81 Replies to “Now I’ve Seen it All”

  1. 404 not found on the NP article; she’s clearly had the requisite indoctrination (how many of us knew the words she was reading off when WE were 5 or 6?), but they missed a rant on Harper, Bushco, and the Joooos.

  2. ds should be charged with child abuse for this. Anyone find out who that enemic kid was in another utube spouting garbage. Somebody should ask this girl, do you watch tv, use a computer, go to movies, eat food, ride to school, etc. Her family will be watched by someone with a camera to catch them using lights, find an a/c, or whatever and expose them, like algore is being exposed. Her hair looks sort of nice so I assume she shampoos and bathes. Doesn’t she know that uses energy. If she grows up to run for office or whatever, this will come back to haunt her. SHAME, on SUZUKI AND HIS MOVEMENT.
    Hope lots of you got thru to rev canada yesterday.

  3. Absolutely awful use of a child. Let kids be kids for once. Our society is so caught up in trying to prove a point that now we are using small children to push messages they no very little about. Suzuki can’t prove his conclusions through science and try to snake oil salesman us into accepting his ideals. This is getting out of hand already and these people are making themselves look foolish. Chicken littles, the lot of them.

  4. Alberta government: immediately remove all indoor plumbing from the familiy home and let them deal with the nearest stream and an outhouse.
    That should give them a taste of what they’re advocating.

  5. OK kid
    No TV espesially the HD or digital kind, you know how much energy is prodeced there
    No McDonalds
    No Disneyland
    No Quad/dirt bike/snowmobile
    No going out at night shopping or a movie( and sad part is you won’t even know enough to ask about a drive in)
    No holiday’s
    No getting a ride to school
    No getting a ride to your friends house
    No hot baths
    No more anything
    There feel better

  6. Mary T, at least she doesn’t drive an SUV. To her father, who wrote the script, I say, lead by example. Go live in a tent, with no power, er no carbon footprint. After all, Kyoto is “not enough.”

  7. Typical lib concept: Indoctrinate at an early age, put ’em in government day care centers to ensure that the propaganda is deeply implanted, and the Natural Governing Party will always be in power.
    Parallels to Goebbels & Mohammad are very strong…

  8. I’m insulted by the arrogance of jerks like Suzuki. I don’t drive and SUV! I drive an economical, fuel-efficient Volvo.
    I object to these so-called experts telling me I should change my ways. They should look in the mirror.
    I’m really incensed by this and thus may appear a little garbled. Sorry about that.
    These folks really, really piss me off.
    Mike

  11. I feel sorry for the kid. A writer for the National Post checked out the story. The girl said that she read the words so that her Dad would help her build a cardboard castle.
    She’s just parroting what her parents tell her to, so that they’ll play with her. Excellent parenting skills.

  13. Saw this little enviroweenie on Global Edmonton a few weeks ago – unfortunately, I was eating at the same time so got kind of nauseous.
    I remember wondering at the time if she even knew what she was saying – child abuse at its finest.
    Wonder if she got her cardboard castle.
    Does she have a website?

  14. Take it in the context it was meant. She’s cute, she passed a message to people, she had fun and got her face on a video in Youtube. No Mary, just because her father put her up to- “gasp”, reading. Making a child read isn’t child abuse. Just think, she may even have learned a few good things in doing it. Things like how to get a message to thousands of people to make a point, that even she has a voice to help change the world and that her dad cares enough about her future to do something about protecting the planet that her generation will inherit.
    As for the knuckle-walkers who just don’t get it or simply refuse to accept the science due to selfishness, that’s ok, because those who do care about the planet outnumber you. Eventually you will be legislated into falling in line and will have no choice in the matter.
    Science is no longer asking if man made global warming is happening, it’s asking how bad is it going to get.

  16. Cardboard castle made from the box that held their new ice maker/fridge/freezer, dishwasher, fridge, stove, washer/dryer for the waterfront airconditioned cottage where she jetskis and wakeboards.
    Holy smoke!
    How, uh, much, uh, weed, uh, can, uh, you, uh, hide,uh, in,uh, the crown of uhhhh Redwood.

  17. Using a child this way is dispicable!
    What she’s saying is true, but using a child to say it is dispicable.
    km

  18. Emotional left-wing weenies are no longer asking if man made global warming is happening, They’re asking how bad is it going to get.
    Posted by: albatros39a at March 1, 2007 2:01 PM
    —————————-
    Fixed that for you, troll boy.

