Suzuki Fires Back

[stevoh]

The environmental crowd has a tough time with credibility.

I mean, from the "overpopulation scare" (Late 60's) to "global cooling" (1973) to the "ozone layer" (80's and 90's - hey how 'bout that shrinking hole ozone layer eh?) and now "climate change", the end of the world is never quite close enough for this crisis crowd.

I'm surprised they haven't found a way to blame the tsunami on humans. - hey: maybe there's an idea for Al Gore's follow up feature!!!

On the ozone layer (from wikipedia)

On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.

On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on CFCs. [2] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes.

The ozone layer depletion slowing is an example of science and environmentalism working.

[ScottSA]

The answer to your question is this.... He got his BA from college in Mass. US in '58, PhD in zoology in Chicago on '61, has research in genetics, was a Professor in zoology from '63-2001 until he retired from BC university. He has 19 honorary degrees (all decoraties) from Canada, US and Australia. Now it seems to me that David has a little more experience in the environment than Baird has. Baird was the minister of energy for Ontario and didn't do much there either. I think its safe to say David has more life experience about the environment that the whole caucus of the Cons!

How much time did he spend studying climatology? None? You mean I'm as qualified as him to speak about it, even though I don't have any honorary doctorates? (Incidentally, honorary doctorates are empty titles). Well, whodathunkit?

[ScottSA]

Of course it's partisan. It's the time-worn fight between the squishy hearted, feel good, bleeding heart Left, which eschews any interest in the nuts and bolts and economics of money and just wants to spend it all on their current fashionable crusade - and the nuts and bolts money guys on the Right who want to know what it all costs and what the affect will be on the economy and its various sectors and on the budget and on taxes.

This is the mentality that retards any real progress.

It's absolutely correct. The same phenomenon happens everysingle time, with y2k, the new ice age, AIDS, feminism, "gay-bashing"...every single faddish issue.

A cadre of leftists whip up a crisis that doesn't really exist, and the squishy brigade jumps on board the bandwagon and starts burning hemp in aid of it. Every time. The vast majority of the alleged 'greens' out there don't have the slightest idea what is going on...witness the hundreds of signatures on a pettition to ban Dihydrogen Oxide...water. What happened to all the AIDS fundraisers? Well, that was yesterday's cause celebre...nobody gives a shit anymore, because the alleged "crisis"...well...just isn't 'in' anymore.

[ScottSA]

The environmental crowd has a tough time with credibility.

I mean, from the "overpopulation scare" (Late 60's) to "global cooling" (1973) to the "ozone layer" (80's and 90's - hey how 'bout that shrinking hole ozone layer eh?) and now "climate change", the end of the world is never quite close enough for this crisis crowd.

I'm surprised they haven't found a way to blame the tsunami on humans. - hey: maybe there's an idea for Al Gore's follow up feature!!!

On the ozone layer (from wikipedia)

On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.

On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on CFCs. [2] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes.

The ozone layer depletion slowing is an example of science and environmentalism working.

No, it shows a phenomenon which may or may not have anything at all to do with CFCs going away, and "scientists" (whoever they may be) claiming a hypothetical resolution of a fabricated crisis by an appeal to a hypothetical causation. As usual.

[stevoh]

No, it shows a phenomenon which may or may not have anything at all to do with CFCs going away, and "scientists" (whoever they may be) claiming a hypothetical resolution of a fabricated crisis by an appeal to a hypothetical causation. As usual.

Yes, those darn scientists, can't be trusted. Never mind all the advances in technology, drugs, health care, transportation, etc, that they come up with that we use every day, the minute we get to anything surrounding climate, they are to be doubted and second guessed at every second.

[betsy]

No, it shows a phenomenon which may or may not have anything at all to do with CFCs going away, and "scientists" (whoever they may be) claiming a hypothetical resolution of a fabricated crisis by an appeal to a hypothetical causation. As usual.

Yes, those darn scientists, can't be trusted. Never mind all the advances in technology, drugs, health care, transportation, etc, that they come up with that we use every day, the minute we get to anything surrounding climate, they are to be doubted and second guessed at every second.

But not all scientists agree to this environmental thingy! The report was not really conclusive.

What Suzuki and company wants to do is to take a suicide attitude.... of jumping with both feet into Kyoto (with our blinders on)....with total disregard for the impact on our economy!

