Just a leftie blaming it all on rightthinkers. It must all be GWB's fault. Lets face it, if Lucien Bouchard says that Global Warming is our number one concern, then that sounds like settled science to me.

"We have elevated economics above ecology, as indicated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's position that while we must try to do something about climate change, it must not jeopardize the economy."

Anyone who has ever been to a third world nation or a nation at or recovering from war and economic disintigration will tell you that the FIRST, the VERY FIRST thing to suffer is the environment.

Still Stuck on stupid.

Carbon tax? Not yet, thanks. We want more coal and oil: Corcoran
Posted: February 12, 2008, 6:29 PM by Terence Corcoran
NoPigou Club, Climate change, carbon tax

Too much can never be said of the great climate change policy farce. As many parts of the world suffer through harsh cold spells, record snow and deep-freeze conditions, governments and politicians continue to pursue hilariously contradictory policies to make the world colder still. Or so they claim. What's really going on is another matter. Consider the latest news on oil and coal.

rtr @ http://tinyurl.com/38lmw5

Major point Zip. The thing about the ecology is that any place other than around the equator the ecology will kick your ass. That's why we even have such a thing as economy in the first place.

Kate's famine idea is looking good eh? It'd take that to get this weenie's attention.

"We have elevated economics above(over is the correct word) ecology, as indicated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's position that while we must do something about climate change, it (what does "it" refer to - economis or ecology?) must not jeopardize the economy."

I don't see any "elevation" here. In fact, the Prime Minister is stating a fair-minded point of view on the matter.

Watch your phraseology in future, David!

So, how many other people have complained to Revenue Canada about having his charitable status pulled, seeing as how he is engaging in political lobbying for one side only?

I agree with everything Suzuki said.

Science is NOT politic.

If scientists tell us that climate change is happening then it is happening.

Most of people believe that the planet Jupiter exists right? How many people actually took a telescope and verified that Jupiter actually exists? and checked it orbit and stuff?
Very few of one i guess. We believe the scientists. And rightly so.

The other thing is because some people disagree with Kyoto then they argue that climate change is not occuring. Simply because they hate Kyoto. Again that's wrong. Kyoto is a political thing, it is not science. It can be reasonable to disagree with it. We can argue the merits of Kyoto. But we can't argue science. We can't argue that climate changes is happening or not anymore. We must act, if not the consequences will be disastrous.

Suzuki is adversarial and that is his fatal mistake.

The Obamafascists are totalitarians with a smiley face. Their tactic is to use a "nice" word like "unity" to destroy debate and democratic process. Because if you are against "unity" well, there is something wrong with you, right? It's off to Truth Minister Oprah's Re-Education camp with you! Gramsci's Long March has finally paid off.

I'm driving to Montana this weekend and loading up on more long arms and ammo. Just try and force your "unity" on me DemonRats and LIEberals.

Good lord, is he still citing Stern? Stern's report was completely discredited as absolute junk.

By the way, I've sat through a recent speech by Suzuki who, as a veteran TV performer, is a tremendously entertaining speaker. He said (this quote is not exact): "your Prime Ministers don't care about it, Mulroney didn't care, Harper doesn't care". I was immediately struck by the omission, Suzuki jumped from Mulroney to Harper, skipping about 13 years of Liberal rule, 3 Liberal majorities, and he took a shot at Harper who had only been a minority Prime Minister for less than two years. Suzuki's 100% politicaL.

separate frog: Have you ever heard of the Scientific Method?

Obviously not. It is to 'disprove a hypothesis' not to blindly accept one widely promoted by power hungry totalitarian state worshiping politicians masquerading as scientists.

I have sufficient evidence that you, ma'am, are a FASCIST. Can you disprove that hypothesis?

Interesting that the first mistake in Suzuki's post, is a scientific one. He claims:

'the biosphere is fixed and finite; it does not grow". Wrong.

Energy, pure energy, is fixed and finite in the universe. But, the material FORM of energy, the chemical and biological forms - do grow. They grow in complexity.

The earth began with simple organisms. Over millions of years, these simple organisms grew in complexity from single cells to multiple cells, from organisms duplicating by asexual cloning to complex species reproducing within sexual diversity.

The number, type and interactional capacities of FORMS of energy on the plant exploded from just a few to the millions we now have; and their complex interactions increased as well. With the development of interactions, these species developed powerful adaptive capacities. A specie under stress from its environment, can come up with new material forms of itself, and can develop new interactions with other species.

eg - a native mussel, sensing a new predator, adapts by thickening its shell (Science, Vol 313 Aug 2006)
Finches, when dealing with new seeds, thicken their beaks
African starlings, when faced with changes in their habitants, will move into cooperative breeding (Science Daily aug 21, 2007)
And so on.

