Wanted: opinions of Albertans on climate change
Here is a climate change survey sponsored by the government of Alberta.
The Government of Alberta is taking steps to renew its climate change action plan. As part of this process, Albertans are encouraged to complete the following questionnaire to provide input and direction for the new plan.It's a lengthy questionnaire. But somehow I have a feeling that the results won't disappear like they did with the Kooky Suzuki poll that went terribly wrong.
Please submit your response by April 25, 2007.
4 comments:
Done! (even though I'm only an Albertan at heart) Man, those crazy Albertans working the climate change agenda seem almost as kooky as Kooky Suzuki. That questionnaire and supporting brochure were something else.
It'll be interesting to see the results - if they dare publish them.
Sent mine in already as well :D
Some statements from their "fact book":
"scientists around the world who sit on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now agree on these key points:
> Climate change is real. Our planet is warming and it’s doing so at a faster pace than at any other time in our recorded history.
> It’s very likely that human activities are to blame for most of the warming in the past 250 years."
"Scientists now agree that human activity is most likely responsible for most of the increases we’ve seen in the Earth’s temperature over the past 250 years."
"Scientists suggest that the increase in extreme weather events – like cyclones, hurricanes, more frequent and intense floods and droughts – is “too pronounced to explain away as random.""
Whoever wrote this has been drinking heavily from the Suzuki koolaid fountain.
So many factual errors in their "fact book" - like the list of greenhouse gases that conveniently omits the most significant one, water vapour.
I went through the survey and was regularly disappointed at the lack of choice in the answers.
I was hoping for a choice like this:
(f) None of the above. The whole AGW fear-mongering campaign is a charade based on bad science and worse policy-making.
Post a Comment