Given the rabidly aggressive attitude of key environmentalist leaders....a very thorough digging by adept investigative journalist...I wouldn't be surprised at all if later on we learn that this is the biggest fraud to have hit the people of the world! Somewhere, you bet someone is making a whole lot of money out of this!

[Posit]

What Suzuki and company wants to do is to take a suicide attitude.... of jumping with both feet into Kyoto (with our blinders on)....with total disregard for the impact on our economy!

The Kyoto Accord was agreed upon by a consensus - a preponderance - of world leaders and scientists. The "junk" scientists who raise opposition to the international majority opinion are funded by or work for oil companies and such that stand to lose a portion of their global control. Harper and the Conservatives have put more faith in the market place at finding a cure for global warming and climate change than the scientists that agreed to a plan 10 or more years ago. That is what the fraud is about and why it is meant to mislead Canadians.

Does the Kyoto have a cost? Absolutely! But climate change has a bigger cost - that of risking our children and the world's poor to lives of suffering through drought, weather destruction, habitat and fauna changes and reduced resources. IF our water supply were contaminated I have no doubt that people like you would be screaming to government to fix it. But because the air is invisible and the problem lies beyond your immediate affect, you would rather deny the science than to risk your own personal wealth.

The fact of the matter is that the market place and the junk scientists that work for them have an abysmal record in caring for the environment or the depletion of natural resources. Putting your faith in them is about delusional as they come. There are pills and therapies for that kind of psychosis, you know.....

[betsy]

What Suzuki and company wants to do is to take a suicide attitude.... of jumping with both feet into Kyoto (with our blinders on)....with total disregard for the impact on our economy!

The Kyoto Accord was agreed upon by a consensus - a preponderance - of world leaders and scientists.

So what! Somebody tells you to jump....you just jump without thinking....just because these so-called world leaders and SOME scientists tells you to?

Cant' we decide for ourselves?

You'd rather hang on to every word of these leaders who comprise this so-called all-knowing accord - most of whom are countries ruled by dictators and mired in downright slimy corruptions?

Why would you want to give your money to these people? Who are they to have such qualifications to see to the well-being of the world....when most of them can't even see to the well-being of their own people? Most of them begging for hand-outs and relying on charities of the few wealthy nations?

And before you go back repeating the same baloney Suzuki wants to sell - leading countries like China to follow our footsteps - read post #1! Follow our footsteps my foot!

Who's actually being led by whom?

I question the rationale and sense of judgment of those who would rather BLINDLY FOLLOW LIKE SHEEP!

And to think we look at ourselves as a "world leader." Hah!

[betsy]

And Posit, yeah...you're right in a way.

This is all about money! From every angle!

Btw, hot on the heels of Al Gore, and a promising upcoming Suzuki clone. On the classified ads!

"A+ ENTREPRENEURS, LEADERS, MOMS and OTHERS WANTED... Full-time/Part-Time.

Cash in on the lucrative "Save the Planet" Global Warming Market! Call now (24 hours)!

Toll free 1-800-blah-blah

These must be the kinds of jobs (Layton and Dion are bragging about), that will be available to those who will lose their jobs!

Hey, when you're out of a job and you're broke....you take what you can get!

[buffycat]

Hi Betsy, did you happen to see "The Great Global Warming Swindle'?

Very well done! It also illustrates it matters not which party is in power - the 'swindle' works equally well for all.

Though, I must agree that GW is NOT the threat it is made out to be.

[speaker]

My congratulations to Mr. Suzuki for his great resilience and commitment in the process of educating world opinion on the hundreds of serious issues his efforts have put before the sometimes reluctant public. It is unfortunate that some people feel the only way to disagree with the issue is to attack a messanger. I assume it is because these people haven't the ability to think through an issue to the point of coming up with a serious argument.

If there is a moderator reading this it was my understanding that the kind of inane and irresponsible attack that is taking place on this thread against a third party, ie Mr. Suzuki, was not to be allowed on this discussion site.

I have not heard anyone,,,, anyone,,,, who is aware of the impacts of ghgases, who has not acknowledged that there would be financial impacts of trying to control the danger of human produced global warming. The climate change deniers on the other hand, don't just deny the evidence presented by a near unanimous global body of scientists with the credentials to back up their evidence, they try to mislead the public by denying the authority of those scientists who we gave authority to through our elected representatives.