Again, the single celled organisms of the early planet have changed; our biosphere is not fixed and finite but capable of immense evolutionary and adaptive complexities.
Now, how could a 'scientist' like Suzuki have made such a profoundly false statement?

Atheist quebecois separatiste. No-one is denying the reality of CLIMATE CHANGE. The earth's climate naturally changes and has done so since it first began millions of years ago. What scientists are denying is that the current changes are not due to this natural cycle, but are instead due to and only to, human beings. You are ignoring the many scientists who are rejecting the AGW (man-made global warming)...

Even ardent leftists agree that Suzuki got his ass kicked the last time he debated a scientist in public, Dr. Rushton. If this means every scientist who believes in scientifically unsound multiculturalism mumbo-jumbo will be jailed too, such as David Suzuki, then I'm all for it.

Inviting record levels of immigrants from low carbon producing countries to Canada, the world's biggest per capita CO2 emitter, is the exact opposite of fighting AGW. IF we are to take AGW militants at their word then Canada's AGW-increasing immigration policy constitutes a grave crime against humanity.

Which is to say that if the left isn't serious about AGW then why should we on the right be?

"We have elevated economics above(over is the correct word) ecology, as indicated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's position that while we must do something about climate change, it (what does "it" refer to - economis or ecology?) must not jeopardize the economy."

Perhaps Mr. Suzuki doesn't realize that when the going gets tough, when the economy tanks, when jobs are lost, when the choice is between giving $5 to the David Suzuki Foundation or using that $5 to pay the bills, the vast majority of society will choose to survive.

Be careful what you wish for Dave, you just might get it.

Perhaps we should jail any scientist that denies there is a political motive behind climate change...

How about just removing their charitable tax status . I think in 2006 that amounted to six or so million dollars for Herr Doktor .

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the 'fixed and finite' assertion is true.

Then where is the pressure on China to reduce emissions?

"The Scientists". A homogenous group? With one collective opinion? Don't think so.

Politicians are always looking for an "issue" that they can latch onto towards their goal of power. The more nebulous the issue, the more difficult to scrutinize, the better for the politician.

Hence the efforts to stifle contrary scientific opinion. The media want their left-leaning pals to attain power, so they control the information flow to the general public. It's not about global warming, it's about making people think it's a problem, and Party X has the solution.

As a layperson, Frootfly is entitled to his opinion. As a scientist, he is obligated to present his evidence for scrutiny and peer review - while presenting his thesis based on his evidence, he must at the same time entertain the possibility that he is wrong. Avoid closure. Invite contrary evidence, rather than engage in the suppression of it. He is obligated to pursue The Truth.

He's engaged in the political process, not the scientific process. Using scientific credentials to mask political behavior is sleight of hand, abetted by media that shares a similar political agenda.

dfetc - surely, when you refer to 'Rushton', you aren't referring to Philippe Rushton? He's not a scientist; he's in the Psychology Dept at UWO, and is the proponent of a scientifically unproven hypothesis of genetically caused differing IQs of 'races' (Asian, African, Caucasian).

Suzuki's scientific error, in his above polemic, is his statement that the biosphere is 'fixed and finite; it does not grow'. That is scientifically untrue. The biosphere, the life-zone of the earth, is a complex adaptive system (CAS).

That means that it can, itself, create and transform biological FORMS of matter, which can evolve, adapt, go extinct, develop new forms etc. This also means that these biological forms, as highly adaptive, can adapt to changes in climate.

They have to - for our planet has over its emergence some billions of years ago, gone through many climate changes, and many FORMS of life within its biosphere. Above all, these forms have changed from the simple to the complex.

So- Suzuki's error is profound. But, then, he had one and only one agenda. A political agenda.

re Suzuki pooh-poohing the Alberta minister for believing that we have to grow in order to protect the environment.

The minister is 100% correct. Poor or impoverished people don't give two hoots about their immediate environment, much less the global one. Only when they acheive some semblance of wealth and they've covered their immediate needs of shelter, food, income, security etc, ie middle class, do they begin to care.

To wit: last year, a gaggle of Chinese apartment dwellers forced the local government to dispense with plans to build some huge coal plant in their backyard.

If we don't grow the world, we're done like toast. As the Economist said years ago about the way to help the impoverished nations of the world: we can choose to import their goods, their people or their anger.

I best stop here before I begin to rant...

If scientists tell us that climate change is happening then it is happening.

Oh, for the Love of God, these are the same Scientists that said we were headed into a Ice Age in the 70's.

But Atheist, before the standing crowd comes down on your head I will give you one point to consider.

Why are the ice caps on Mars melting ?

Hint; it ain't the soccer Moms driving their SUV's.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/02/14/4845941-sun.html

"But if partisan political activity is "prohibited," why does his foundation have charitable status, meaning it doesn't have to pay income taxes on its $6 million in annual revenues (2006) and can issue tax receipts to donors? If you agree, call the CRA's charity directorate at 1-800-267-2384 and complain."