  19. As for the knuckle-walkers who just don’t get it or simply refuse to accept the science due to selfishness, that’s ok, because those who do care about the planet outnumber you. Eventually you will be legislated into falling in line and will have no choice in the matter.
    [Edit – please keep it civilized – Moderator]

  20. Time for albatros39a to go the way of ‘T i – guy.
    The fact that he/she/it can’t make a single comment without using derogatory names shows the typical leftist lack of clear concise reasoning.
    Hey albatros – turn off your computor as it is using POWER and contributing to GLOBAL WARMING. Turn off your heat, power,water,sewer. Plant lots of trees.
    Then stop exhaling.
    Save the earth!

  21. albatros39a…we refuse to accept the “science” because those actually in the climate field, dispute the science.
    Here ya go sport:
    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/canadianPMletter06.html
    Oddly enough..I don’t see a washed up politician nor a fruit fly expert on that list.
    If science will “stop asking” on matters pertaining to a chaotic object such as climate when evidence to the contrary has been mounted and is mounting, perhaps they will “stop asking” for a cure for aids, cancer and everything else that may ail you. After all…the science so far is in that they are incurable.

  22. What an absolutely stupid commentary, albatross. Your problem is that you don’t examine the basic axioms that you spout like a religious mantra.
    1) The child was NOT reading. A child reading a book, by herself, which she can comprehend has nothing to do with using a child’s reading-capacity to make her read words to strangers – words about which she herself herself has no comprehension. That is one thing only; it is manipulation. That’s abuse of the child and manipulation of the audience. Why do you approve of this?
    2) The child learned nothing, other than that she can be manipulated by her father to do X – a meaningless act to her – in order to receive what she actually wanted, his help in building a cardboard house. She learned that her father will not help her do child-games, unless she does something for him. Hmm.
    After all – what does a child know about carbon dioxide? About the relationship between carbon dioxide and industrialism? Most certainly she did not learn that she can make millions of people do what she wanted; how could she know this? What she wanted was a toy house – and her father’s help in building it. She doesn’t want to change the world – what nonsense you spout. She wants her father to help her play. And he wouldn’t; until she read out the words that he wrote.
    3) No, – don’t move into juvenile ad hominem; that’s childish. We who don’t accept that climate change is due to anthropogenic causality are not ‘knuckle-dusters’. We are scientists, we are logical analysts, we think, we do not follow a ‘sacred mantra’ just because it seemingly absolves our sins. A great many learned people do not accept AGW. Climate change has existed since the planet was formed – and those causes most certainly remain in force today.
    4)What a neurotic thing to say – that people will be ‘legislated into’ accepting a belief. That’s totalitarianism. That means that the science of climate change has been moved out of the domain of science and into a dogma, a totalitarianism.
    Again – examine your basic axioms. Your comments showed that (1) you approve of children being manipulated by promising them attention and care if they first carry out an adult-designated task; (2) you have no understanding of the cognitive domain of a young child; (3)you reject science and prefer dogma; (4) you reject democracy and prefer totalitarianism.
    I’d suggest you think a bit about these axioms.

  23. Reminds one of the chickens that can do “addition” at the agricultural fairs.

  25. I was fascinated by the tree huggers spouting about everyone”doing their part” to make the world a cleaner place.
    Ever wonder how these people have so much time to spend in the forests of B.C. preventing honest loggers from working?
    The last big protest here, on Vancouver Island,1990’s, BCTV did some good investigative reporting, and discovered that about half the protesters were on welfare, “artists”on “assistance”, or otherwise earning their living off the taxpayers.
    At one point, the NDP government provided buses so the protesters could travel to the Nanaimo welfare office to collect their cheques.
    This was a flagrant violation of the rules for collecting welfare, any able bodied person is required to continue looking for work, or be cut off the dole. The NDP showed their true colors.
    The guy who said we’d be legislated into line is absolutely right, and if we’re ever stupid enough to elect these “Fascists-in waiting”, we’ll find them doing exactly that.

  26. That Ali G is hilarious!
    I wish our comedians would make fun of the left as well. We need a Canadian Stephen Colbert. Somehow I don’t think he would be hired by CBC though.

  28. “That should give them a taste of what they’re advocating.
    Posted by: Mississauga Matt ”
    Being environmentally friendly doesn’t involve moving backwards in technology or hygiene, it’s about improvements. When I give the video a complete listening-to, I’ll let you know if my hunch about what it advocates is correct, and if you are in fact wrong.

  29. “We need a Canadian Stephen Colbert. Somehow I don’t think he would be hired by CBC though.
    Posted by: matts”
    Colbert is on CTV, so why wouldn’t they hire a Canadian for their Comedy cable channel? Perhaps because the Canadian political comedy-sphere is already well fleshed out on CBC, which of course attacks left or right wing absurdities.