The point now is not whether there would be an impact on our finances if we do something about the possible disasters, it is whether or not there will be an economy worth thinking about if we don't do something about global warming. To suggest that this is in some way a leftist fad is a farce of the first order.

[sharkman]

What Suzuki is doing must be embarrassing many scientists. For him to speak about Global Warming is one thing, but to take pot shots at the PM hurts his own credibility among those people who matter, the undecided. Saying Harper is so far up Bush's butt lowers the debate in Canada and just turns it into a left vs right argument, which as we know around here, is not that fruitful.

But it's funny to hear this criticism when the Bush administration has outperformed Canada on environmental issues. This, of course, means nothing to Suzuki, who can't see such plain facts in his kyoto glasses.

[betsy]

My congratulations to Mr. Suzuki for his great resilience and commitment in the process of educating world opinion on the hundreds of serious issues his efforts have put before the sometimes reluctant public. It is unfortunate that some people feel the only way to disagree with the issue is to attack a messanger. I assume it is because these people haven't the ability to think through an issue to the point of coming up with a serious argument.

This messenger is no longer just content in relaying his message.

He had taken an aggressive role in shoving his views down our throats....aggressively attempting to DICTATE his own opinion....and that's all it is.... to an ELECTED government minister.

If there is a moderator reading this it was my understanding that the kind of inane and irresponsible attack that is taking place on this thread against a third party, ie Mr. Suzuki, was not to be allowed on this discussion site.

He opened himself to ridicule and chastisement....when he openly sought to publicly ridicule an ELECTED government official.

What is irresponsible would be for the public to just accept anyone who uses his popularity to exploit the situation....undermining, and attempting to coersce an elected government to follow his bidding. His arrogance is offensive.

I have not heard anyone,,,, anyone,,,, who is aware of the impacts of ghgases, who has not acknowledged that there would be financial impacts of trying to control the danger of human produced global warming. The climate change deniers on the other hand, don't just deny the evidence presented by a near unanimous global body of scientists with the credentials to back up their evidence, they try to mislead the public by denying the authority of those scientists who we gave authority to through our elected representatives.

Well, that is your view. There are those of us who think that it is people like Suzuki, Gore, etc.., backed by SOME scientists, who are trying to mislead the public.

No rational person is denying there is climate change. What is rationally deniable is the cause of climate change. I, along with many scientists that you'll never hear of from Suzuki, or Al Gore, et al, don't believe that climate change is due to man. Don't be so arrogant. This is a normal climate fluctuation of which there have been many even in historical times. In the past, cultures have dealt with it...without perhaps even knowing what was happening. Now we in a culture of advanced technology are panicking, instead of doing something constructive about it.

If you choose to believe the Suzukis of this world, in 2050 you'll be wondering why nothing has changed inspite of the chicken littles. It would be because whether they do something about reducing CO2 levels, or don't do something about reducing CO2 levels, the situation in 2050 will be the same either way.

You're the one who's being conned. Whatever the situation is in 2050, Suzuki et al will be able to say..."I told you so."

The point now is not whether there would be an impact on our finances if we do something about the possible disasters, it is whether or not there will be an economy worth thinking about if we don't do something about global warming.

I would say the question should be: how will we contnue to fund saving the environment if we are cash-strapped?

To suggest that this is in some way a leftist fad is a farce of the first order.

Elizabeth May's endorsement of Dion is quite telling.

For more than a decade, the Liberals had done nothing. Now, suddenly....the attitude from the environmentalists is, "it's now or never!" And never mind whether Canada breaks its back!

Go figure!

[betsy]

Hi Betsy, did you happen to see "The Great Global Warming Swindle'?

No. Not yet. Thanks for the link.

[speaker]

Dictatorial you say, Suzuki??? oh ok

Ya I noticed the scientists threat of incarceration and/or exile and/or torture common to dictatorial types, on the body of our Prime Minister to the people of Canada. Boy Mr. Harper better be careful, He may get the remains of the pie that got Chretien. oooh scary.

He opened himself to ridicule and chastisement? yes that is true. Fortunately he also opened himself to respect and even honor for having the courage of his convictions.