Agreed, shaken. If we, for the sake of argument, as stated by Suzuki, declare that the biosphere is 'fixed and finite' - then, why does the UN's climate change mantra of Kyotoism, leave out the biggest emitters of CO2 - China (and India)?

That omission, and the 'remedies' of 'Guilt Fines' of money to be sent to China/India; and 'Carbon Taxes' of money to be sent, again, to China and India...who are EXEMPT from any emissions standards.. shows us that the real agenda of the UN's Kyotoism has zilch to do with emissions.

It is a yet-another-UN-corruption scheme of taking money from the West. In this case, it's to be used to build factories in the so-called 'developing world' - which factories are exempt from emissions and pollution standards.

AND - the carbon tax will have UN middlemen who will take a huge sum off, for their own pockets, in this transference.

Certainly, pollution (not emissions) is a serious concern. Interesting, but the UN pays little attention to this matter. I guess it's more difficult to find and fine and get huge sums of money sent to China and India (which are also, huge polluters).

As a biologist, reading Suzuki's piece critically, even accounting for the simplistic style for the masses, its clear that Suzuki and science, biology/ecology, long ago parted company. Some of the statements are highly questionable from an objective biologist, and especially from a learned one. Suzuki has left the building in regard to his depth of knowledge and understanding of ecological science, with the result that he no longer holds credibility in his opinion on science matters, and must be discounted accordingly.

If the earth's biosphere is fixed and finite, then evolution is false. Is this what it has come to, a geneticist denying evolution in order to advance a political agenda?

The thing is that climate change is normal, we would have more concern for our future if the climate stopped changing. In the last 2 million years there have been 33 ice ages.

I think the data showing the sun is the driving force for our climate change holds the greater weight than the accumulation of a trivial greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide.

If Fruit fly really, truly gave a sh*t about the environment he would go at the left as hard as he goes at the right when the left is in power.

In my lifetime, the left has been in power more than the right. The enviro-commies went after Mulroney hard. Gave the liberals a total pass and re-discovered the environment only when Harper was elected.

Harper protected the Great Bear Rainforest while no one was looking. He got no credit. The Liberals outright refused to do it even though Greenpeace and the Midnight Oil singer was chaining themselves to trees. No one in the media went after the Liberals for it. No one in Greenpeace or Fruit Fly went after the Liberals. In fact, the Liberals didn't get one ounce of flack.

Harper just declared the largest national park in Canadian history in the Arctic. It may even be the largest on the planet. What did Fruit Fly say about that? Jack.

If their priority was the environment, they'd be consistent. It is abundantly clear that their priority is leftist politics. The environment comes second.

This is why I give them only contempt.

Let's defame the holocaust and use a nazi comparaison again.

During the 30s and 40s in Germany, many very prominent phyiscists were critical of Einstein's theory of relativity (science). There were so because Einstein was jewish and they hated jews. They were blinded by that.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Physics).

Today it is the same thing with right wingers and climate changes. Simple:
1. Environment issues are mostly championed by the left.
2. Right wingers hates leftist.
3. Hence environment issues change must be discredited.

We all do it. I admit even me... It is an emotional thing. But we must fight it.

Phantom: "Kate's famine idea is looking good eh? It'd take that to get this weenie's attention."

Playing right into Chairman Suzi-mao's hands. I've heard him say there were far too many people living on the planet and nature would take care of that problem if everyone were "persuaded" to abandon technology (i.e. mass food production, modern medicine, electronic communication, heat & refrigeration, etc). How do you suppose he envisions nature taking care of his overpopulation problem?

The good Chairman can't wait until the pieces of this political chess game have been moved to legislate a world-wide version of the "Great Leap Forward".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

Only this time around, when the socialists gain control of the entire planet's food supplies, it won't be 30 million deaths from starvation. No, the number of people left to starve will be determined solely by the UBER-ECOLOGIST HIMSELF. How'bout keeping the best billion for his brave new world dream?

Lorne Taylor Ed Stelmach, Brian Mulroney, Lucien Bouchard, Prime Miinister Steven Harper and George H W Bush.

Hey, where are all the planet-saving promises out the a$$ but no action, corrupt, lying, kleptocratic, liberals, that got us into this mess in the first place.

David Suzuki makes it sound like there has been no continuous rule of the Liberal party for the last 13 years.

Non stop liberals for quite a while now.

Why would a scientist try to get us to swallow such a lie?
I don't think real scientists should try to be so diseptive , it's like he has a hidden agenda.

frogman,

I see your ability to think is as bad as your ability to separate.

Your logic is laughable. Contemptable even.

Nice try though. I'm sure with a few decades of work you'll be able to outsmart a 4 year old.

frog: since you are a 'separatiste' you are obviously against 'unity'

Do you really hate Obama and his brand of fascism?