  31. Being environmentally friendly doesn’t involve moving backwards in technology or hygiene, it’s about improvements. When I give the video a complete listening-to, I’ll let you know if my hunch about what it advocates is correct, and if you are in fact wrong.
    Posted by: Saskboy at March 1, 2007 2:54 PM
    ———-
    Yes, do watch and listen:
    “… they are putting billions of dollars into building huge factories and to mine the tar sands. … We have to leave it in the ground and stop the tar sands …”
    Little Miss Totalitarian is advocating – actually her father is advocating – the destruction of the Albertan and Canadian economies. I’d call that “backwards.”

  33. I’m wondering what she’s going to do for a name when she grows up … Shunka, Whisper, and Grasshopper are taken. I suppose she could try Termite, Boll Weevil, or … Wheat Midge.

  37. albatros39a…ok…what is your point?
    Are you implying that all those people have conspired to misrepresent their findings therefore making their findings inaccurate?
    I am also assuming you meant credible politicians “OR” scientists when referring to that list (assuming you believe Gore and Suzuki are credible even though the latter has misrepresented corporation donations to his cause and is a fruitfly expert and Gore who has no qualification that makes him an authority on this topic).
    Are you saying that those on that list (notwithstanding some outstanding qualifications) that are/were attached to the IPCC, are not credible??
    So the only credible scientist(s) are those that agree that man is the great evildoer?

  38. As of 4:16 during huge snowstorm in Southern Ontario (thanks for the Oscar win, Al):
    Thanks for taking this poll
    Can Canada meet its Kyoto target?
    Yes, and we can do it through domestic reductions. 1650 (57.45%)
    Yes, but we’ll have to buy some international credits to do it. 333 (11.59%)
    No, but we should still try. 604 (21.03%)
    No, so we shouldn’t bother trying. 285 (9.92%)
    And no question about “Why am I giving money to a multimillionaire?” question.

  39. albatross – you haven’t dealt with the criticism against your promoting a parent’s use of his child to present HIS message.
    You haven’t dealt with the criticism of your assumption that AGW is a valid conclusion. (Your url link is inadequate as I’m sure you know).
    You haven’t dealt with the facts of millenia of climate change – long before homo sapiens and long before industrialism.
    You haven’t explained your support for totalitarianism and your rejection of both science and democracy.
    Try it.

  40. ET you confuse totalitarianism with democracy and the overall good of the people. If the majority of people demand the government do something about the damaging effect a select few have on the planet, the government will be forced to enact laws protecting the environment. We are seeing this in Ottawa today (against the wishes of the con government) and in other places around the world such as Europe and California.
    If the tar sands have to cut back on production for a while to implement environmentally better ways to extract the money from the sand, then so be it. Alberta will still be able to extract oil from the ground, just less of it. Just think that you may be leaving some oil in the ground for future generations.
    As for that video, it’s harmless.

  41. albatros39: So let me get this right, instead of arguing science, your little url works on character assassination as it’s primary modus operandi. What your “site” says, in essence, is that every single one of the 61 who signed the open letter to the government are a disreputable person …
    Wow! What a find! You da man!
    That site is exactly the thing that drives the number of skeptics up … it works on personal attack and discrediting scientists as individuals based on earth shattered things like … they worked for such and such firm or haven’t published work in journals (how did they become Phds without doing peer reviewed work) It hits them for not being involved in climate science, when in fact most scientists involved in global warming research are not “climate scientists” but contribute a portion of the data via research as varied as physics and biology. That site makes very little effort to debate the science or main complaints of the 61, but uses troll level slander to discredit them. It’s obviously designed for Albatrosses.
    By the way, could you name the scientists who did the research for the IPCC reports and what it is they specialize in and what research they did? Can you name what peer review was done on that research and by whom? Can you name which data were rejected and why? Can you name who funded the research that went into the IPCC reports? Can you find out anything substantial about the actual research that went into the reports?
    Have fun, as I’ve been on a quest to find out … and guess what, you better be sharp with Google if you even want to find out about the authors.
    http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/ipcc-report-article-of-faith-part-2.html

  42. Slate (www.slate.com) has some pretty funny editorial cartoons about Al Gore. Scroll down to the bottom of their home page, and select “Today’s Cartoons”.

  43. ET said-
    You haven’t dealt with the criticism of your assumption that AGW is a valid conclusion. (Your url link is inadequate as I’m sure you know).
    You haven’t dealt with the facts of millenia of climate change – long before homo sapiens and long before industrialism.
    Yea I did, it’s here and here I think.
    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005656.html#comments
    and I think
    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005638.html#commentsere
    How many times do I have to post that stuff?

  44. I see lefty sluts were throwing their underwear on the stage in the hope, I assume, of wrecking Dave’s family.
    Can’t see flyboy’s poll results, but I signed up to his boosterclub as Maurice Strong’sacrook from Kickback city in Ontario China.

