To the Editor,
Danielle Smith’s statement that "the science isn't settled" on climate change was correct—scientifically. It should have been correct politically as well since it is a centrist position, respecting people on both sides of the very real and intense debate about the causes of climate change.
However, two things did Smith in.
First, Wildrose had not sufficiently set the foundation to make such a statement so late in the election. They should have brought up the issue on their own terms very early in the election, giving them ample time to properly support and defend the statement with solid, well-researched proof that such a debate actually exists. That Smith made the statement in a CBC debate that would have attracted many who could be predicted to boo her loudly just made things worse.
Second, headline writers in mainstream media exaggerated to the point of lying about what she actually said, saying she denied climate change, etc. which, of course, she did not. Again, it was too late in the election cycle for the party to properly fight back
So, indeed it was a “political gaffe”, being handled the way it was. However, rather than change their position from the very sensible “we don’t know” stance, Wildrose must call for open government hearings into the science of climate change. Premier Alison Redford will of course refuse, which gives Smith an ideal come-back line that would appeal to the many Albertans who know what is really going on in the science, “Is your point of view so weak it cannot withstand rational debate?”
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
This letter was sent to the following papers, but none published them:
- Winnipeg Free Press
- Calgary Herald
- Halifax Herald
- Saskatoon’s Leader Post
- Edmonton Journal
- The Province
- London Free Press
- Vancouver Sun
- Saskatoon’s Star Phoenix
- Montreal Gazette
- Windsor Star
- Toronto Star
- Ottawa Citizen
Some knowledgeable observers have accused main stream media of opposing the Wild Rose Party in their election coverage. It seems to still be happening since the odds that the non-publishing of all 13 letters on such a newsworthy topic was not politically motivated is very small indeed.