91 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Another Poll Goes Horribly Wrong”

  3. I hope Mr. Suzuki can feel the warmth(global) of the majority he thought he owned. Globe and Mail, no less.lol

  4. Still amazingly high. Just had an email exchange with a true believer. She is moving from the US to come live in BC to preach her message that we need to simplify our lives to save the planet. I brought up the lags between the rise in temperature and CO2 in the spikes on the antarctic ice core data. Temperature always rises first, followed 500- 800 years later by CO2. She changed the subject. I pressed and she obfuscated with a BushHItler rant. . Of course. Anything that threatens her world view is unbearably painful. So its not addressed at all.
    I wish she would stay home.

  5. The frightening thing about this poll is that 49% agree with Suzuki.
    I can only surmise the 49% are faithful CBC viewers who accept information from the CBC as gospel , and who have absolutely no understanding of the economic chaos that would ensue if Canada followed the advice of Suzuki , the Pied Piper of Kyoto.

  6. Put this poll in its context – the fact that Suzuki was anything under 75% approval speaks volumes. He’s jumped the Orka.

  7. Suzuki only proves that he is out of his mind and just plain crazy at the idiotic poppycock he babbles

  8. The G&M website attracts many from the rabid anti-American, Canadian chauvinist, lunatic left and so their polls are virtually always skewed in that direction. Take a look at their “comments” sections and you will see what I mean. AND, in their comments sections, the G&M plays games with usernames and will allow those who they agree with to post at will, and those they don’t, they will cut off. It is nothing more than censorship and is completely dishonest.
    Another little game they play is for some people posting on their comments section, the poster themselves will see their posts in the comments section…..but others won’t. It is a deliberate attempt by the G&M to make posters think their views are posted and being read by others, but they are not.
    So in that environment, if the best they can do is 49%, in the real world you could probably cut that in half again.

  9. I watched CBC national last night and they were on about our winter. Despite us having the coldest winter in over a decade they were still talking about how CO2 will warm us.
    I honestly believe that close to 50% of Canadians no longer believe the CO2 story.
    What is most interesting is that despite all the evidence, so many still believe in Gore and Suzuki. How can this be? Is it because they are stupid, ignorant, easily lead, or is it that they have developed a phobia?
    An un-reasonable fear of carbon. Carbon phobia can be the only explaination. Carbon phobics should not be looked down upon, they should be looked upon as someone with an unfounded fear of carbon.
    We know that people with phobias cannot easily be reasoned with, but persistance pays off and of course recognizing that you have the phobia is the first step.

  10. Well, he did appear on the CBC nekked from the waist up, as Atlas upholding the world, and in another billboard pose he was holding an illuminated light bulb in his hands.
    When you are the messiah, you have to expect some opposition.

  11. People still believe in and vote for the Liberals, despite Adscam, despite Dion, despite McGuinty. They still believe in the UN, despite its overwhelming record of corruption and inability to deal with genocides in various countries, in famine, in disasters…So, don’t be surprised when they believe in ‘global warming’ and Gore and Suzuki.
    People don’t accept their own experiences, their own critical thinking; we’ve been educated to accept what Experts tell us…
    And remember, the UN Kyoto agenda is not about the climate, but is about a massive money transference from the industrial West to China/India to enable them to industrialize without cost to them. Gore and Suzuki are part of the scam, and are both making millions out of it.

  12. 51% aren’t “fans” of Suzuki’s “work”?
    The solution could be as simple as the minor modification suggested below to one of Suzuki’s recent speeches:
    “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing my non-supporters into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”
    http://tinyurl.com/36kbeh

  13. Enviromentalists should be raving about Big Oil and how oil saved the world. W/o carbon fuels all the whales would have been dead by now; need that whale oil for the lamps. Also, all the trees would have been chopped down to heat the log shacks that our ancestors lived in. Can you imagine a city like Toronto with 3 million or so people and another million or so horses. The stench would have been worst than anything TO city council has put out.

  15. This pole does say alot. If you consider Canada is roughly 60% +/- socialist and Suzuki only has a 49% approval rating that means there are now liberals changing their minds about AGW.

  16. HEADLINE: A Majority Of Canadians Do Not Believe Suzuki !
    That, despite a rigged poll, by a hopelessly biased news org, in a media corrupt world and a $Billion taxpayer subsidy to Suzuki’s machine. Telling.

  17. When did the environment become a right/ left issue or conservative/ liberal one? Who of any ilk likes living in a smoggy stink-hole.
    Burning away the last of a non-renewable resource unchecked sounds ridiculously selfish and stupid to me, and I’m no lefty tree hugger. Its like gorging yourself to obesity simply because you can.

