say so.

Instead, Akin employs rhetorical devices to make DePape out to be less courageous and less hard working than she is. He even refers to DePape by her first name. This is a patronizing move that coheres with his overall undermining tone. Yes you have a better paying job and you are an older, taller, white, right wing, middle age man with Big Oil cheering for you and lots of privilege. And yes DePape is a younger, less well paid, woman that is standing up to, among other things, Big Oil.

But more than that, he argues that DePape and her supporters think that symbolic protest is the only way to make change:

“Brigette DePape may despise Stephen Harper’s politics but showing up in the Senate — or anywhere else in Canada — with a sign that says “Stop Harper” and issuing a press release after the fact is so not going to change things, one feels pity for her and her supporters for, if this is how they believe change will happen, they will never know it.”

I see no evidence that DePape has not considered that there are other ways to make progressive social change. She votes. She no doubt has canvassed. She no doubt participates in committees and other democratic forums. So do I and I’m a DePape supporter.

Did I already mention that the throne speech didn’t even mention climate change? Harper has committed to a balanced budget in 2015. Good one.

premise 1: Canada’s newspaper of record would only endorse a centrist political party.
premise 2: The Globe & Mail is Canada’s newspaper of record.
premise 3: The Globe & Mail endorsed the Conservatives.
Conclusion: the Conservatives are, therefore, a centrist political party.

Since the conclusion is absurd, and the argument form is valid, at least one of the premises must be false. But which one?

Download the PDF poster of Stephen Harper. The dimensions now strike me as a little odd at 23″ by 34″. Huh.

This is probably my last post until after the election. Good luck to all of us.

In 2007, Harper cut $1.2 Billion in spending for the establishment of quality national childcare. However, he never kept his promise to cut the $1.4 billion in tax breaks he gives to oil companies (the wealthiest corporations in history). – www.shitharperdid.com

I think this might be my last attempt at comedy animation of a political nature. I think I’m done exploring sarcasm. But check out my past attempts here and here.

And just because a minority government gets a non-confidence vote in the House, a whole new election doesn’t have to get triggered. When a government falls, it’s just not true that the only option is to have an election. But you hear this falsehood spoken often. You hear journalists say it. You hear newspaper editors say it. And you hear big business say it. And of course, lately the Conservatives have been saying it.

When a minority government falls, any other portion of parliament can come forward with the intent to form government. The majority of Canadians voted against Harper’s Christians last election. I would prefer a coalition.

Canada’s climate researchers are being muzzled, their funding slashed, research stations closed, findings ignored and advice on the critical issue of the century unsought by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government…

Harper is the guy that once claimed that global warming was nothing but a socialist conspiracy after all. And Harper is from Calgary. But, in defense of Calgary, there are many scientists that live there and there are even a few that don’t work for Big Oil. I guess that’s why Harper decided to just muzzle them. A scientist from Edmonton, writing in the Ottawa Citizen, said this:

It is clear that muzzling under the Harper government is the most oppressive in the history of federal government science. Incredibly, some of the most eminent scientists in Canada have been forbidden to speak publicly on scientific matters where they are recognized as world experts, ranging from climate change to pollution of lakes and rivers. Instead, the public is referred to media-savvy spin doctors, who usually know very little about the science of these topics, spouting the party line.

The report that got this all started was written by the Climate Action Network and can be found here. There is much that is interesting in this report and one detail that I found particularly  interesting was the fact that Harper has appointed climate change skeptics to the boards of two super important granting bodies: NSERC and CFI. So just to explain how this works, students in Universities that are working at the graduate level in the sciences are funded by granting agencies like NSERC. In fact, I believe the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) is responsible for the funding of all of the PhD scientists I know. And NSERC has the difficult position of selecting and denying applications for funding. Not everyone’s research gets funded and not all research gets the green light. So the significance of Harper’s appointments to the board, is very very real.

One of these appointments is Mark Mullins. Mark Mullins was the Executive Director of the Fraser Institute for four years.

Another one of the appointments (to CFI) was John Weissenberger. He’s a geologist from Calgary who worked in oil and gas for twenty years. He’s actually a friend of the evil-overlord himself and was a chief of staff for the evil-overlord’s government. The author of the Climate Action Network report, Andrew Cuddy, took the time to include a quote by John Weissenberger and I’ll sign off by quoting the quote. But first, you should know that Weissenberger didn’t write the following soundbite alone. He was joined by George Koch, who I’m assuming is from the Koch family of Koch Oil. The Koch family are all pious followers of Ayn Rand even, I believe, requiring that their employees and executives read Rand’s books. The Koch’s, in short, are libertarians and conservatives.

