Important Notice: WonderCafe has Closed

The United Church has sadly come to the decision that WonderCafe needed to close and all new discussion ended June 2014. Read More...

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Should we take David Suzuki at his word and not question him, or has he an ulterior motive.

Witnesses in a legal trial are sometimes compelled to answer questions that have little or nothing to do with the subject they are testifying on in order to determine whether or not their word can be trusted in the absence of incontrovertible, corroborating evidence. If it can be shown that the witness is a liar, then the veracity of their testimony can, and should, be called into question.

Which brings me to the subject of David Suzuki.

It's hard to imagine any Canadian being unfamiliar with David Suzuki and his long career as an environmental activist. Indeed, Suzuki has, over the years, managed to parley worry about the environment into a multi-million dollar business, making him one of Canada's great contemporary capitalists.

On Thursday (February 15), Suzuki was a guest on the John Oakley show on AM 640 in Toronto as part of his cross-Canada tour drumming up support for the Kyoto Protocol, (or more accurately, stirring up opposition to the federal Conservative Government for its environmental transgressions, real and imagined, specifically its apparent reticence in implementing the provisions of the treaty).

During the course of that interview, Suzuki makes a number of claims that are, shall we say, dubious.

To begin with, he suggests that if Canada fails to meet its Kyoto targets, we will become "international outlaws". (To hear the audio clip click here.) This assertion is stunningly ignorant. The Kyoto Protocol is not criminal law by any standard. It is an agreement "“ in other words, a contract, not unlike those that people enter into all the time. Parties to contracts sometimes find, for any number of reasons, that they are unable to meet their obligations, forcing them to re-negotiate the terms of the contract, abrogate the contract, or simply repudiate it. Sometimes the act of breaking a contract is accompanied by penalties as stipulated in the agreement, and sometimes penalties are imposed by courts "“ but when they are, it is always civil courts that impose penalties, never criminal courts. It seems that in David Suzuki's world, you would be branded an "˜outlaw' if you lost your job and could no longer afford the mortgage payments you believed you could.

It gets worse.

Having demonstrated how little he knows about the workings of international treaties, Suzuki dismisses questions about the scientific integrity of Kyoto, characterizing as "a lot of baloney" Oakley's observation that "a lot of scientists feel they're intimidated from speaking out"¦"

"2,500 scientists signed the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) Report on February 2!" Suzuki exclaims. (To hear the audio clip click here.)

My suspicion already aroused by his false allegation of 'outlaw' behaviour, I decided to check this out for myself "“ and discovered that, in fact, only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2. (Click here to download a copy of this report.)

It seems that the Great Suzuki got that one wrong too. Quelle surprise!

There's more.

After Suzuki insinuates that scientists who disagree with him are "shilling" for big corporations, Oakley asks him where he gets his funding. Suzuki replies that his foundation takes no money from governments and complains that "corporations have not been interested in funding us." (To hear the audio clip click here.)

Corporations uninterested? Is it possible that the Great Suzuki has failed to attract a single corporate donation to his feel-good campaign to save the earth? Not one?

Actually, the David Suzuki Foundation's annual report for 2005/2006 lists at least 52 corporate donors including: Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Brothers, RBC, Canon and Bank of Montreal.

The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta's principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees' and Pensioners' Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants... which begs the question "“ is Suzuki now pro-nuclear power?

If I were less generous I might be tempted to accuse Suzuki of hypocrisy for accepting donations from corporations that he must believe contribute significantly to the production of greenhouse gases, but that would miss the point entirely. The real issue is that, contrary to his clear assertion, the David Suzuki Foundation does receive funding from corporations.

The jury may still be out when it comes to assessing climate change and global warming; it's not out when it comes to assessing David Suzuki and the reliability of his testimony though. Suzuki is a charlatan, a shameless self-promoter who foments fear in his audience before promising them salvation "“ but only if they buy his miracle cure. The only difference is that in his case, Suzuki's miracle cure is deadly to those who take it.

If you want to persue more of this go to:
http://www.canadianvalues.ca/commentary.aspx?aid=267

Share this

Comments

BShater's picture

BShater

image

This is a long post but I think the question is worth asking

Witch's picture

Witch

image

Fallacy of poisoning the well.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Witch
I apologize profusely
I am sinking to your level and I don't like myself for doing that.
I respect your right to an opinion and ask your forgiveness for my nasty remark to you.
blessed be

BShater's picture

BShater

image

I am always suspicious of people who seek the limelight and always ask the question "why", then I follow the money.
Mr Suzuki does not practice what he preaches.
Look at the very large carbon spewing, gas guzzling bus he drives all over Canada in.
After all, he must have his comforts, musn't he.