  18. Sure, dude… but there is no reason to accept the pseudo-science of carbondioxideophobia and let oneself be stampeded into doing really moronic stuff. What Fruit Fly & Goracle are advocating has nothing to do with saving the environment or managing non-renewable resources, and yet the bamboozled masses can’t see reality through all the BS. Forget about trying to control a naturally ocurring substance vital for life in the same of mostly solar-induced global warming and set about controlling real pollution. The AGW enthusiasts are the ones doing a real disservice to the environment by ignoring reality.

  19. I really really think GW is all about “softening up the greens” so we can bring in nuclear power, the greens are/were the only ones really opposed. Remember Sweden voted to phase out thier nuclear plants.
    Now the grens are all hot and heavy over clean nuclear power -mission accomplished,that was easy.

  20. 49% Heck no! That was Jason Cherniak and Warren Kinsella dumping their cookies and voting over and over.

  21. When did environment become a left / right issue?
    Over the many decades that the leftards have spent spreading the BS that conservatives don’t care about the environment. Since the lefty tools claim to have the moral high ground in environmental issues and because this entirely bullshit where they constantly lie and fabricate to support their claims!
    Hows that for a since when?

  22. “She is moving from the US to come live in BC to preach her message that we need to simplify our lives to save the planet.”
    Even if you’re an AGW skeptic, that message remains true. Perpetual growth on a finite planet is a fallacy.
    Being an environmentalist has nothing to do with the right/left divide. It’s a matter of acting responsibly towards our planet, and each other. Our planet is the only life-support we have.

  24. I wonder… do polls always “expire” shortly after we start slamming them? Over the numbers in your screenshot Kate, I see over 200 new yea votes and only 1 new nay.
    Looks like somebody at the G&M is not a fan of a fair fight.

  26. “When did environment become a left / right issue?”
    Since the left framed the issue, as OMMAG said, as a “conservatives don’t care about the environment” thing. But I think, more egregiously, they’ve actually purported to care about the environment as a guise to foist socialistic practices upon us–Kyoto being the most famous.
    Using emotionally-charged, patently false phrases like “climate change deniers” and “the science is settled” has given the left a lot of leverage with regard to the media (whom they already had in their back pockets anyway) and getting their message out. These arguments are terrible, as a) nobody has claimed that climate isn’t changing–at least, nobody who’s really thought things through, and b) real science involves eternal skepticism. What is being claimed, however, is that we have no conclusive proof as to why the climate is changing. May be us, may be the sun, may be something else. But to say “the science is settled” ignores that fundamental part of science–skepticism. Anyone who is skeptical about what is causing the climate to change, anyone who is skeptical about the methods we use to measure the amount of temperature variation–that is, a true scientist–is labeled by the left with the moniker “denier”, which is supposed to be evocative of a holocaust denier. Which is an underhanded tactic. Used by the left.
    When we on the right question the methods of measuring and dealing with a problem that may or may not exist, and that may or may not be able to be fixed by us humans, the left (metaphorically, most of the time) tends to plug their ears and say “lalalalala, denier, big oil, envirohater, lalalala” all the while ignoring the fact that, indeed, skepticism is needed.
    Knight 99, I tend to agree with you that we have to be more prudent (conservative?) with our use of resources, that we have to worry about pollution (NOx, SOx, PM, the real pollutants), but reducing our CO2 emissions because computer models tweaked in innumerable ways without the ability even to solve, explicitly, the equations properly that they’re supposed to be solving tell us that we’re on the road to doom, well, color me skeptical about that one; similar models try to forecast the weather out to 10 and 15 days in advance and fail every time. How can we expect something forecasting out to hundreds and thousands of years, in more or less the same manner, to be any more reliable?
    So in that way, it has become a left-right issue. The left is reactionary and doesn’t want to listen to opposing viewpoints. The right is logical and wants to think and hash things out and make sure we’ve got it right before we take gigantic steps. Right now the state of things is that we don’t like pollution and it makes air more difficult to breathe. Thus, we should do something about it, which we are. Right now we know that the climate is changing but there is nowhere near enough evidence to tell us what is causing it or even how much it is changing. Therefore, we must study it more before taking action. The left hates this idea because they want a more “just” and “equal” world, where people in the 3rd world are as poor (note I didn’t say rich) as people in the 1st world. A very good way to achieve this is through a socialist wealth-redistribution scheme, the Kyoto Protocol, which is set up under the guise of protecting the environment. So those on the left claim to care for the environment (which I have no doubt they do) but use their claim for nefarious purposes–the spread of socialism.
    As conservatives, we oppose socialism, so we oppose Kyoto. We get painted as anti-environment, even though we’re just anti-Kyoto, and those screeching it loudly (the left)get heard most.
    That is how it became a left-right issue.