I think the only panicing about global warming is being done by the frightened well to do. I am a private citizen, a self employed businessman, I do alright. I've looked at Kyoto and I don't see how it is necessary that I should suffer unduly for our nations implementation of Green Houses gas reductions. I believe it is necessary to do this and I am willing to face anything that is apparent at this point by way of inconvenience. I am willing to go through this because the scientists with the credibility are the ones we hired to tell us what's up, and they have done so. ( I am not an Exxon shareholder so that isn't the we I'm reffering to.)

So let's do something constructive that neither the Libbers or the Conners are going to do. Start personally taking better care of things around you.

[betsy]

So let's do something constructive that neither the Libbers or the Conners are going to do. Start personally taking better care of things around you.

At least, even some environmentalists had grudgingly acknowledged (when pressed by media), that the Conservative's Green Plan is a step in the right direction.

It is constructive....because it is taking some CAUTIOUS steps. Baird's Plan is obviously not DRIVEN by HYSTERIA.

That is why I truly question the motive of some anti-Baird Plan, who try to dismiss the light bulb effect (as one example).

True, it may not amount as much as they would want to....but it still amounts to something nonetheless.

Every "little amount" helps.

So if there is truly an urgent need to change things (as what Suzuki and company would want us to believe)...you count everything that contributes toward that goal.

But you know what, IMV, Suzuki had laid himself bare and transparent by entering the arena of politics...made himself a tool (or what looks like it) for partisanship. He, and May and Democrat Gore, are aggressively using the environment as an issue in our politics now. And agrressively trying to discredit and smear the Conservatives....by using the environment. Is all.

If you have the time, please watch the Great Global Warming Swindle. In a very controversial issue such as this, where-in whatever decision we may take would have some serious consequences not only to us here now, but to the future generation....you owe it to your children and your grandchildren...to at least know both sides of the arguments.

Only then can you truly say you've made a responsible decision.

[Keepitsimple]

The facts on Kyoto dribble out in bits and pieces. I'm waiting for an objective report by the major media to put it all togerther. I won't hold my breath.

The Star recently reported that European Union Ministers had committed to reducing their emissions by 20% below 1990 by the year 2020. As has been reported many times on this BLOG - the Kyoto choice of the year 1990 was very self serving. It took advantage of the fall of Communism and the re-structuring of the East-Bloc. In 1990, these countries were still spewing emissions from their state-controlled industries. A couple of years later, most of these factories had closed down. This gave Germany and other countries a whopping reduction in emissions and was the major factor in the EU being able to get close to their targets. But for the last 10 years or more, the EU has mostly been treading water in trying to reduce their GHG. Some have decreased, others have increased.

The EU's Kyoto target is to reduce GHG by 8% below 1990 on average for the years 2008-2012. So their "new" committment to reduce them by 20% below 1990 by 2020 is only a net real decrease of 12% from now until 2020! Forget about 1990. As Baird said, our targets - 20% between now and 2020 - are one of the most agressive in the world - almost double that of the European Union. So lets see how smug the Europeans are when they have to start making real cuts that start to really affect their economies.

PS: the use of the year 2012 for Canada's Kyoto Target is disengenous. Kyoto requires that all signatories reach their target "on average" between the years 2008-2012. That means we have to meet our target next year - not in 2012. If we don't then we have to cut even deeper in 2009 to make up for it.

A lot of interesting information can be found in "Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe 2006" by the European Environmental Agency:

Link: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_20...port_9_2006.pdf

[scribblet]

well, CBC’s Resident Subversive: Rex Murphy Rips Environmentalism

http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2007/04/28/c...vironmentalism/

Rex Murphy was at his iconoclastic best the other night. Undermining years of CBC’s enviro-scare-mongering editorial policy, he rips into John Baird’s lightbulb jihad, Laurel Broten’s “Flick Off” campaign, Sheryl Crow’s one-square wipe, and enviro-freaks in general, in his Friday, April 27, 2007 “Point of View” Segment on CBC’s The National. Never afraid to get sharply to the point, this is how he starts: “Environmentalism robs people of their judgement.” Watch here and cheer!

[noahbody]

It would be nice if the media tried to get non-biased reaction from those in the scientific community and not from passion-charged environmentalists. I already know how they are going to respond. No news value there.

[betsy]

Thanks Keepitsimple and Scriblett for the informative links!

It helps provide the other side's views....so we can all be informed, weigh things up and decide for ourselves.

At least it's heartening to see some becoming enboldened and equally aggressive in challenging and exposing this scam.