  45. albatros39: The Boreal forest used to reach beyond the Artic Circle, before the last Ice Age. I expect that it will do so again, as we are still in the post-glacial era. Your great-great-great grandchildren will have the pleasure of farming in the far north and “wintering” in Calgary. So, get used to GW as humans are not in the least bit inclined to go back to -40 C winters, if they could, or be able to influence the weather or our climate, despite the protestations of Suzuki et al. Just adapt, you’ll be fine and so will your kids. Enough with the scare tactics and read up on the science a bit more before spouting off all that rhetoric of yours.

  46. albatross – I confuse democracy with totalitarianism? Heh. Provide some proof. I’m not that dumb. I’m saying that YOU are promoting totalitarianism. Kindly deal with the criticism.
    Careful now. WHO decides the ‘ultimate good of the people’? Some uber-ruler? That’s not democracy.
    No, you haven’t dealt with the criticism of the video. It isn’t harmless just because YOU say it is. The harm comes from a parent insisting that his child participate in an activity (advocacy) on an issue about which she knows NOTHING. And, in his setting her up to this participation by promises of ‘playtime’ with daddy, regarding what she really wants to do – have him help her build a toy house.
    That trade-off between parent and child, of ‘you do this for me and my adult friends’ – and then, then only, will I do what you want – is worthy of criticism. It’s harmful because it sets up an unfair interaction for the child.
    You promoted that action, declaring that the child would get all kinds of personal benefits from it (learn how to get things from a wide audience etc etc). I pointed out that this was nonsense. You now say only that ‘it’s harmless’. Wrong. It’s setting up an infair parent-child interaction.
    Equally, your declaration that a majority of people ..demand the gov’t do something about what a ‘select few’ are doing to the environment – is untrue. A majority of people haven’t demanded that the gov’t do this.
    Dion and his Liberals have done it; they are engaged in a Purifying Act, where they are trying to manipulate the public to change their image of the Liberals – from The Corrupt Party to The Pure Party. Dion is attempting to do this paint job by cloaking himself in The Pure Environment. THAT’S why he’s doing it.
    He has no plan, no program, no interest in the env’t. The NDP and Bloc are utopians, and go along with this idealism because it is utopian and ‘future-oriented’, ie..exists always in the future, so it remains in the realm of rhetoric.
    As for your new comment that it’s only a ‘select few’ who pollute/emit – heck, that’s quite the science! You have now openly stated that your view of climate change is class-based; it’s the evil capitalists who are doing this? Not you? You are pure and don’t use energy? Hmmm?
    Thanks for the post, Paul.
    And, albatross, you haven’t dealt with climate change – except to cite articles that you support. But there are plenty of scientific articles that reject AGW!!! And that is your basic problem. You reject science. To you, there is only one truth – AGW. Those scientists who reject it – you ignore or denigrate. That means that you reject science – which must remain open to debate and analysis. There are a lot of scientists who reject AGM – and apocalyptic scenarios. There are a lot of scientists who acknowledge climate change – after all – it’s obvious – but, the fact that climate change is due to and only to humans and industrialism??!!
    Nope – the universe is a complex adapative system and to try to reduce its causality to ONE cause is sheer mechanism. Not science.

  47. “Little Miss Totalitarian is advocating – actually her father is advocating – the destruction of the Albertan and Canadian economies. I’d call that “backwards.”
    Posted by: Mississauga Matt”
    Would leaving some oil in the ground really destroy the Canadian economy? I mean, what was our economy before oil, and why won’t that work to keep us going?

  48. Here’s an albatross 39
    “The preparation for the flight in a jet L-39 “Albatross” will start from a short … You will be honored with the certificate of your L-39 “Albatross”: …”
    http://www.rusadventures.com/tour23.shtml
    Iberia
    Russia’s biggest serial killer.
    Is it me, or do wrong headed “flying” rude exSoviets seem overly involved in supporting Canada’s liberal socialist status quo here?

  49. just-a-scientist stop listening to economists like Byorn Lomborg, they know nothing about climate change. Right now we are in a climate crisis and don’t know warm it’s going to get. Predicting how much fun it’s going to be in Calgary in the future is nothing but wishful thinking. The fact is, it isn’t going to have get much warmer in Calgary in order to turn into desert, which will destroy the Alberta agriculture industry.
    Forests north of the Arctic Circle? Forests don’t sprout up in artic talus over night. If you’re planning to farm that land, for the same reason you can’t grow tree up there, agriculture is not going to happen for several hundreds of years until the soil can hold a crop.

  50. Well now. That’s a poorly designed poll. And I’m not just talking about the answers offered.
    One can vote over and over and over again. I’ve got better things to do but it would be incredibly easy to manipulate.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation