Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

noahbody, perhaps he meant it in the sense that the real debate is over, and all that's left is people trying to avoid their responsibilities, and or increase their profits, by trying to slow down public action to counter the problem. And that isn't debate, but rearguard action.

Isn't that an attempt to shame any scientist who would question his view? Isn't that stiffling debate and endorsing faith rather than science and the continual pursuit of truth, no matter how inconvenient?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

JerySeinfeld, I don't think the Canadian Shield, which is about all of Canadas North that isn't farmed now is worth a lot as agricultural land. Given time , maybe those 800 years. As Michael points out distribution is going to be increasingly problematic given fossil fuel peaking, and our wasting of oil and gas. The solution may be that people will be coming to Canada as refugees in really large numbers and we may be stressed just feeding our own.

noahbody, my impression is that Suzuki saying that the debate is over is simply a statement of fact. People read into anything any number of things as I'm sure you're aware from having posted on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JerySeinfeld, I don't think the Canadian Shield, which is about all of Canadas North that isn't farmed now is worth a lot as agricultural land. Given time , maybe those 800 years. As Michael points out distribution is going to be increasingly problematic given fossil fuel peaking, and our wasting of oil and gas. The solution may be that people will be coming to Canada as refugees in really large numbers and we may be stressed just feeding our own.

noahbody, my impression is that Suzuki saying that the debate is over is simply a statement of fact. People read into anything any number of things as I'm sure you're aware from having posted on here.

Is that so?

According to Richard Lindzen, ALfred P. SLoan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT:

"So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers."

Link to post
Share on other sites

JerrySeinfeld, some years ago I had similar feelings when adressing general environment issues, looking back on it now I'm pretty sure the tactics I was seeing from the anti-environment crowd were more along the line of personal paranoia on my part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JerrySeinfeld, some years ago I had similar feelings when adressing general environment issues, looking back on it now I'm pretty sure the tactics I was seeing from the anti-environment crowd were more along the line of personal paranoia on my part.

I'm glad you diagnosed yourself. I hope you're better.

Annnnyway...back to the issue...

Link to post
Share on other sites

name='speaker' date='May 15 2007, 04:00 PM' post='219230']

As Michael points out distribution is going to be increasingly problematic given fossil fuel peaking, and our wasting of oil and gas. The solution may be that people will be coming to Canada as refugees in really large numbers and we may be stressed just feeding our own.

We are not wasting oil and gas except, one could argue we shouldn't be using natural gas to fire power plants or making cement. That should be done with coal and gas should used for heating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I think that the "foot soldiers" in the movement are genuine people with a desire to do some noble and something good.

... but these people are being manipulated by those far above them in the socio-political spectrum who are using the masses of good people for their own political and economic benefit.

How many people are aware that Al Gore is co-owner in a CO2 trading company?

Is Al Gore using his environmentalism as a way to get public support for another run at the presidency?

Learn about Advanced Spectrum Auction and then comment to Industry Canada - Telegopoly.com

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that the "foot soldiers" in the movement are genuine people with a desire to do some noble and something good.

... but these people are being manipulated by those far above them in the socio-political spectrum who are using the masses of good people for their own political and economic benefit.

How many people are aware that Al Gore is co-owner in a CO2 trading company?

Is Al Gore using his environmentalism as a way to get public support for another run at the presidency?

Learn about Advanced Spectrum Auction and then comment to Industry Canada - Telegopoly.com

Al Gore's embarrassingly capitalist activities (link) demonstrates that his charlatanism is more akin to that of the travelling salesmen of Glengarry Glenross or "Tin Man" than to genuine idealism. A short quote from the Wall Street Journal article:

Capitalism and sustainability are deeply and increasingly interrelated. After all, our economic activity is based on the use of natural and human resources. Not until we more broadly "price in" the external costs of investment decisions across all sectors will we have a sustainable economy and society.

*snip*

As some have said, "We are operating the Earth like it's a business in liquidation." More mechanisms to incorporate environmental and social externalities will be needed to enable capital markets to achieve their intended purpose -- to consistently allocate capital to its highest and best use for the good of the people and the planet.

It has become well known that Gore's house uses almost as much electricity in a month than the average American home uses in a year. How does Gore maintain his "green" credentials? Same way as Suzuki does; he buys "carbon offsets". Anyone interested in where he buys them from? (link) I was:

Gore's carbon footprint may be the size of Godzilla's, but he eases his conscience with 'carbon offsets.' He buys them from himself. And every time someone else buys them, Big Al gets richer.

*****

Lewis was referring to the buying and selling of 'carbon offsets,' a mechanism that allows Gore's home to consume 20 times as many kilowatt-hours as the average American's. It allows gluttonous energy consumers like Gore to ease their conscience while doing absolutely nothing to curb their own energy use.

Say you want to fly your Gulfstream private jet across the country regularly to Hollywood premieres instead of taking a Greyhound bus. You buy a carbon offset, giving money to people who will do something like invest it in windmills and solar panels to 'reduce' carbon emissions by an equivalent amount. Your are then declared 'carbon neutral' as you continue to pollute.

Speaking of carbon offsets and shell games, guess where Gore buys his carbon offsets? Well, he buys them from a firm call Generation Investment Management LLP, a tax-exempt U.S. 501©3 corporation. The chairman and co-founder is Al Gore. In other words, he buys his carbon offsets from himself. Others who buy these offset are really buying stock in Gore's growing business. You, too, can green up his portfolio, if not Earth itself.

Sometimes the details are "inconvenient". More likely, no sane person is going to actually reduce his own standard of living in support of a flaky theory. They'll gladly reduce that of others; not their own. A lot like the way Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are "men of the people".

Link to post
Share on other sites

No David Suzuki is not evil, he is interested in facts, and is qualified to speak, as he has been for years.

