Jump to content

David Suzuki storms of radio station in Toronto


mikedavid00

Recommended Posts

This morning on AM640 Toronto John Oakley had on David Suzuki.

Just the fact that Oakley even suggested or questioned Kyoto and global warming caused Suzuki to raise his voice and get angry. He stormed out of the radio station mad.

He asked Suzuki where he gets his money and such.

Listen here:

http://www.640toronto.com/john_oakley/john...jor=64671#video

I've never heard Suzuki be so rude.

In life there will always be people who are out to gain control over other people via their ideals. Suzuki uses the environment to promote his political agenda. This interview makes it easy to see through Suzuki.

What I'm learning now is that he had a documentary film crew with him. In the hallway he said 'i hate this kind of thing'. He may have planned all this. When he thanked Suzuki he just got up and stormed out. I also learned that he's a member of the NDP so naturally he has an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This morning on AM640 Toronto John Oakley had on David Suzuki.

Just the fact that Oakley even suggested or questioned Kyoto and global warming caused Suzuki to raise his voice and get angry. He stormed out of the radio station mad.

He asked Suzuki where he gets his money and such.

I've never heard Suzuki be so rude.

I am listening to this now. I heard Suzuki this morning on CFRB. Everything seemed like a normal Q&A CFRB 1010 interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Suzuki is maaadddd.

When scientists say the case is closed and no further debate is reasonable, then I have to question their dedication to actual scientific principles.

Need I remind the scientific community of the cost of "Piltdown Man"... the most incredible archaelogy discovery of our time, all the scientists were in an uproar about how spectacular the find was... and it was all a hoax.

Science must be careful to never close the door on dissent.

I believe in Global Warming, but condemning all that speak against the theory as irrational oil company employees and telling the world that there is no more scientific debate possible is a major wrong in my books. Science doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately I think politics is getting in the way of science, and it's costing us hugely in realising maybe some other implications or ideas in relation to climate change that are shut out because of this massive groupthink... even beyond just climatologists (Suzuki is a geneticist, not an enivornmental scientist for example).

So that's where I stand on it, while something has to be done, it's not Kyoto. AND, scientists need to get out of this mindset that their work is now unquestionable due to the thousands that have signed on to a piece of paper.

Thousands believed in Newton before Einstein tossed that out the door, and thousands more will believe in Einstein until the next guy comes along.

A millions ants can't be wrong so we might as well eat shit. Numbers mean nothing, meaningful criticism and debate is where scientific theories gain credibility, not by hiding behind a facade of unwaving support no-matter-what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning on AM640 Toronto John Oakley had on David Suzuki.

Just the fact that Oakley even suggested or questioned Kyoto and global warming caused Suzuki to raise his voice and get angry. He stormed out of the radio station mad.

I heard the clip, nothing about storming out mad. His voice is passionate, not angry.

He asked Suzuki where he gets his money and such.

Yes, Oakley was in attack mode, and did an excellent job of representing the anti climate change voice. He was weak in every aspect, but spoke boldly. He asks Suzuki where he gets his money after Suzuki mentioned where the dissenters get theirs. Suzuki mentioned that the one guy was a shill for the tobacco industry.

Suzuki answered the question about where he gets his money. You didn't mention that.

I've never heard Suzuki be so rude.

I don't think he was rude as much as he doesn't suffer fools.

In life there will always be people who are out to gain control over other people via their ideals. Suzuki uses the environment to promote his political agenda. This interview makes it easy to see through Suzuki.

What is Suzukis political Agenda?

When he thanked Suzuki he just got up and stormed out. I also learned that he's a member of the NDP so naturally he has an agenda.

Where did you get this "he just stormed out" It's not in the clip. Where did you Learn he is a member of the NDP?

But what is his agenda.

Is it the "Environment" ?

What I did notice is that as Suzuki answers where stronger then Oakleys hardballs, Oakley starts to get a little whiney in his voice. It is around this time that you know the interview is going to end. After he tosses the Balls, he has nothing left to do, except acknowledge they were hit out of the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in Global Warming, but condemning all that speak against the theory as irrational oil company employees and telling the world that there is no more scientific debate possible is a major wrong in my books. Science doesn't work that way.

Unfortunately I think politics is getting in the way of science,

He clearly states politics has taken over the debate.

Suzuki answered many of these same questions on CFRB.

He has a problem with Junk Science.

Obviously there are Scientists which can be purchased. Some are credible, others just say whatever is needed for the money and add their creditial behind it.

I watch Environmental Engineers fight amongst themselves over miles, feet, yards and inches.

I am certain that this occurs in the oil field. However, these purchased environmentalists are not the lapped dogs of the industry. They know exactly what is in front of them.

Those with no direct interest will try to protect the environment as they see it. Those with an interest in appeasing a developer will argue each tree, stream, and the number of deer.

It's just business and politics playing itself out now.

There is still debate with regards to Climate Change.

On CFRB Suzuki identified that the Climate will increase for hundreds of years without mans input. That we do affect it but it is in the matter of degrees and acceleration that we are discussing.

Not whether the science exists or that man has no effect. It is how much, and how much difference can be made if it is address in the present, vs the future.

Clearly the position of the British Economist whom people are not choosing to discredit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I did notice is that as Suzuki answers where stronger then Oakleys hardballs, Oakley starts to get a little whiney in his voice. It is around this time that you know the interview is going to end. After he tosses the Balls, he has nothing left to do, except acknowledge they were hit out of the park.

I didn't listen and don't care to. But I have noticed that one of the problems in trying to argue with a scientist or other "expert" in a particular field is they can almost always give you an answer to whatever objection you raise, and if you are not yourself as stepped in the lore of that particular subject you can't tell if it's BS or not.

People like Oakley read what scientists and skeptics say, and then use those to question Suzuki and his type, but Suzuki and his type know how to deal with such questions, and the interviewer is seldom equipped to deal with the answers in a coherent, intelligent fashion. The only person who can really, thoroughly debate Suzuki on that kind of issue is another scientist steeped in the lore. And even then, you have the problem that most of us don't know enough, aren't educated enough in climate science, to be able to know when one is making an irrefutable point and the other is full of hot air.

Added to this is the fact that guys like Suzuki, who are leading the public fight Kyoto and such, are as much professional entertainers and communicators as scientist. So even if you do get a learned climatologist to debate the issue with him Suzuki will be way out in front in sheer public speaking and presentation experience.

That does not, however, mean Suzuki isn't absolutely full of crap about global warming and its causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...He stormed out of the radio station mad. ... I've never heard Suzuki be so rude.

Gee, look, another gross mischaracterization and distortion of truth form mikedavie00. Is anyone surprised?

He asked Suzuki where he gets his money and such.

Suzuki asked him to, and was perfectly comfortable discussing it.

Suzuki uses the environment to promote his political agenda.

?? The environment IS his political agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also learned that he's a member of the NDP so naturally he has an agenda.

Must be a recent convert.

Where did you learn he was a Member of the NDP?

This is off the "Green Party" on Wiki.

Environmentalist David Suzuki had been encouraging May to enter the leadership contest. Ms. May's candidacy was confirmed by the party on May 29, 2006.

Where did you learn he was a member of the NDP. I would think they would be shouting out loudly if he was. Of course I can't find anything on the net saying such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree but I disagree with you Geoffrey, I think when looking at this situation and many other situations when dealing with scientists we have to recall that there is almost two different forms of science. There is traditional Science which, as Argus mentioned, goes right over the heads of the majority of the population and then there is the public manifestation of science, the public image so to speak. That is science dumbed down for the average America or Canadian.

Because the truth is most people are intellectually lazy, they are not going to do research, they are not going to hop on the internet go to mapleleafweb and start a discussion, their views are going to be formed by sound bites. Look at American Elections Kerry was said to sound too intellectual, Bush was just a good ol' texas boy, Reagen was certainyl not seen as intellectual..although evidence indicates who was fairly smart, Jimmy Carter was just a peanut farmer. The idea being that simple is often good. The diet industry exists soleley today as a result fo lazyness, not neccessarily physical but intellectual, because people are to lazy to investigate the simple concept or science of weight loss and therefore apply improper and downright dangerous philosophies.

So when a scientist says the door is closed, un-scientific by any measure, that should be seen as public science. Because the truth is the door can never be closed to evidence. Science is not rigid, it is not like a religion that stays the same. Concepts are continually seeing new evidence emerge, new data to interpret evidence differently, and resulting adjustments being made to theories, ideas, persepectives, and hypothesis. Science is not dead, it is not rigid. When a scientist steps up and says the door is closed, it is simply an impossibility, that is...so to speak public science, which at times can be un-scientific and very dumb.

Take the recent headlines of Earthquake predictions in British Columbia, a high risk warning, etc....no one in the media really tokk the time to explain Episonic termor and slip, and probabley no one on this forum took the time to research this, thats why you get a couple of people walking around talking about how wrong the scientists were once again. Or how they were not worried, because science is often wrong. It is simply the fact that people don't grasp plate tectonics, and before you can grasp ETS, it would neccessary to grasp plate tectonics...and people don't have the attention span for the media to explain this, and the media recognizes this. I remember at the NDP leadership convention, where the NDP was using online voting, which was going very slow due to DOS attacks, I felt sorry for the tech guy as he tried to explain to the media wanting a sensational story that the computers had not been hacked, so to speak.

Who here has 100 hours to sit back and learn about global warming? Uhmm...I can only speak for myself when I say that I certainly don't and its likely the story holds true for the rest of the posters on Mapleleafweb. When science appears to be acting far too rigid, it is most likely a case, of the public image of science, not science itself.

So why have a public image? Thats like asking why a person who speaks no French would want to travel in a French speaking country with someone who is moderately bilingual. It is certainly not ideal, but it is better than the alternative. When it comes to global warming guys like David Suzuki and Al Gore should be seen as public scientists, and yes there is a bit of a public scientist to every scientist, but that does not discredit science itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I didn't listen and don't care to..."

which leaves your rant null and void on this thread topic. Suzuki is a very passionate person which some mistake for anger and rudeness. But the content of what he has to say is extremely relevant in the context of global warming. Deny all you want Argus, but know you are now in the minority of world opinion and science on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did David storm away mad or is that just another right wing lie?

MikeDavid00 has a way of hyping up his posts and adds lots of embellishments to them.

Sometimes there is truth behind them, other times it's a good yarn.

I have no proof of Suzuki Storming out other than the original posters assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, look, another gross mischaracterization and distortion of truth form mikedavie00. Is anyone surprised?

"Suzuki walks out of AM640 after global warming debate

Feb, 15 2007 - 3:20 PM

TORONTO - Turns out noted environmental activist Dr David Suzuki isn't as mild mannered as you may have thought. He stormed out of our studios this morning after a debate with host John Oakley over the merits of the Kyoto Accord. Suzuki says whether the Harper government agrees or not, Canada is already on board with the plan. Oakley says he welcomes all voices in the debate. Suzuki countered by asking if he'd welcome a creationist to chat about evolution. "

At the end of the inerview he stormed out of the room. This girl in the hall told him that he was her hero and he just ignored her. I was shaking mad supposedly. Supposedly he's never worked a day in his life and the film crew was from the CBC because they fund a lot of his work.

It was sad when he started to bring up the tobacco industry. When he did that he instantly lost credibility with me because that puts him with the gore crowd.

In the 70's it was global cooling, then the ozone layer, now it's warming.

God forbid it's a natural trend of our climate.

Kyoto has become a religion. Many people are gaining power, media attention, and making money of this.

Suzuki asked him to, and was perfectly comfortable discussing it.

You have to admit he came accross as a child university student "it certainly isn't from big coorperations". So he has the mind of a 21 year old in school. Great David.

?? The environment IS his political agenda.

None the less, it's Davids. It brings him power. It feeds his ego. It gives him control. In turn we all have to bend over for *his* ideals and beliefs.

Don't you see? Suzuki has more of a psycological condition like many of our Liberal politians do. He feels the need to profess and dictate onto Canadians his personal idealisms.

We don't need any more of these people ruining Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, look, another gross mischaracterization and distortion of truth form mikedavie00. Is anyone surprised?

"Suzuki walks out of AM640 after global warming debate

Feb, 15 2007 - 3:20 PM

TORONTO - Turns out noted environmental activist Dr David Suzuki isn't as mild mannered as you may have thought. He stormed out of our studios this morning after a debate with host John Oakley over the merits of the Kyoto Accord. Suzuki says whether the Harper government agrees or not, Canada is already on board with the plan. Oakley says he welcomes all voices in the debate. Suzuki countered by asking if he'd welcome a creationist to chat about evolution. "

This smacks of character assassination. The headline advises that the 'walked out' AFTER the interview. Gee imagine -- walking!

As for the rest, who is quoted there? Whose characterization is it that he 'stormed'? Do you have a link? He certainly didn't sound likely to 'storm' during the interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you learn he was a member of the NDP. I would think they would be shouting out loudly if he was. Of course I can't find anything on the net saying such.

They were talking alot about him on the radio station later on in the day after he stormed out.

He's been an NDP voter his whole life and a member and only voted for the Green Party once.

That's what I heard on the radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to this discussion with David Suzuki.

I can't speak about whether Suzuki "stormed out". But I did notice that Suzuki used the term "naysayer" instead of "denier". I also noticed that he made once again the comparison of "creationism" and those who question the climate change theory.

[The IPCC report used the term "very likely" which is not a term that modern biologists would use to describe evolution.]

I think David Suzuki has used hyperbole for so long in making his argument that he simply no longer knows how to do anything else. That's unfortunate. He undermines a good case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the truth is most people are intellectually lazy, they are not going to do research, they are not going to hop on the internet go to mapleleafweb and start a discussion, their views are going to be formed by sound bites.

I agree.

But I feel science is different than ideoligy.

The fact is, we don't know if there is global warming. Yes, there has been a warming period. But previous to that there was a cooling period. We don't even know if the ice on land is going to melt or even has melted. We do know that water levels have been rising for millions of years.

Sorry, there just isn't any solid evidence to back the *theory* of global warming.

Science is factual. Everything else is theory. Evalution is not factual, it's theory. 2 + 2 = 4 is factual and science.

Global warming is a theory from the left wing. It's anti-corporation, anti-oil, and anti-car:

What else is new.

Nothing is new. Global Warming is no different than the Cold War, Ozone Layer, Acid Rain, and ah yes, Global Cooling:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

Remember Global Cooling?

Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict.

"Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling."

"for more than 100 years journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the inerview he stormed out of the room. This girl in the hall told him that he was her hero and he just ignored her. I was shaking mad supposedly. Supposedly he's never worked a day in his life and the film crew was from the CBC because they fund a lot of his work.

It was sad when he started to bring up the tobacco industry. When he did that he instantly lost credibility with me because that puts him with the gore crowd.

In the 70's it was global cooling, then the ozone layer, now it's warming.

God forbid it's a natural trend of our climate.

Kyoto has become a religion. Many people are gaining power, media attention, and making money of this

Where did you get this part above? I can't find this on the AM 640 Site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you get this part above? I can't find this on the AM 640 Site.

Lord.

They were talking about it on the radio afterwards. Other talk show hosts. I listen to 640am a lot throughout the day. People called up and said they lost all respect for him.

It was hard to take him seriously after that.

Either way it was all caught on camera so when CBC puts out a documentary on him (which is making money and power from) then you'll see what happened and how he stormed out mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the truth is most people are intellectually lazy, they are not going to do research, they are not going to hop on the internet go to mapleleafweb and start a discussion, their views are going to be formed by sound bites.

I agree.

But I feel science is different than ideoligy.

The fact is, we don't know if there is global warming. Yes, there has been a warming period. But previous to that there was a cooling period. We don't even know if the ice on land is going to melt or even has melted. We do know that water levels have been rising for millions of years.

Sorry, there just isn't any solid evidence to back the *theory* of global warming.

Science is factual. Everything else is theory. Evalution is not factual, it's theory. 2 + 2 = 4 is factual and science.

Global warming is a theory from the left wing. It's anti-corporation, anti-oil, and anti-car:

What else is new.

Nothing is new. Global Warming is no different than the Cold War, Ozone Layer, Acid Rain, and ah yes, Global Cooling:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

Remember Global Cooling?

Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict.

"Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling."

"for more than 100 years journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."

I had started to respond to your post, but I got to the point where you said that evolution was not factualy based and just stopped, sorry to say it but the thin ice you are treading on just broke. You make some points about global warming, and the movement itself, somethings I would concede to you, but unfortunately looking at that particular point in your post we are on such irreconcialable plains that the excersize of disscussion would be futile. How can I concede the idea of natural patterns when I am constircted to dealing with a 6,000 year old YEC creationist timeline that would imply that the same waters that created the grand canyon were unable to tip over a couple of standing rocks in england.

Link to comment
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...