Witch's picture

Witch

image

Fallacy of ad hominem

I think I'm going to have to call you BSlover. The name BShater just doesn't fit.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

the name fits when I read your posts

Mely's picture

Mely

image

A good friend of my husband took a course from David Suzuki at UBC in the '70's. He was arrogent and rude as a prof. My husband refuses to watch "The Nature of Things" because he finds Suzuki so annoying. Maybe none of this reflects on his environmental work. But I do get the feeling that he is a bit of a publicity hound, and not really respected that much by some other scientists. He has made himself into a sort of envirnmental guru. But this might be useful, even if his motives are not pure.

As an aside, my late father-in-law (who grew up in Penticton and in south Vancouver) spoke of going into a dry-cleaners, or laundry that was run by the parents or uncle of Dave Suzuki, and seeing him sitting on the counter when he was a little boy.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

I listened to one of Mr. Suzuki's interviews and he sounded like a real BIG MEAN BULLY.
He refused to let anyone else give their opinion, just interupted them and refused to let them speak.

If you asked a question he put the interviewer down in a very rude and arrogant manner, a if to say, "how dare you question me, I have said it is this way so it is so".

This was the first interview that I had listened to, I wanted to hear what he had to say, but I was so disgusted that I don't ever want to hear him again.

If there is no room for dialogue or another opinion them I am very wary and wonder what the person has to hide.

If I had a cause to promote, he would not be my spokesman as he would turn people off.

From what I see of him on TV, he is a publicity hound.
I guess he thinks he's a TV star or something.

My boyfriend used to watch the nature of things also and he loved the program, so he is really very disappointed in him.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Mely, I really like your song on your profile.
My boyfriend says if my cat Tiger doesn't go to heaven he doesn't want to go there either.

Motheroffive's picture

Motheroffive

image

The Institute for Canadian Values (the link you provided) doesn't seem to be an uninterested party either. I have my own issues with David Suzuki (around how has treated two people that I know) however, this institute features columns by Ted Byfield and Michael Coren, two very right-wing columnists. I think this organization has its own agenda and it ain't likely to be the well-being of our communities and the people in them. In fact, if one takes a closer look, this institute is waging a campaign against Bill C-303, a private member's bill in support of daycare.

In this case, I say it's a matter of "consider the source".

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Actually I don't want the state raising our children so I guess you could say i'm right wing also.
I encouraged my daughter-in-law to raise my grandchildren instead of putting them in daycare and have helped them out as much as I can so they could do it.

Daycare is okay if it is necessary but i don't think the state should pay for it, or if they do then equal pay should be given to all stay at home mothers until they are in school.

Blessed be from a mother of 3

Witch's picture

Witch

image

David Suzuki can be an ass.

That's got nothing to do with the fact of climate change.

This is what is known as Fallacy of appeal to authority, in reverse.

The problem with the people who want us to ignore climate change is the same problem inherant with those who want Creationism taught in science class. Those are two peas in a pod. People who havn't got a clue about the subject pretending to know more than the real scientists. Next thing you know someone with a fancy nick like cattledungdisliker will be coming in here trying to convince us that the world is flat, because "the geologists and astrophysicists don't know everything". I'm sorry, but when I want to know about climate change, I'll consult real experts, not some tom, dick, and hairless on a forum whose only expertise is sucking at the oil company teat.

BS is BS, and when you try to use scientificishism to contradict science, you're just spouting BS

nighthawk's picture

nighthawk

image

Obviously we need to question every source. But that applies both ways, BShater. You seem to love to accept studies or blogs even (such rich sources of good information, blogs are) without question as long as they go against any scientific study of global climate change. David Suzuki can be arrogant, but that doesn't make him wrong. The few things that have been pointed out in your post were minor at most. I have yet to see you provide a refutation of the evidence that global climate change is happening. Ad Hominem attacks are not refutations.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion but I just can't swallow it.
I have heard to many respectable opinions to the contrary and I do not believe they are ALL sucking on the oil teat.

