If conservative politicians wait until public opinion opposes the climate scare before they take a sensible approach to the issue, they will for wait a very long time indeed. Pictured: Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. Photo Credit: Pierre Poilievre/X.
Most conservative leaders in Canada, including federal opposition leader Pierre Poilievre and Alberta premier Danielle Smith, support the unscientific and costly climate scare. Rather than simply tell the truth about climate change, namely that there is no climate emergency and efforts to control the climate will leave us bankrupt, hungry and freezing in the dark for no environmental benefit, conservative party brass attempt to finesse the issue so as to expand the tent of voters who may support the party.
Afterall, backroom strategists tell their political bosses: “The polls show that most of the public believe that there is a climate crisis. So, we have to have a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) to ‘fight climate change.’ There is no alternative if we are to get elected.”
Besides the fact that most of polls are “push polls” designed to give an outcome desired by climate alarmists and so cannot be trusted, conservative strategists fail to recognize the role political leaders play in determining public opinion.
A 2012 paper by Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, Jason Carmichael of McGill and J. Craig Jenkins of Ohio State published in the journal Climatic Change looked at 74 surveys over a nine-year period to attempt to determine the factors that had the greatest influence on public opinion concerning climate change. They considered five possibilities: scientific information, extreme weather events, advocacy, media coverage, and what politicians and political parties were saying about the topic. They found that neither the promulgation of scientific information nor extreme weather events had a significant impact. Media coverage had some impact, but the strongest effect came from the positions of competing politicians and political parties.
When politicians of all stripes supported the man-made dangerous climate change narrative, the public generally did too and demand for action rose. But when politicians questioned the narrative, the public became far less concerned about climate change and their demand for action plummeted—substantially. Similarly, Harvard University’s Susan McDonald concluded in 2009 that: “When elites have consensus, the public follows suit, and the issue becomes mainstreamed. When elites disagree, polarization occurs, and citizens rely on other indicators … to make up their minds.”
And other studies found the same. So, if conservative politicians wait until public opinion opposes the climate scare before they take a sensible approach to the issue, they will for wait a very long time indeed.
What, then, is a conservative politician – most of whom know full well that the climate scare is bogus – to do if they want to avoid being massacred by the press and losing elections, but also wants to contribute to the ending one of the greatest threats to our nations? Here is a step-by-step strategy they should follow.
Starting immediately, they should ensure that all party members and all their documents stop, even indirectly, supporting the climate scare. This would mean adjusting their language so that they never use the following terms/phrases: carbon tax, carbon emissions, carbon pollution, carbon footprint, low carbon energy, and so on. Instead call it carbon dioxide (which is 80 per cent of the GHG, not counting water vapour, emitted by human activity in Canada), and when addressing the “carbon tax,” for example, call it “an energy tax” or, to be more exact, “a tax on carbon dioxide emissions.” By calling the non-toxic, invisible gas carbon dioxide “carbon” they are using the language of climate alarmism since “carbon” brings up thoughts of soot and pollution.
Also starting right away, conservative leaders must stop saying, or even implying, that we need to “reduce emissions,” since the implication is almost always mainly about reducing CO2 emissions, which is unnecessary, of course. Instead, talk about increasing the efficiency of our energy use where it is currently inefficient.
They need to stop complaining about how China is not reducing GHG emissions, since this implies that it is worth doing.
They must never talk about a climate emergency or make statements about extreme weather increasing, etc. as a rationale for their climate plans. Instead, only boost air, land and water pollution reduction where it is currently a significant enough problem to be worthwhile to reduce.
They should stop boosting “carbon sequestration,” as Poilievre does all the time now. This is an expensive, and potentially dangerous, “solution” to a problem that does not exist. Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray told the U.S. Congress a few years before he passed away that “carbon sequestration” is code for “no coal,” something no sensible Canadian should promote. Alberta in particular is heavily reliant on coal.
Next, stop boosting electric vehicles as a supposed solution to climate change, as Poilievre does often. Instead say that people are free to buy EVs if they like but they will receive no government support to do so.
Stop promoting the idea that we need to help developing countries move off coal to “clean Canadian natural gas” to reduce GHG emissions, another foible of Poilievre. Instead, they should boost Canadian natural gas as an add-on to what developing countries already use simply because it is a good fuel source, period.
They should begin to shift their parties’ focus away from mitigation to adaptation and building resilience, with a focus on preparing for cooling, a far more dangerous scenario than warming for a high latitude country like Canada.
Conservative party brass must correct their political opponents every time they make statements about climate change that are opposed to what is actually in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents. Much of what the left say about climate change is actually refuted by the IPCC itself.
They need to call for all subsidies for wind and solar power to be removed so that they are forced to compete against legacy power sources on a level playing field. This will force the Trudeau government to attempt to show that wind and solar are already competitive with fossil fuels, without the subsidies, which they cannot do, of course.
In the next few months, Poilievre should quietly ask the Conservative caucus in the Canadian Senate to convene open, unbiased climate science hearings before committee like then-Senator Nancy Greene-Raine arranged in 2011. Then, unlike 2011 when the Stephen Harper Conservative government said nothing about Greene-Raine’s hearing, publicize it broadly.
Next, conservative parties need to coordinate honest public opinion polling, asking neutral questions such as: (1) “Do you think that we are in the midst of a climate crisis so severe that it is worth restructuring our entire energy infrastructure in an attempt ‘to protect the climate’?” (2) “How much would you personally be prepared to pay per month so that Canada “will lead the world” in its attempts to, quote, stop climate change, unquote?”
Then broadly publicize the results of these polls.
In perhaps half a year, following all the above: call for the Trudeau government to convene open, unbiased, public hearings into the science of climate change, with experts on all sides of the issue invited to testify. When the government refuses to hold such hearings, ask, in the House of Commons and in public, questions such as: What is Trudeau hiding? Why will the Liberals only allow Canadians to hear the views of experts who agree with them?
In perhaps a year, or maybe after forming government, in the case of the federal conservatives, directly convene open, unbiased public hearings into the science of climate change, with experts on all sides of the issue invited to testify and the publicize the testimonies widely. Smith should convene such hearings right away before the next election gets close.
After the above, announce, that, “considering the gross uncertainties in the field and disagreements between leading experts, as illustrated in the above hearings, the government will henceforth focus, not on mitigation but, on adaptation and building resilience to climate change. Only when, or if, the science solidifies behind the dangerous human-caused climate change hypothesis will the government consider funding any mitigation projects.”
Many well-meaning, skilled and intelligent people get into politics because they genuinely want to improve their nation for the sake of their children and grandchildren. But, because of the pressures of political correctness and the necessity of getting elected if they are really to bring about change, many lose their way after attaining power and end of supporting positions they know are wrong. Whether they follow the specific approach I am recommending or not, they really owe it to their descendants and indeed all Canadians to develop and carry out a comprehensive plan to kill the climate scare before it destroys the societies past generations fought to build and defend.
