Alberta Wildrose Party platform says no global warming

[HereSince1628]

1. As Chris Mooney has said, it's the rhetorical exploitation of standard science narrative

Which often both readily and willfully admits understanding gained from any study is incomplete, that concepts supported by studies aren't proven as such (generally negation of competing ideas leaves one idea tentatively standing), and that "more study needs to be conducted."

When the scientific narrative moves from one venue to another, as happens with discussion of global warming does as it moves from science to politics, or from science to economics, the characterization of the narrative changes 'goodness.'

In the changed circumstance, 'need for more study' is captured as evidence of poor and inadequate understanding, and 'unproven' becomes too suspicious to act upon.

The advocates for fossil fuel aren't stupid, they are linguistic gymnists and simply take every opportunity to gain a rhetorical advantage for their own benefit.