“[T]he great weakening of the Stalinist intellectual monument of global warming theory continues in regular increments.” — George Koch (from a blog published jointly with Weissenberger), September 13, 2008

Of course, that wasn’t enough to convince me of his points of view and eventually he said, “Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, how can scientists claim to predict global warming?” Now when he said this, some kind of alarm bell starting to ring deep down in my brain stem. Maybe he was just a little too slick. Or maybe, since I was so often speaking from a script, I was in a heightened state of script awareness. So at that point, I fell out of my own script and stuck out my hand and introduced myself. And he introduced himself. His name was Tim Ball.

We had an animated conversation about peer reviewed publishing, the dimensions of relative objectivity in science, global cooling, and socialism. Actually he accused me of being a socialist. And that was when my moment of glory came to pass in the form of a question I would ask in return. See, when he accused me of being a socialist I was provoked first to a moment of confusion – it just struck me as a non sequitur. But after the confusion, came clarity. And I asked him, “Do you work for the Fraser Institute?”

I still remember that moment and I remember exactly where we were standing – corner of Government and Yates in front of Eddi Bauer.

His eyes widened a little and he stepped back. Pointedly, he said no. I told him that equating concern for global warming with socialism sounded like something the Fraser Institute or the Heritage Foundation might do. He mumbled something and walked away. I quickly made some notes about the exchange, including writing down his name and went on with my day.

But that night I did a name search online for ‘Tim Ball’. Then I did a name search for ‘Tim Ball’ on the Fraser Institute website. And maybe he wasn’t an employee but I did find his name on lot’s of their communications. I was so excited! I met an important person who was clearly a hired gun for climate change denial and made his cover on one try! It was easy.

But unfortunately, many reporters and journalists have found him convincing over the years. Unfortunately, many so-called journalists continue to find him interesting. As of today, he’s still listed on the Fraser Institute website:

This is how his bio reads on the Fraser Institute website:

Dr. Tim Ball, one of the first Canadians to hold a Ph.D. in climatology, wrote his doctoral thesis at the University of London (England) using the remarkable records of the Hudson’s Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714 – 1952. He has published numerous articles on climate change and its impact on the human condition. Dr. Ball has served on numerous committees at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels on climate, water resources, and environmental issues. He was a professor in the geography department at the University of Winnipeg before retiring. He has written a regular column on weather in the agricultural magazine. Country Guide, for 14 years. He is currently working as an environmental consultant and public speaker based in Victoria and has written, with Dr. Stuart Houston, 18th Century Naturalists on Hudson Bay, a book on the science and climate of the fur trade (McGill-Queens University Press, 2003).

But this is how he’s described in James Hoggan’s recent book, Climate Cover Up, The Crusade to Deny Global Warming:

There are few “skeptical scientists” with as little actual expertise and as much ambition as the Canadian geography professor Dr. Timothy Ball. Never a climate scientist per se, Dr. Ball quit his position as an associate professor at the University of Winnipeg in 1995, apparently ending an academic career that featured a lifetime output of just four peer-reviewed journal articles, none of which addressed atmospheric science. Yet ten years later, Ball-the-climate-expert seemed to be everywhere – on the radio, in the newspapers, on the lecture circuit, even testifying before a committee in the Canadian parliament.

Turns out that Tim Ball is paid by the Friends of Science that is funded through the University of Calgary Science Education Fund, set up by Barry Cooper who is friends with Stephen Harper, which is funded by the Oil patch. He’s also connected to the National Resources Stewardship Program, Tom Harris with APCO Public Relations, High Park Advocacy Group, Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association. He’s effectively a paid mouthpiece with fewer credentials than he and the Fraser Institute claims he has. But I met him and he’s quasi famous and so I guess I met an almost famous guy! And I made him. That was my moment of glory.

I checked today and we’re currently posted right beside David Suzuki’s own call to Harper! Can you tell I’m a fan of David Suzuki?

In case you’re interested, here is where you can find the report that the Suzuki Foundation co-authored with the Pembina Institute. Let me summarize for you: 1. the current Canadian plan to deal with climate change is not working, 2. there is a way to do something that does work. The report also lays out a detailed and thorough plan but I won’t summarize that. The idea is that if we change our climate by more than 2°C (or Kelvin) from the pre-industrial levels we’ll face a harsh reality. To prevent that, industrialized countries need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 25% lower than the 1990 levels. Here’s the kicker: we need to do it by 2020. But what is amazing about the Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina institute is that they actually show how we can do that, while maintaining a vibrant economy. It requires strong political leadership to do it. So let’s make that happen, shall we?

P.S. if anyone needs help taking video of their phone call to the PM or posting their video to Youtube, you’re welcome to contact me, and, time and space depending, I will endeavor to help you.