Dion's Clean Air Plan Rips Off a David Suzuki report?

[BubberMiley]

Personally, I don't think Suzuki is an expert on climate change. He's a zoologist, specialising in genetics. Maybe evolution, but not GHG or global warming.

Personally, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. You still have a freshman-university-student attitude that someone can't be an expert in something unless they major in it at school.

[geoffrey]

Personally, I don't think Suzuki is an expert on climate change. He's a zoologist, specialising in genetics. Maybe evolution, but not GHG or global warming.

Personally, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. You still have a freshman-university-student attitude that someone can't be an expert in something unless they major in it at school.

Climate change is a very complex matter. It's not something you can figure out by listening to the word on the street.

[watching&waiting]

Suzuki has not been a man ofscience for the last decade or more. He was and still is a paid activist that is used because of his name. Most of the stuff he has done on Climate change goes against the science of the problem. What he states is asking people to take a giant leap of faith in him, because the science of the fact does not support his findings. This is easily explained by a familiar fact that is called money. Suzuki sold out the scientific community when he became an activist, and that is why you will not see any science based fact to support what he says.

Dion using Suzuki is just making use of hyperbola already in place about climate change, and the urgency for something to be done. If today Dion does go ahead and use this and I suppose there will be many more, then that begs the question of why was he so bad as Environment Minister, that things increased on his watch by approx 30%, and 4 billion was spent. With $400,000 that just seems to have evaporated? Which will again just show you that the Liberals just can not go a week without a scandel. Do we have to bring this up? No, but not to do so would be wrong and the public does need to know these things.

[normanchateau]

Slap a PhD in front of someone's name and you'll believe anything they say. It's rather sad.

Maybe this is why Stephen Harper made Darrel Reid Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose. Darrel Reid has a PhD.

Ironically, it's on the history of Victorian society. Clearly this is the type of knowledge base that Harper values in his Environment Ministry.

Reid is also former Canadian head of Focus on the Family, a religious extremist group that views global warming as a "theory" based on "junk science". Reid's other brilliant views include opposition to abortion, same sex marriage and even stem cell research. So why exactly did so-con Harper put fellow so-con Reid into the Environment Ministry? Was it because Harper viewed the Environment Ministry as unimportant? Was it because he viewed this ministry as one where Reid would do the least harm? Was it to please the so-cons and religious extremists who back Harper?

[BubberMiley]

Climate change is a very complex matter. It's not something you can figure out by listening to the word on the street.

Absolutely. But just because he didn't get his PhD in climate change doesn't mean he isn't one of the world's foremost experts.

And just because the climate change sceptics are getting tired of being exposed as oil-industry shills doesn't mean he too is just in it for the money.

[geoffrey]

Climate change is a very complex matter. It's not something you can figure out by listening to the word on the street.

Absolutely. But just because he didn't get his PhD in climate change doesn't mean he isn't one of the world's foremost experts.

And just because the climate change sceptics are getting tired of being exposed as oil-industry shills doesn't mean he too is just in it for the money.

Maurice Strong is an honorary member of the Board of Directors of his foundation. Maurice Strong also has a considerable financial interest in Green energy through Power Corp's ownership of Gaz de France (http://www.suez.com/suez_fusion/fr/homepage.html), an environmentally focused clean energy producer.

Just one of hundreds of examples surely, but I'll look for more when I have more time.

If you start digging through where the financial support and leadership is coming from, it's all green industry people. They are all as blood thirsty as the oil execs. And while we waste money on them, thousands of Canaidans are going to die of heart disease and cancer, all real environmental issues the the government won't deal with.

[BubberMiley]

It never occurred to you that they invest in green technologies because they believe in them?

[August1991]

I'll stick this good quote here:

Every dogma has its day, and we've lived long enough to see more than one "consensus" blown apart within a few years of "everyone knowing" it was true. In recent decades environmentalists have been wrong about almost every other apocalyptic claim they've made: global famine, overpopulation, natural resource exhaustion, the evils of pesticides, global cooling, and so on. Perhaps it's useful to have a few folks outside the "consensus" asking questions before we commit several trillion dollars to any problem.

WSJ

[reffric]

I'll stick this good quote here:

Every dogma has its day, and we've lived long enough to see more than one "consensus" blown apart within a few years of "everyone knowing" it was true. In recent decades environmentalists have been wrong about almost every other apocalyptic claim they've made: global famine, overpopulation, natural resource exhaustion, the evils of pesticides, global cooling, and so on. Perhaps it's useful to have a few folks outside the "consensus" asking questions before we commit several trillion dollars to any problem.

WSJ

I didn't know that people were wrong about overpopulation, famine or natural resource exhaustion.

[White Doors]

Even if his PhD was in historical studies and he was doing a double bypass on you?

Not unless he also happened to be an MD, specializing in surgery.

But your description doesn't really fit Suzuki. It doesn't really matter if he has a PhD, or what it's in. He has also been involved in environmental issues for a long time, and that makes him more qualified than just about any politician I have seen. Are there people with more experitse on the environment than Suzuki? Perhaps. Does Suzuki have more expertise than a typical politician? You bet.

Agreed. But he's an arrogant radical. When I hear a practical solution from him, I'll listen.

I miss the days when he was about science and not activism, when his show the nature of things was a fantastic watch.

hear hear. me too.

[punked]

I'll stick this good quote here:

Every dogma has its day, and we've lived long enough to see more than one "consensus" blown apart within a few years of "everyone knowing" it was true. In recent decades environmentalists have been wrong about almost every other apocalyptic claim they've made: global famine, overpopulation, natural resource exhaustion, the evils of pesticides, global cooling, and so on. Perhaps it's useful to have a few folks outside the "consensus" asking questions before we commit several trillion dollars to any problem.

WSJ

If we had it your way we would ignore all environmental science. Those who predict weather and Earthquakes better watch out they are out to get you don;'t belive them. Those who spoke of the Ozone layer just made that shit up. Acid rain and the dieing of fish in rivers, oh and mercury all just jibber jabber. So according to you we should ignore all science because some people got it wrong.

PS. Your list isn;t even right. Let's go:

Global famine-You;re telling me their aren;t starving people in the world?

Overpopulation-This isn;t a science thing it is a political thing and it goes back hundreds of years with mostly politicians speaking of it.

Natural resource exhaustion-Ummm not only is oil running out and prices going threw the roof. Water is hard pressed to be found in many nations, as well as food and in some even trees. That one is a known truth

The evils of pesticides-Montreal Protocol banned like 20 pesticides that were killing you know everything. This one is a truth.

Global cooling-Trend of a much bigger global warming not enough data at the time though

[BubberMiley]

How can anyone take seriously a quote that claims that pesticides haven't been harmful to the environment? Even your average head-in-the-carpet, nah-nah-I-can't-hear-you CPCer can't deny the effects of DDT.

[watching&waiting]

DDT was not so harmful to man, but it sure played hell on eagles eggs shells. B ut if I were to decide about whethere the disease that is now being spread by mosquitoes and affectting man, then DDT is something I would look at. There are more side affects with using DEET then there were with DDT.

[punked]

DDT was not so harmful to man, but it sure played hell on eagles eggs shells. B ut if I were to decide about whethere the disease that is now being spread by mosquitoes and affectting man, then DDT is something I would look at. There are more side affects with using DEET then there were with DDT.

To say one pesticide is worse then another is not to make the guys arguement which was pesticides are harmful any less true.

[betsy]

DDT was not so harmful to man, but it sure played hell on eagles eggs shells. B ut if I were to decide about whethere the disease that is now being spread by mosquitoes and affectting man, then DDT is something I would look at. There are more side affects with using DEET then there were with DDT.

I agree.

If we're so concerned of the "harmful" effects of DDT, then keep the kids off the grass for several days!

Mosquitos bring a lot of disease. Isn't malaria back again?

There was a place somewhere in Canada about a couple of years ago that had a grave mosquito infestation. They sprayed the whole town! So when it comes down to the crunch...you do what is best!

[BubberMiley]

If we're so concerned of the "harmful" effects of DDT, then keep the kids off the grass for several days!

This is totally hilarious.

[geoffrey]

It never occurred to you that they invest in green technologies because they believe in them?

No, they invest because theres big money in it.

EDIT: The ban of DDT has killed more people than the chemical ever did, by the way.

[punked]

The Ban on DDT's isn't becuase it is harmful to humans let's get that out of the way right now. The ban is becuase it was whipping out birds and other animals.

The claim the ban on DDT's has killed more humans than blah blah blah is just crazy talk. The biggest problem with pesticides is they are useless after a time because the pest your are tragetting adapt.

[geoffrey]

The Ban on DDT's isn't becuase it is harmful to humans let's get that out of the way right now. The ban is becuase it was whipping out birds and other animals.

The claim the ban on DDT's has killed more humans than blah blah blah is just crazy talk. The biggest problem with pesticides is they are useless after a time because the pest your are tragetting adapt.

950,000 people have died of malaria since the ban, which could be controlled with DDT pesticides.

You tell me. Is it the Eagles or the Africans?

[punked]

The Ban on DDT's isn't becuase it is harmful to humans let's get that out of the way right now. The ban is becuase it was whipping out birds and other animals.

The claim the ban on DDT's has killed more humans than blah blah blah is just crazy talk. The biggest problem with pesticides is they are useless after a time because the pest your are tragetting adapt.

950,000 people have died of malaria since the ban, which could be controlled with DDT pesticides.

You tell me. Is it the Eagles or the Africans?

Or they could cover up open water near villages. I am telling you that have sprayed DDT's in africa and it only helps for so many years. It isn;t a mircle pesticide it is like all others and if you spray it constiantly your not going to be killing anything in a short time. Fact is in Africa the best way to control malaria is to cover water and dig drainage ditches for open water you know cause those are long term solutions the ones which are reallly needed. Not short term expensive ones.

[betsy]

The Ban on DDT's isn't becuase it is harmful to humans let's get that out of the way right now. The ban is becuase it was whipping out birds and other animals.

So if there's an epidemic of west nile virus...or malaria...or any other mosquito-borne diseases...killing off humans, would you not use DDT because it is harmful to birds and other animals?

[betsy]

Or they could cover up open water near villages.

What falls under the category of "open water?"

Why, can't mosquitos learn to adapt as well?

[BubberMiley]

Why, can't mosquitos learn to adapt as well?

Actually mosquitos adapted to DDT long ago. There are a lot of more effective, less environmentally detrimental mosquito killers. Take malathion, for example.

[jbg]

Stephane Dion's Clean Air Plan rips off a David Suzuki Foundation report

The story of how Stephane Dion's "Clean Air Plan" grabbed chunks of the report "The Air We Breathe" put out by the David Suzuki Foundation has made it to the front page of the Globe and Mail online.

Part of Dion environmental plan changed after blog report

http://stevejanke.com/archives/195299.php

As much as I think global warming is a fraud, there is nothing wrong with a politician fobbing off of the work of a like-minded, if flaky academic. The neo-cons also borrowed liberally from the Hudson and Frasier Institute. Nothing wrong with that.