  27. APOLOGY AND RETRACTION
    Over the past few days I have written posts encouraging others to vote often. I now realize that my posts were based on factual inaccuracies and the resulting actions were not fair. I am therefor attempting to remove the extra vote that I cast on the Globe and Mail site.
    Besides retracting my vote, I would like to offer my sincere schadenfreude to Dr. Suzuki for any embarrassment he has caused himself.

  29. For those who are seeking to offer a more traditional formal farewell to the fruit fly guy, I believe the correct Latin would be: “Requiem drosophilae melanogastri”.
    But if there are any good Latin grammar cops out there, I will accept a correction.

  30. Greenneck: “It’s a matter of acting responsibly towards our planet, and each other.” I think that the relentless focus on CO2 emissions seriously undermines the attention given to REAL environmental issues: smog, water pollution, toxic dumps, etc. I believe that anybody (almost everybody) would support measures addressing these issues if they were not constantly obscured by the non-issue of CO2 and global warming. The fact that environmental activists choose to do this (focus on global warming/climate change) simply undermines their credibility. To me it communicates that they have a hidden agenda.

  31. I just looked at the poll.
    Now 52% NO (7667 votes), 48% YES (7107 votes).
    I wonder why the delay in adding the 258 “NO” votes?
    I am sure Jason or Warren will claim someone from here did it… Just waiting…

  32. farmboy
    “””” The stench would have been worst than anything TO city council has put out.””””
    can you prove that, or are you just that used to smell horse sh!t that you can’t tell the difference:-)))))

  36. Suzuki indeed jumped the shark when he recommended jail time for anyone disagreeing with his viewpoint.

  37. Johann: You raised a number of points I would like to discuss. To begin with raise the idea of the role of skepticism in science which has a valid and legitimate part. However how far are you willing to go in regards to skepticism.
    For example should we throw out well established natural science laws because someone makes an argument that they can’t backup? This is a critical point since there is a clear chain of scientifically established points that lead to the conclusion that adding CO2 will cause warming.
    1) We are responsible for the current rise in CO2.
    2) CO2 will absorb and re-emit longwave radiation.
    3) Enhanced longwave radiation will cause an object to either warm or cool less quickly.
    Do you disagree with any of these?
    You also go on to say in regards to the rise in temperature “May be us, may be the sun, may be something else.”
    I agree that it would make sense to look at the sun as a possible source of the rinse we have seen. And in fact we have been studying the sun for a while and the problem is that there is no change that would cause the warming that we have observed.
    Regards,
    John

  38. john cross – you are diverting the issue and reducing the focus.
    You ask: “should we throw out well established natural science laws because someone makes an argument that they can’t backup?”
    This is begging the question. What ‘well-established natural science laws’? The point of a scientific process is that any ‘well-established rule’ has to be open to doubt.
    You are also introducing a fallacy, an ‘appeal to authority’; ie, even a ‘well-established law’ must be, if scientific, open to doubt.
    1)There is no proof that we, Sinners that we are, are alone responsible for global warming. Your reduction of causality to one factor, CO2, ie, to something that is caused by and might be controlled by man, is simplistic and mechanistic.
    2)The climate is not a mechanical system. It is a complex system, therefore, there are multiple factors that ’cause’ climate. These include solar output, earth-sun geometry, volcanic emissions, ocean-heat exchange etc.
    And, as a complex system, the earth’s biological processes expand to make use of increased CO2.
    3) We need CO2, as you know, to maintain that biological realm, and to maintain our average temperature.
    4)Did you know that the other planets are warming?
    Again, your reduction of causality of a complex system to ONE variable, ignoring the other variables and ignoring that the earth is a complex biological system, transforms a complex system incorrectly to a mechanical system.
    You may prefer this, emotionally, because you then feel that you can Control Things. Particularly things done by Man the Sinner. But, I don’t think the world operates according to the emotional trauma of Human Sins or Appeasement by attempts to Control the World or, above all, mechanically.

  39. “Right now we know that the climate is changing but there is nowhere near enough evidence to tell us what is causing it or even how much it is changing. Therefore, we must study it more before taking action. The left hates this idea because they want a more “just” and “equal” world, where people in the 3rd world are as poor (note I didn’t say rich) as people in the 1st world. A very good way to achieve this is through a socialist wealth-redistribution scheme, the Kyoto Protocol, which is set up under the guise of protecting the environment. So those on the left claim to care for the environment (which I have no doubt they do) but use their claim for nefarious purposes–the spread of socialism.”
    Johann at February 28, 2008 1:36 PM
    Is there really a sharply defined left/right division on this issue ? Philip Stott states that he is left of centre and insists that global warming alarmism has replaced the marxist narrative , with the same consequences . And Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party is also a prominent skeptic .Then there is Mr.Cockburn puzzling over those on his side of the political spectrum:
    “For reasons I find very hard to fathom, the environmental left movement has bought very heavily into the fantasy about anthropogenic global warming and the fantasy that humans can prevent or turn back the warming cycle.
    This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left’s optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice.”
    Alexander Cockburn
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/4357

  40. “Put this poll in its context – the fact that Suzuki was anything under 75% approval speaks volumes. He’s jumped the Orka.
    Posted by: Kate at February 28, 2008 10:25 AM”
    It doesn’t say anything at all actually when you sick your readership on it. Conversely the Globes readership represents a certain element of Canadian society, albeit not such a niche a small niche as Kate’s readers.
    Overall you can’t take anything from that poll because its not reflective of the population’s values either way. Although I would submit that its more accurate when you don’t sick your readership on it.

  41. John Cross,
    Which of your questions can be tested and reproduced (under exactly the same test conditions) by a multitude of lay persons or scientifically trained personnel?
    There is no possible way for you to prove or disprove:
    1) We are responsible for the current rise in CO2.
    Your ability to scientifically answer the question is akin to proving the existence of God.
    It becomes a matter of faith and belief. You can choose whatever facts you want, and ignore others to make your point.
    You will not convince us that humans alone are responsible for changes in the climate.
    I don’t think anyone disagrees with living in a more sustainable way, but we do disagree with blaming the humans for the world climate – whether it is warming or cooling… And taxing them for it in a way that helps a few countries that are the greatest sinners in your church and have no motivation to change.

  43. Yes atmospheric CO2 abosrbs long wave radiation but in the lower atmosphere it is very questionable if it re-radiates this energy. It transfers it through multible kinetic impacts with the other atmospheric gases.
    While CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” H2O provides us with 2000% more warming. Water is 800 times as dense and provides much more warming/cooling effect than atmosphereic gases. ( La Nina/El Nino) The sun does vary it’s output in many areas. It’s effect on cosmic rays seems related to climate. In fact, it seems that the greatest correlation with climate change is the length of the sunspot cycle, which as we know is getting longer and longer.
    The only climate driver (outside the Atlantic current) that is still going in the positive direction is the level of CO2 and it is the smallest of the drivers.

  44. Bill D.: “An opportunity for mischief , methinks . ” — This is nothing more than a brain washing team — recruiting naive (or those with a vested interest) to peddle Al Gore’s nonsense. I am sure they will be offering free talks to schools, community groups, etc. — this is like thought control! How can they possibly get away with such blatant lies with no one calling them on it. I am beginning to feel that the whole global warming scam is like a vice closing in on free minds. Sad — really sad for all of us.

  45. That’s my point Linda . Would be nice to cough , cough , do some editing on the narrative , no ?

  46. “People don’t accept their own experiences, their own critical thinking; we’ve been educated to accept what Experts tell us…”
    and canada is a world leader

  47. does this mean that fully 51% of Canadians could be jailed under the Dr. Mendele Suzuki believe or be arrested rant. ( the Suzuki Protocol of 2008)
    first the politicians then all the non-believers to the reeducation camps. minimal clothing to suffer the consequences of their folly. tatoo a number in degrees C and a make them wear a yellow thermometer. detainee deniers.

  48. There will always be Snake Oil Salespersons — as long as the Media is willing to behave as a Tabloid.
    Ten years ago, if The CBC would have given Patrick Moore as much air time as David Suzuki, the Kyoto Hoax would have been dead before it was born.
    If it bleeds, it leads. Fear-Mongering sells — just ask Hollywood.

  50. Oh those Warmongers.
    Having lost all debates, that they reluctantly partake in, and having to admit their data was cooked, and that Mother Earth is not behaving as the Junk-In Junk-Out models predicted — the Alarmongers have pulled back and are making a last ditch stand behind; ‘We are responsible for CO2 conc rise and CO2 acts as a GH gas’.
    So, would they prefer we LOWERED CO2 conc ? At 220 ppm plant life slows down considerably. At about 150 ppm plant life stops. Then we all WOULD be dead.
    Raising CO2 ppm causes plants to grow better. Is that all that bad ?
    The Earth has a GH effect — good thing. Otherwise it would just be a snowball in space !! CO2 is an insignifigant GH gas compared to water vapour.
    So what’s the panic ?? The panic is in the Warmonger’s rush to impose Kyoto Taxes before the Earth enters it’s cooling cycle (That they could take credit for).
    Too late. It is already happening.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation