David Suzuki storms of radio station in Toronto

[Melanie_]

Of course people called up all day and said they lost respect for Suzuki. Talk radio hosts like Oakley create a climate of group think around their own viewpoints; anyone who disagrees with them is quickly buzzed off the air with a dismissive comment about how they are "uninformed", implying that those who agree with the host are "informed". Calling up and saying you agree with a talk radio host is simply a sad attempt to be part of the "in crowd".

[stignasty]

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

Despite evidence to the contrary, assertions are made and adhered to. Wow, sort of like global warming.

[mtm]

when the tsunami, the flood, drought, hurricane, or whatever it is that is doing us in comes along, I will be more at peace if I could at least turn around and point at this guy claiming Suzuki is an "NDP'er with an agenda" and say, ha ha told you so, as we all get obliterated.

seriously though. He's a passionate person who has a steadfast belief in what he feels is right, and this media hack is acting contrary just to make better radio and Suzuki's not going to take it from someone who is clearly uneducated of/incapable of understanding the debate so that he can get ratings.

We have radio guys like him here on the east coast. Andrew Krystle for one although he came from Toronto. It doesnt matter who comes on he just counter-argues and tries to belittle the guest. He butters people up and tells them what he's going to talk about, says heres the questions, then they are prepared for that, but when they get on the air he attacks them about stuff they arent expecting. I know for a fact Krystle did that to Ignatieff during the leadership race.

I suspect thats what happened here and Suzuki's standoffishness is due to the fact that the interviewer ambushed the interview.

[mtm]

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.

you were in the ballot box with him were you?

And as for that "Source" you posted, looks like somebody else's (likely sensationalist and factless) blog post to me.

Obama went to a muslim terrorist school when he was 9 you know.

[geoffrey]

Of course people called up all day and said they lost respect for Suzuki. Talk radio hosts like Oakley create a climate of group think around their own viewpoints; anyone who disagrees with them is quickly buzzed off the air with a dismissive comment about how they are "uninformed", implying that those who agree with the host are "informed". Calling up and saying you agree with a talk radio host is simply a sad attempt to be part of the "in crowd".

I agree Melanie, but I think the same can be said about the direction of the climate science community. They all want to be part of the in crowd, so they all agree.

It's impossible to get a credible research grant trying to disprove global warming, but there is lots of money floating around for a scientist that wants to take the warming side.

Anyone real academic scientist that came out harshly against global warming would stand to lose all their research money, and if untenured, their position no doubt. They'd lose all standing in their profession that's for sure.

How open is this debate at the upper levels, hmm??

I agree with much of global warming, but I am skeptical of how open scientists are to dissenting views that may improve or alter the direction of their theory.

[Slavik44]

Of course people called up all day and said they lost respect for Suzuki. Talk radio hosts like Oakley create a climate of group think around their own viewpoints; anyone who disagrees with them is quickly buzzed off the air with a dismissive comment about how they are "uninformed", implying that those who agree with the host are "informed". Calling up and saying you agree with a talk radio host is simply a sad attempt to be part of the "in crowd".

I agree Melanie, but I think the same can be said about the direction of the climate science community. They all want to be part of the in crowd, so they all agree.

It's impossible to get a credible research grant trying to disprove global warming, but there is lots of money floating around for a scientist that wants to take the warming side.

Anyone real academic scientist that came out harshly against global warming would stand to lose all their research money, and if untenured, their position no doubt. They'd lose all standing in their profession that's for sure.

How open is this debate at the upper levels, hmm??

I agree with much of global warming, but I am skeptical of how open scientists are to dissenting views that may improve or alter the direction of their theory.

I again find myself partially agreeing with you...

Although I am reminded of a Geography class I took once, in which my prof showed us a video created by people who denied global warming. Now the prof himself said he disagreed with global warming but on the otherhand pointed to the video and said but this is nothing but junk science.

I am going to make an assumption here, that being that my geography professor is not alone in his disagreement, or his questioning of global warming. I am also going to make another implication and that is this. The video he showed us, that he referred to as nothing more than junk science, is why he wouldn't want to speak out to strongly.

The anti-global warming group is led and populated by these junk scientists, who usually are not scientists in the first place. I don't mean David suzuki biologist turned environmentalist, I mean not scientists period. Most good scientists, whether they agree or disagree with global warming, do not want to become guilty by association. It doesn't have so much to do with fitting in as it does to do with being pushed away or repulsed by the junk. In otherwords, even those who have reservations about global warming think poorly of the public representatives of the cause, myself fitting into this group.

It is not fair to say that money doesn't go to these scientists, millions of dollars has gone to study grants to support the anti-global warming crew. For years Exxon was gving millions to over 40 different groups whose goal was to debunk global warming, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research has been strongly opposed to global warming and its administration is chalked full of powerfull political figures, when a chair of the Environment and public works commitee claims global warming is nothing more than a hoax...it should be fair to suggest that these groups are getting funding and government support. How about the CEI and Myron Ebell over a million from Exxon alone, or Paul Driessen who was recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars from exxon, he wrote a great book...about how global warming was an attack against people of colour. etc.... the list goes on.

The interesting thing is that the list of companies who fund the opposition to global warming has been dwindling since the mind-90's after more and more scientific research occured. GM, ford, chrysler, Shell, Texaco, B.P, and I believe the recent victim and big man of the anti-global warming crew exxon. As if to say that the debate and funding you are looking for happend while you were asleep, or given that you are about my age too young to remember.

[geoffrey]

As if to say that the debate and funding you are looking for happend while you were asleep, or given that you are about my age too young to remember.

No doubt, it seems the debate was much more active in the 70s and 80s cooling days.

I still don't think that means everything is settled (I'm not a believer in any close book facts). Science relies upon constant debate and questioning of norms in order to progress. I'm concerned about this, and many other areas, of science being turned into groupthink situations where no one dare question the status quo.

[Slavik44]

As if to say that the debate and funding you are looking for happend while you were asleep, or given that you are about my age too young to remember.

No doubt, it seems the debate was much more active in the 70s and 80s cooling days.

I still don't think that means everything is settled (I'm not a believer in any close book facts). Science relies upon constant debate and questioning of norms in order to progress. I'm concerned about this, and many other areas, of science being turned into groupthink situations where no one dare question the status quo.

this of course is something I talked about in my other post.

[madmax]

And as for that "Source" you posted, looks like somebody else's (likely sensationalist and factless) blog post to me.

Part of the source is from AM 640 news headline, and part is from MikeDavid00 quoting caller hearsay.

It is all wrapped up in one quote, which is why it looks like a bad post on a blog.

You have to weave your weave through the facts. Sometimes they are there, sometimes not.

[madmax]

It doesnt matter who comes on he just counter-argues and tries to belittle the guest. He butters people up and tells them what he's going to talk about, says heres the questions, then they are prepared for that, but when they get on the air he attacks them about stuff they arent expecting.

I suspect thats what happened here and Suzuki's standoffishness is due to the fact that the interviewer ambushed the interview.

Considering that Suzuki had been doing interviews all morning on Radio Nets, and only had an "incident" on AM 640 gives me reason to believe he was ambushed. I have been on the Oakley show, and understand how it works. When you got them on the run, you are disconnected.

My Buddy was a screener for the show, he did indeed butter me up, and then suckered me, with the first question, which had little to do with the comments on the show that I called into address. I got out of the ambush, and caught Oakley with a comment, and then I was disconnected.

I guess I could write this as OAKLEY rudely hangs up on caller.

But he does it ever day, many times a day.

My buddy laughed his face off over the whole thing. He really enjoyed setting me up.

Perhaps that is just the nature of the Oakley show.

So does this mean I have more respect for him or for Suzuki?

Oakley has a job to do. Talk radio, and you have to take it for what it is...

A talk show.

[Argus]

Of course people called up all day and said they lost respect for Suzuki. Talk radio hosts like Oakley create a climate of group think around their own viewpoints; anyone who disagrees with them is quickly buzzed off the air with a dismissive comment about how they are "uninformed", implying that those who agree with the host are "informed". Calling up and saying you agree with a talk radio host is simply a sad attempt to be part of the "in crowd".

Much like the the scientists involved in the global warming fad.

[BubberMiley]

There is a difference between saying "there's no room for further debate" and "there's no room for further debate before we take action." CPC anti-environmentalism ideologues would misrepresent the debate to make people believe scientists are saying the former when they are really saying the latter.

[Argus]

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

which leaves your rant null and void on this thread topic.

If I was speaking specifically on whether or not Suzuki ran away in a huff, you would have a point - possibly the first legimate point you have ever made here.

Alas, you've failed... again... to make anything like a legitimate point.

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.

I have long been aware that I am smarter than the herd. But thanks for the affirmation.

[Argus]

There is a difference between saying "there's no room for further debate" and "there's no room for further debate before we take action." CPC anti-environmentalism ideologues would misrepresent the debate to make people believe scientists are saying the former when they are really saying the latter.

Oh come on. From his own quotes one guy wrote a book disagreeing with the theory and people were outraged. All sorts of "environmentalists" rushed to attack him. They even set up a web page devoted to smeering him, and some nutbar hit him with a pie at a book signing (picture promimently and gleefully featured on the web site). Global Warming has become a religion to some people, and no disagreement is permitted. You're either dismissed as an ignorant yokel who doesn't understand science or, if you're a scientist, a greedhead working for the oil company or multinationals.

And yet, when they come out with a massive, definitive study to support their theory they need to have "policy makers" put together the "summary" first, and then need a few months to massage the report so it falls in line with the summary.

This is hard, definitive science?

[M.Dancer]

Mike david misrepresenting the facts? Oh nooooooooooooooo................

[margrace]

Interesting arguments on here, I presume that the deniers are really afraid of a hit to the economy. No more SUV's etc. Last night on The Agenda a gentleman from Alberta said that the Tar Sands are going to really slow down. They are too expensive and from someone else out there, unless gas is over .90 a litre there is no money in the tar sands.

On top of that they are using far too much of an unreneable resource, Water.

On another site there is a rant against wind towers, did anyone ever watch the show where they built the huge windmills in the North sea off the coast of the Netherlands I believe. Absoulutely amazing how they were built and they are huge. I believe there is 60 of them, not sure.

[mtm]

It doesnt matter who comes on he just counter-argues and tries to belittle the guest. He butters people up and tells them what he's going to talk about, says heres the questions, then they are prepared for that, but when they get on the air he attacks them about stuff they arent expecting.

I suspect thats what happened here and Suzuki's standoffishness is due to the fact that the interviewer ambushed the interview.

Considering that Suzuki had been doing interviews all morning on Radio Nets, and only had an "incident" on AM 640 gives me reason to believe he was ambushed. I have been on the Oakley show, and understand how it works. When you got them on the run, you are disconnected.

My Buddy was a screener for the show, he did indeed butter me up, and then suckered me, with the first question, which had little to do with the comments on the show that I called into address. I got out of the ambush, and caught Oakley with a comment, and then I was disconnected.

I guess I could write this as OAKLEY rudely hangs up on caller.

But he does it ever day, many times a day.

My buddy laughed his face off over the whole thing. He really enjoyed setting me up.

Perhaps that is just the nature of the Oakley show.

So does this mean I have more respect for him or for Suzuki?

Oakley has a job to do. Talk radio, and you have to take it for what it is...

A talk show.

Yeah. Same with Andrew Krystle here. Did he do a radio show in Toronto too?

The good thing about Krystle is that their meteorologist at Rogers, and often a guest on the show, Richard Zurawski is always talking about the validity of GW science, and has his own segment on Fridays. It would not be in Andrew K's best interest to ambush his fellow employee who is greatly respected in the area due to his long TV career. (Do you ever wonder why) haha.

I don't doubt though that if Richard worked for another station Krystle would have a far different opinion on the matter. But he's not going to argue and try and discredit his fellow Rogers media colleague who brings in the ratings too.

[BubberMiley]

Oh come on. From his own quotes one guy wrote a book disagreeing with the theory and people were outraged. All sorts of "environmentalists" rushed to attack him. They even set up a web page devoted to smeering him, and some nutbar hit him with a pie at a book signing (picture promimently and gleefully featured on the web site).

I can see why you would want to paint the overwhelming majority of the scientific community as "nutbars," but the reality is very few of them have thrown any pies. You can't take the actions of a few juvenile delinquents and say that represents the entire movement for which they stand.

And again, no one is silencing anyone, and no one even has the power to forbid further debate. Debate it all you want, but that doesn't mean the whole world has to sit on their hands and wait for the overly ideological anti-environmentalists to finally come around.

[geoffrey]

Interesting arguments on here, I presume that the deniers are really afraid of a hit to the economy. No more SUV's etc. Last night on The Agenda a gentleman from Alberta said that the Tar Sands are going to really slow down. They are too expensive and from someone else out there, unless gas is over .90 a litre there is no money in the tar sands.

Gas hasn't been over .90 a litre in Alberta since the summer and the oil companies are posting record profits. Nice try, your source is completely uninformed. Gas prices actually have very little to do with it, in fact, Eastern Canada has very little to do with it. Alberta is lucky and deals mostly with export markets to the south, Ontario buys most of it's oil from Venezula or Norway/North Sea.

The oil sands aren't too expensive, they are the economic engine of Canada and without them everyone in Canada would be significantly worse off.

It doesn't matter though, Ottawa can't touch any Alberta resource development, it's purely a provincial jurisdiction, so there cannot be development caps on the oil sands. Ohhhh well.

On top of that they are using far too much of an unreneable resource, Water.

Your completely misled on Alberta's water supply. We can't force the glaciers to melt faster, so X water flows through Alberta each year. Using more doesn't decrease future water, it can't. It has had effects on irrigation downstream in Saskatchewan, but really, you don't support that huge waste of water too, do you?

On another site there is a rant against wind towers, did anyone ever watch the show where they built the huge windmills in the North sea off the coast of the Netherlands I believe. Absoulutely amazing how they were built and they are huge. I believe there is 60 of them, not sure.

Actually, despite this amazing size and design, they do come at major environmental cost.

http://www.windaction.org/articles/916

And the bigger question, margrace, would you like a 200 foot monolith in your backyard and constantly emits a low frequency hum?? It's impacts on human health have never been determined.

Green energy is rarely green, and sometimes the status quo is actually much better. The solar craze was debunked when they determined the manufacturing process is high in emissions and disposal was nearly impossible as they are highly toxic to the environment. Hydro? The power that floods massive ecosystems. Really your not going to find your perfect power source.

Beyond all that sillyness, Alberta for example, cannot build more windpower. There is only a certain amount of windpower that the grid can sustain before it's unreliable. It's not much, maybe 10%. Most people don't consider what happens when the wind stops blowing.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Suzuki is a joke. How can anyone with his track record be taken as "objective" on the subject of environmetal policy.

And now that his "issue" is flavor du jour he's starting to push his other commie agendas. Have you heard his new thing about confiscating energy sector profits?

Watermelons are all the same: Green on the outside, red on the inside.

[Black Dog]

I'm quite surprised mikedavid's commentary wasn't more along the lines of:

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. I for one will be tuning into to the next season of Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" (every Sunday on CBC television) to see if this makes it and I encourage everyone to do the same.

[August1991]

Suzuki is a joke.

If this is going to drift into a thread about Suzuki goofiness, this is my favourite:

In Cuba: The Accidental Revolution, Suzuki portrays Cuba's messed-up food supply system as "the largest program of organic and sustainable agriculture ever undertaken," a system that offers "critical lessons for the developed world." Or at least those are the words Suzuki reads, words written by Ray Burley, a Canadian farm owner who also wrote and directed other Suzuki documentaries on the evils of modern agriculture.

...

The Accidental Revolution then goes on to examine Cuba's replacement food system, a regression to pre-industrial agriculture, including networks of 10,000 garden farms all over the country, including Havana.

Ah, Havana. Here the script is unintentionally hilarious, as when the camera pans a street in Havana, Cuban music overlaid, and Suzuki recites this line: "Havana pulses with the languid energy of survival."

Terence Corcoran

The languid energy of survival?

Who could possibly write such a line and then who could possibly say it with a straight face? The CBC is sometimes a very expensive Kanal Komedy.

[guyser]

Nice smear job Corcoran.

Maybe next time you can point out the untruths. The city plotfarms work.

[August1991]

Nice smear job Corcoran.

Maybe next time you can point out the untruths. The city plotfarms work.

City plot farms work? Of course! That's how we'll solve the problem of global warming. Imitate the Cuban food supply system and have vegetable gardens on balconies.

The Left has a whacko Buddhist/Khmer Rouge/ascetic strain. Weird when it's not horrific.

[madmax]

City plot farms work? Of course! That's how we'll solve the problem of global warming. Imitate the Cuban food supply system and have vegetable gardens on balconies.

This documentary on Cuba was to address Global Warming or Food Supply?

As for growing food, Farming isn't a business to engage in Canada. Farmers are old, part time and losing money. No youth are saying, I want to be a farmer.

I don't feel comfortable being dependant upon a foreign food supply.

Under those prospects, vegetables growing around my home are ok, and have been so since I was a kid and for my parents and grand parents.