Alright, my biblical history is a little on the thin side, but the sentiment will be clear soon...
Prime Minister Harper came out today and stated, unquivocally, that Canada "must act" to curb global warming. Opponents of the Prime Minister will point to statements he's made in the past about "so-called greenhouse gases" (oddly enough, many of the networks airing those complaints still refer to a "so-called fiscal imbalance" and see nothing wrong with the term when they themselves use it) and Kyoto.
Many of these opponents are completely ignoring 2 key points. Firstly, Kyoto is not the be all and end all of environment change. Just because it was agreed to years ago by many nations (although it was ignored by most of the largest polluters), and Jean Chretien liked it, does NOT make it the only possible way to deal with climate change. "I disagree with Kyoto" does NOT translate as "I think there's no problem". It just means that you prefer a different solution. The second main point these people are ignoring is the possibility of conversion. Yes, as in "conversion on the road to Damascus". There's the tie-in. Harper made these statements in the past. As he became better informed about the issues, he may have changed his mind on the science of the issue. Critics will come out, no matter WHAT the Tory plan, and trot out Harper's old letters and speeches as proof that he's a dinosaur on the issue. But they discount the possibility that he may have changed his opinion in the meantime.
Consider the heros of these critics:
Stephane Dion was a seperatist who campaigned to break-up this country. He's now readily accepted as the man to "stop Stephen Harper and untire all Canadians". Perhaps he converted on the road to Damascus, and changed his opinion on seperatism?
In 2004, Jack Layton demanded for the revocation of the Clarity Act, and said that the NDP would immediately recognize an independant Quebec after any referendum win for the "yes" side. In 2006, he pledged his unwavering support for the Clarity Act. Another Damascus conversion, leading to a change in opinion?
Al Gore, the Godfather of Global Warming Activism, is not immune to this type of conversion. In the 1980's, Gore voted 84% of the time against abortion. Yet, once elected Vice President, he became a champion for a woman's right to choose. A change of opinion? An unconvenient truth.
The bottom line here is that those on the left readily accept all of these "conversions on the road to Damascus", all of these changes of opinion, yet they generally refuse to accept that such a change in the opinion of the Prime Minister is even the remotest of possibilities. I submit, respectfully, that if politicians can change their opinions on such fundamental, values-based policies such as Quebec remaining a province of Canada, or abortion, they can certainly change their opinions on whether or not the environment is changing.
If it's good for Saul the Tax Collector, it's good for Paul the Apostle.