Nor is he interested in power.

His actions prove otherwise.

Like how his bus is left idling for 90 min outside his speaking engagements.

My personal favorite was when ol' Dave spent a couple of months-in business class of course- flying around the world promoting his latest book.

Was the book packed with inspiring tales of his fight against the evil polluters? A series of parables on the nasties of industrialization? A reasoned polemic on how Satan is another word for globalization?

Nope to all of the above. The Greenhouse Gas Spewing book tour was a promo for his autobigraphy. Not just any old autobiography, but Volume two of the Dave Story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A fellow Canadian is starting an interesting website as a home for those "deniers" that have not fallen for the Global Warming alarmism. It is still under development at GoWarming.com

An interesting comment I saw there was a comparison to the Global Warming fanatics was that they are like Watermelons. Green on the outside and Red on the inside.

The Red symbolizing the old anti-capitalist, anti-industrialist and anti-West position.

Climate is always changing. Think of the Ice Ages - why did we enter them and how did the Earth get out of them. To get out of an Ice Age you need some serious Global Warming. Where did the Global Warming come from before humans started polluting the earth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A fellow Canadian is starting an interesting website as a home for those "deniers" that have not fallen for the Global Warming alarmism. It is still under development at GoWarming.com

An interesting comment I saw there was a comparison to the Global Warming fanatics was that they are like Watermelons. Green on the outside and Red on the inside.

The Red symbolizing the old anti-capitalist, anti-industrialist and anti-West position.

Climate is always changing. Think of the Ice Ages - why did we enter them and how did the Earth get out of them. To get out of an Ice Age you need some serious Global Warming. Where did the Global Warming come from before humans started polluting the earth?

It is not that the Earth has never warmed and cooled throughout history. There have been cycles going on since the world had oceans. It is that this time it is being artificially accelerated by polution produced by man. That's all. Maybe if we cut back on some of the crap we are putting into the atmosphere the changes won't be so drastic, or immediate. Climate change is happening, and the world is getting warmer, there is no disputing that fact. The only thing up for debate is by how much is man affecting the change. Some people say next to zero impact others say it is a large impact. Regardless of the porportion if we are having any kind of impact we should be looking to minimize the effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in summary David Suzuki is evil because he believes human activities are endangering the planet. Also anyone who worries about human activities and their impact on the planet is wrong.

O.k. that was easy.

Problem is many of us are not afraid of what David Suzuki is trying to say nor do we engage in denial about the state of the planet.

You can play semantics all you want about what is causing the planet to warm up but who gives a f...ck. The point is anyone who pretends this planet is not in grave danger is engaging in the same kind of denial people do who smoke cigarettes or drink and drive, or think they can continue to live the lifestyle they do and not have to change it.

The fact is those of you who do not die from cancer or heart disease will find yourself unable to afford gasoline soon in any event. But me my guest continue to consume and pretend nothing is wrong. Yah that David Suzuki is nuts. Noah was too. Paranoid schitzophrenics. That is what they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clean air, clean water, animals, old growth forests - bad.

Guns, fossil fuels, acid rain - good.

only in your simplistic mind.

fyi - clean water, air, animals and old growth forests have absolutely ZERO to do with global warming.

I think the GW hysteria is bad because it takes the urgency away from the REAL pollution and destruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As any economy grows, the citizens ask for a cleaner environment. North American environment has been getting cleaner and cleaner over the last 30 years.

Today the major polluters are China and soon India as they are in significant economic development. Both China and India are not bound by Kyoto. How does that help the overall global environment if we shift the production of pollution off-shore?

I am for a cleaner environment. I recycle and drive a 6 cylinder car.

What I am against is alarmism and solutions which are not economically viable and only make some people rich.

Do you ever wonder why they chose Carbon Dioxide as the pollutant to focus on when Methane is 30 or 40 times more powerful greenhouse gas? Because ordinary people understand carbon dioxide but dont understand methane.

Overall - humans are only responsible for about 3 or 4 % of carbon dioxide production. Everything else is natural.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can play semantics all you want about what is causing the planet to warm up but who gives a f...ck. The point is anyone who pretends this planet is not in grave danger is engaging in the same kind of denial people do who smoke cigarettes or drink and drive, or think they can continue to live the lifestyle they do and not have to change it.
Gore, Suzuki and the enviro-charlatans are right on one thing. Climate does change over time, sometimes quite radically. When the last ice age hit, North America was thinly populated. FN tribes living near what's now New York City could easily drift south, or north, depending on the location of their game animals. As the Ice Ages ended, the musk ox pawing the ground at Manhattan Island and the Inuit would have easily given way to the white-tailed deer and the Lene Lenape (sp) FN tribe.

That maneuver might be a bit more awkward with the New York Metropolitan area having 14 million people, and possibly 50 million or more living on the East Coast ----> Toronto megapolitan area. Future climate change, while not manmade, might give lots of people a rough ride. And what's even rougher is Chretien's "gut hunches" won't help much to ameliorate the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not certain any of these arguments are convincing. The title of this thread is rediculous. It makes me think of Austin Powers movies when I read this title.
Agreed on the title, though it's not too far off. How about "IS David Suzuki a rank hypocrit or charlatan?"
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should all have a go at someone who is really being called the Anti-Christ or whatever, David Icke. Oh sorry his books are being banned, The big book store chain has been threatened and has banned them and so has the Vancouver library.

What is everyone so afraid of? Well not everyone but the big businesses for sure. Now I will put on my Tin Hat a retire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not certain any of these arguments are convincing. The title of this thread is rediculous. It makes me think of Austin Powers movies when I read this title.

Agreed on the title, though it's not too far off. How about "IS David Suzuki a rank hypocrit or charlatan?"

That's more like it, he isn't 'evil'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...