This seems to be the response for anything you guys don't like.
And like someone else said
I DO consider the source

PaganMom's picture

PaganMom

image

Having worked for The David Suzuki foundation, and working with the man himself, I refuse to believe the claims made here. I was the person handling all the donations made to the foundation ... if money came in, I was the one that created the receipt and deposited the funds (among many other things, including handling his incoming and outgoing mail).

I can tell you that funds were never accepted from petroleum companies, nuclear power companies and the like. If any funds from those companies has been accepted since I left the foundation, they probably would have been "directed contributions" ... meaning that they would have gone toward helping to solve problems that the individual companies had caused. The foundation has grown a lot, and their mandate has changed over time ... I''m sure they are taking on a lot more hand-on work than they did when I was there. They were mostly a think-tank and advocacy group back then.

David is passionate. Does he step on toes when he debates? Yes. But he works tirelessly to fight for the good of us all. He works ridiculous hours ... lectures, talks, organizes, fights ... and with age comes a "ballsy" in your face attitude ... his time is almost up and there is a damn lot left to do before he goes.

I personally have never seen him be rude or insulting, and I've seen him speak with "crazies" that come off the street to talk to him -- and there are a lot of those "drop ins" at the foundations offices.

As for his lifestyle, he lives a very environmentally conscious one. He was the first person in Vancouver to own a Prius. His home is run with the attitude of leaving as small a footprint on the Earth as possible. He may have to use a bus to get to the all the talks he does ... what would you suggest? Take a plane everywhere?? Fly town to town?? As for luxuries, I am sure that the bus is housing a whole contingent of support people ... have you ever been on a tour bus?? Not exactly "comfy living", I can assure you.

He's doing the most he can with the time he has; trying to make a positive change in the world and fighting for Earth as much as he can.

Get off his back and maybe do something positive yourself.

nighthawk's picture

nighthawk

image

BSHater: And how many of these respected opinions are from scientists? How many are from bloggers or "commentators" who are simply using science selectively? How many published, peer-reviewed reports and studies have you looked at? The article you copied and pasted here was one long ad hominem attack by some right-wing policy commentators. Their voice means jack squat to the scientific community.

RevMatt's picture

RevMatt

image

Wait, so you mean that the guy who has been on the cutting edge of the science, has been begging and pleading for us to listen to him (along with Stephen Lewis - they were a team in the '80s), has now been confronted with fraudulent asses like Harper who have coopted Suzuki's language while still refusing to actually do anything, this guy is a little cranky? Gee, what a surprise.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

BShater, you are a fraud, a cheat. Your opening posts on any topic are wrll written. they are, in fact, obviously written by professional writers. I am a professional writer, so I can recognize a pro when I see on. Sentences and paragraphs are written not just correctly, but with sophistication.

That's because you didn't write them.

Whenever we get to posts you add later on in response to others, you make errors in spelling and grammar. your writing style also becomes primitive.

That's because you did write them.

BShater, you're a fraud.

graeme

Motheroffive's picture

Motheroffive

image

BShater: "I encouraged my daughter-in-law to raise my grandchildren instead of putting them in daycare and have helped them out as much as I can so they could do it."

So you have a degree of privilege and wealth that others don't have -- I guess you probably prefer for all of us to pay for our own health care and schools, too. That's right neighbourly of ya and lines up with the views of others in the Institute of (so-called) Canadian Values!

EZrainbow's picture

EZrainbow

image

Graeme, I would have expected a professional writer to recognize when something was posted from somewhere else- the link at the end let me figure out in a second that it was being quoted, But then again I would expect a professional writer to know how to spell church. (Its mispelled in your profile.)

graeme's picture

graeme

image

BShater does not tell us he is quoting verbatim. And it cannot be assumed from a reference at the bottom of the page.

Yes, I was wrong in my spelling of church in my bio. obviously, I am entirely wrong in everything. Clever, clever you.

However, what I say in any post is mine. If I quote, I use quotation marks.

graeme

Witch's picture

Witch

image

Plus we've caught him twice now in other places stealing other peoples work without even a hint of a reference and mixing it in with his own.

Plagerism is BS

graeme's picture

graeme

image

easyrainbow - its as a contraction of it is, is spelled it's. the its is possessive.

And it is not assumed from a reference at the bottom of a page that this is where the page comes from. The reference does not say the post was copied from this. It says if you want more information to go to this article.

graeme

graeme's picture

graeme

image

easyrainbow - its as a contraction of it is, is spelled it's. the its is possessive.

And it is not assumed from a reference at the bottom of a page that this is where the page comes from. The reference does not say the post was copied from this. It says if you want more information to go to this article.

graeme

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Didn't know the rules here were that you couldn't post something someone else said unless it was labelled as such
Sorry guys, now I know the rules it won't happen again.
As for me being rich, i'm afraid you have the wrong end of the stick there.
I am 63, still have to work for a living and hoping to have enough to retire so that I can afford cable tv.
I still concider myself very blessed because I have enough food on the table and can afford a few luxuries now and again.
I don't waste my money and I give to a lot of charities a portion of my income.
Sorry if my fingers are faster than my brain and I occasionally spell wrong, didn't realize that you don't like anything not well written and with a few errors
I can see that I am not very welcome here
If I have a topic, don't involve yourself, I wouldn't want any of you to be uncomfortable

EZrainbow's picture

EZrainbow

image

"If you want to persue more of this go to:
http://www.canadianvalues.ca/commentary.aspx?aid=267"

Seems really clear to me that its a posted article. I guess its more fun to call people frauds and liars than to actually read thier posts. Interesting that when Suzuki's credibility is questioned then it is an ad hominum attack. When someone here is called a fraud and a liar then it is "conversation".

EZrainbow's picture

EZrainbow

image

graeme- I guess my mispelled word is more important than your ad hominem attack. Hey, wait a second. Let's let the administrator decide!

Motheroffive's picture

Motheroffive

image

"As for me being rich, i'm afraid you have the wrong end of the stick there.
I am 63, still have to work for a living and hoping to have enough to retire so that I can afford cable tv.
I still concider myself very blessed because I have enough food on the table and can afford a few luxuries now and again.
I don't waste my money and I give to a lot of charities a portion of my income."

So many people don't realize that, even though they may consider themselves to be a person of moderate or even meagre means, to many in our country and around the world, you are a person of privilege if it means you have enough food on the table, can give to charities, can afford luxuries and are able to help in the upbringing of your grandchildren.

We can discuss the daycare issue in another thread and the only reason I brought it up is to illustrate the values represented by the Institute of Canadian Values. They certainly do reflect a certain agenda that some people agree with but many of us don't think that agenda is supportive of most of the people, most of the time but rather favourable to the well-off and the corporations most of the time.

Therefore, their criticisms of David Suzuki are lacking in credibility since that institution supports those who would, in a heartbeat, bring in legislation and policies that would lead to a collapse of the middle class in Canada, just as has happened in Guatamala and Mexico. Your little bit of luxury would vanish as it would for those of us who haven't already been damaged and tossed aside by a "dog eat dog" world.

Google the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives for a different point of view on those issues raised by the institute.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

BShater, you sound like a very likeable guy. I don't agree with your views. But i certainly agree with what seem to be your values.
Please do post. You are welcome. But put up what you have as clearly coming from a certain source.

As to twinkle toes, or whatever her name is, I responded with an ad hominem attack because she made one. Grow up, kid.

graeme

HoldenCaulfield's picture

HoldenCaulfield

image

BShater,

This posting seems to be a direct lift from Joseph C Ben-Ami over at the right wing website for the "Institute for Canadian Values".

You may not have intended to claim the work as you own (goodness knows I wouldn't claim it as my own) but the way that it was posted might lead a reader to believe that you penned it. As I have told my students before, remember if you quote someone or use their ideas you have to give them credit!

I disagree with the assertions made about David Suzuki I believe that he is a dedicated scientist. I don't agree with everything that he says but I do certainly give more weight to his arguments than I do to the hack scientists deployed by Big Oil to spin their cause. They remind me of the lawyers and scientists who used to work for the Tobacco industry before that became too embarrassing.

In fact is you do a search on this author you will find his name and organization connected to opposition to the recent Ontario Court Ruling that gave 3 gay parent parental rights over their son. It appears that he is another spokesman for another Conservative group raging against whatever they deem as liberal (ie. equity rights for gay parents and their kids, environmental protection etc.).

I'll take Dr. Suzuki thanks!

Holden

EZrainbow's picture

EZrainbow

image

Honest to God, I'm not sure what is more frustrating

the old men here who make dismissive statements to women

or

the fact that no one seems to be able to read profiles before calling anyone "guy"

Witch's picture

Witch

image

BShater wrote:
"Didn't know the rules here were that you couldn't post something someone else said unless it was labelled as such
Sorry guys, now I know the rules it won't happen again."

It's not the rules here... it's the law. It's against the law to not clearly label and cite when you use someone else's work. That's pretty much the first thing you learn about in high school.

So now you want us to believe that you somehow are knowledgeable about something as complex as climate change, but yet you didn't know that it's against the law to plagerize?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

Your credibility is pretty much shot.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Well I guess if I was making money with it or if you really knew who I was and this all wasn't strictly confidential then I could see your point, as it is, I am not breaking any laws, this is a discussion forum.
So whats your point.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

EZrainbow

You are quite right, i'm kind of getting tired of being called a guy.

Makes it kind of hard to have had three children.

I'm also getting rather tired of being bullied.

Somehow I feel to post anything here, one must have a university education.

Any mistakes seem to offend.

Atheisto's picture

Atheisto

image

BSHater...you don't need a university education...but you do need to know the very large difference between peer reviewed scientific articles and media reports (including blogs). Checking the former will tell you that we are accelerating climate change above and beyond any natural cycle and, as a scientist myself, the evidence for this seems to be overwhelming. Checking the latter will lead you to 50:50 arguments, op-ed pieces and various editorials from pro- and anti- idealists....none of which is peer reviewed but does make a good story.

There's always the conspiracy theorists too.....once again...mostly these make good stories.

Although "An Inconvenient Truth" could be seen by some as a propoganda film, the science it contains is irrefutable. If you haven't seen it yet, I suggest you do.

Meredith's picture

Meredith

image

BShater,

"You are quite right, i'm kind of getting tired of being called a guy.
Makes it kind of hard to have had three children.
I'm also getting rather tired of being bullied.
Somehow I feel to post anything here, one must have a university education.
Any mistakes seem to offend."

I have been following this thread as I was interested in a discussion about David S and I really wish I had never even looked at it. I can certainly understand why you are feeling discouraged and am sorry that you have been treated so appallingly by some people in this thread. I'm really dissapointed but admire t you owned your mistake and apologized for it so graciously. I hope that you will continue to be a part of this forum.

Meredith's picture

Meredith

image

grame said:

"As to twinkle toes, or whatever her name is, I responded with an ad hominem attack because she made one. Grow up, kid."

So someone said something mean and you said something mean in return. I wonder what would have been the result had you not responded to meaness in kind? Maybe that's something I will learn when I grow up...

morethanthat's picture

morethanthat

image

Hey - Prophets are often not popular people, nor are they perfect. Jonah even got mad when God's message worked.

Modern Prophets:
Stephen Lewis was mentioned.
Suzuki falls in there too

They aren't perfect, and they aren't infallible,
but darn it they are the best we got.

Witch- I like your easy ability to name the false arguments /authority/redherring things - I remember loving that from university, but can't pull them up so easily anymore.

BShater - good to have questioners, but the truth is pretty obvious - maybe he's arrogant, but Suzuki's right.

lastpointe's picture

lastpointe

image

I listened to David Suzuki on the John Oakley show that morning.

Despite whether you believe that Climate change is coming, here, reversable, inevitabel or whateveryour beliefs, it was a very weird interview.

John Oakley is an interviewer who likes to push interviewees and often he gets some odd reactions.

Suzuki was incredible. Rude, condescending, and actually walked out of the interview. He would not or could not or at least refused to discuss ,any other options than his.
It reflected very poorly on him.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

February 5, 2007.

"Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science
Contact(s): "
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=783

NOT MY OWN MATERIAL IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO JUMP ON ME BECAUSE MY OPINION IS DIFFERENT THAN YOURS

I also posted this on another topic, it just seemed to apply, if this offends you, don't go on my topics please.

I have heard the IPCC referred to as the Bible when it comes to climate change.
I went to the Fraser Institute website and read the summary on it and now am convinced more than ever than there is no reason for alarm as far as climate change goes.

I am sure someone will find something wrong with the Fraser Institute, and the IPCC report so go ahead, bring it on.

Witch's picture

Witch

image

You really didn't get the posts about the difference between proper, peer reviewed science and biased, axegrinding special interest groups... did you?

EZrainbow's picture

EZrainbow

image

Fallacy of ad hominem.

lastpointe's picture

lastpointe

image

The initial question is "Should we take David Suzuki at his word and not question him, or has he an ulterior motive"

I'm not sure what his ulterior motive might be other than personal fame and I think with in Canada he already has that. SO I would guess that he doesn't have a huge ulterior motive.

However, should we take his word? That is different. I don't think we should ever take anyones' word without supporting evidence.

THis issue with Global Warming, like many theories, is that there is no historical proof. THere are theroies, some good , some bad, there are computer models, some good some bad, there are tons of anecdotal evidence but general science doesn't like anecdotal reasons, there is a bit of common sense that we see increased asthma, polution days.....
My common sense says it amkes sense to decrease my footprint and i try to do that. The world? Yesterday Globe stated that if we stopped Canada's emmision totally today it would take China 18 months to add the same amount to their own.

I guess that puts me in the group that says, yes we should be doing this but it won't work if it's not everyone. I know we caused it but so what, it won't work if everyone doesn't get on board and if they don't get on board then there is no point.

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Lastpointe
Thank you

I agree with pretty much all you said.
I also appreciate the way you put things, very succinct and downright nice.

My grandmother always said you attract more bees with honey than vinegar.

Your conclustions are the same that I have come to, after reading a lot of pros and cons on the subject.

It certainly won't hurt to clean up our act and only good can come from it.

As for Suzuki, who knows, but time will certainly tell.
Often money is not the primary catalyst but fame or power.
I will be watching with interest.

Blessed be

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Darn, how did that "t" get into conclusions.
I swear my fingers have a mind of their own.

musicsooths's picture

musicsooths

image

bshater I have been reading with interest this thread I believe we should always be questioning because that is the only way we learn. As an individual we need to clean up our own acts anyway that we can. something as simple as recycling helps.

Remember that everyone's opinion counts and everyone is entitled to their own opinion

Blessings

cate's picture

cate

image

Actually, there is historical proof. Please watch (and check the sources yourself if you are skeptical) An Inconvenient Truth.

I also find it very amusing that Christian folks who believe in God with no proof, seem to be so set on needing proof for climate change (which has a hell of a lot more 'proof' going for it than God does). The reason we keep demanding proof is because we are too lazy and selfish to make the big changes that we have now made necessary.

Also, wrt "everyone needs to get on board, and if everyone doesn't then there is no point"... the process of everyone getting on board is just that - a process. As is always the way, the most intelligent and progressive nations are at the forefront, and the others eventually follow, some more slowly than others. The difference with this issue is what's at risk: not a war, not a depression, not a plague. The End. It is quite literally the end of life for all of humanity for eternity that is on the line.

There absolutely IS a point to getting on board regardless of what other nations do. It is just plain the right thing to do. Doing the right thing, regardless of consequences, regardless of whether it is popular, is a fundamental tenet of Christianity.

Motheroffive's picture

Motheroffive

image

BShater: "I went to the Fraser Institute website and read the summary on it and now am convinced more than ever than there is no reason for alarm as far as climate change goes."

Don't be too sure -- the Fraser Institute is reknowned for being a corporate apologist and promoter.

Jonas's picture

Jonas

image

Mr Susuki should be lashed with a large green branch for his proposterous worldview

BShater's picture

BShater

image

Cate said
Actually, there is historical proof. Please watch (and check the sources yourself if you are skeptical) An Inconvenient Truth.

Why would I use a movie as proof, especially one made by a person who uses 20 times the national average of power, according to data taken from the Nashville Electric Service.
I guess it's "do what I say, not what I do."

"http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewFlash.asp?Page=/ThisHour/Archive/NTH20070227f.html

Al Gore's Mansion Described As Energy Hog

(CNSNews.com) - Former Vice President (and global warming aficionado) Al Gore deserves an award for hypocrisy, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. The group, which studied Gore's electric and natural gas consumption, says his mansion in Belle Meade area of Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year.""

Suzuki is no better, in my humble opinion, because with all the alternative-enery vehicles out there, he and his entourage are travelling in a "rock-star-style" diesel-burning tour bus, emitting more greenhouse gases during his 30-day tour than many of us do in a year.
I got this story at http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008921.html

I don't care who the writer is, left or right wing, doesn't matter.
They are both being treated like they are "stars", with all the pomp and adulation given "rock stars".
In my opinion they are both hypocrits and are very good at shouting people down who disagree with them.
I don't like bullies either.

When I want historical proof I will go to an historian who does not have an adjenda.
I will not jump on he hysterical bandwagon, sorry, there just isn't enough concrete evidence and there is too much disagreement amoung the scientific world.

Back to Global Issues topics
cafe