Kind of like how Mussolini hated Hitler hated Stalin hated Hirohito, etc.

You all want the same thing in the end: total control of people's hearts, thoughts and and actions and no individual liberty. That makes you a Fascist.

Disprove that you are a Fascist. You cannot. Go away and run off the road before you become road kill like the thousands of other squashed frogs.

"We can argue the merits of Kyoto. But we can't argue science."

You are quite wrong.

We can argue over anything we like.

That is the essence of democracy.

Like his fellow watermelon men and women (green on the outside, all red on the inside) David Suzuki never met a globalist or totalitarian he din't like. His convenient omission of the Lieberal administration between Mulroney and Harper is but the latest example.

My understanding is before he jumped on the warming bandwagon he was railing against the coming ice age - caused by man's activirty of course.

I wonder if like Al Gore, he doesn't have a stake in a carbon credit trading company somewhere.

What Suzuki doesn't get is that a lot of us want warmer weather. A warmer climate will bring more prosperity not less.

His cause is leftist control over other people's money and freedoms. That's it.

The warming is natural and that science is more credible than the old drum Suzuki is still beating.

Actually I believe it's about to get cooler. I won't force anyone to believe what I believe, but either can I be forced to believe Suzuki's bullshit.

When I stand back and take a good look at human behavior ... all things considered ... we are not going be here for the long haul anyway so why quibble about a couple of degrees of temperature.

If we want a civilized world for the long term we need to get rid of Islam. Only then will I start being concerned about other things such as the state of nature ... as if I can do anything about it.

Well Frogman: I hope in the next few years we both get our wish that you will live in a different country than I do. Removed from the teat, with an economy on par with Cuba and East Germany of the 70's & 80's, you people in the country of Quebec will stop contributing as much C02 to the atmosphere as you won't be able to afford to burn fossil fuels, production will stop, and your beloved social programs will go the way of your Labradoodles.
I will be able to let my Hummer run extra long with the money I will save on my taxes.

I know enough comparisons between religous cults and the AGW crwd have been made. However, every time I see a news article by Suzuki I just cant help but see the parallels between religous cults, snake oil salesmen etc. They grab your attention by playing to a weakness or need. (fear and being part of a noble cause) but then they twist into something sick and strictly for their own deluded purposes.

Exactly - if the biosphere is fixed and finite, then evolution doesn't exist; all species are, as they were 'created' In The Beginning. No simple organisms, no increasing complexity of organisms, no extinctions of species.

Who would have thought - that Suzuki, a 'geneticist', is actually a Creationist?

atheist quebecois separatiste. Nope, your logic is, well, it's illogical.

First, you attempt to make an analogy that people are against believing in AGW, because of 'prejudice', in the manner of Germans being prejudiced against Jewish science, is without any evidence. It's what is called a FALSE ANALOGY.
Heck - anyone can attempt to compare two things, but it would be a false comparison.

Because people are against AGW can't be reduced to ONE cause - and a fallacious cause -, ie, bias against 'those on the right' People might be against AGW because of scientific evidence! Nothing to do with any bias against 'the right'.

Your 'syllogism' is invalid as a syllogism. You are committing so many fallacies that it's hard to explain them all.

Your FORMAL fallacies are equivocation and undistributed middle. Equivocation means that you have FOUR rather than three terms in your syllogism. You can't say that because the Left supports the envt; and the Right is against the Left, that..therefore the Right is against the envt. If the Right is for/against something, it's because of the issue not because they are knee-jerk in opposition to the Left.

Your 'undistributed middle' means that your Subject Terms (The Right, The Left) can't be assumed to be inclusive; that is Not everyone on the Right ignores the envt; not everyone on the left promotes the envt.

Your syllogism is also UNSOUND. That means that your assertion that 'the Left promotes environmental concerns' while the Right doesn't, are invalid; these assertions can't be proven in real life.

In fact, the 'Right' has shown itself far more active in working against pollution (see above for some of Harper's work) and emissions (the Liberals did nothing for 10 years) than the Left ever has.

I suggest a basic textbook in logic.

ET the extra terrestrial: can you repeat that in simple english (or french).

I am not so sure I have the IQ to understand your arguement.

As for a good text book on logic... im thinking of "The Textual Society". is it any good?

Quebec separatiste, can you discern the difference between hating hypocrisy and hating hypocrits? Between hating the behavior and hating the behavor?

Having read the postings here for a few years, and observed and come to know, virtually, many of the commenting community, consistently I see the same pattern - the behavior is the issue, not the person.

There is a persistent wish here that those whose behavior sucks will straighten up and fly right. If you can work, work, to the best of your ability. But don't be a leech. Leeching is behavior that sucks - pun intended.

Does Dr. Frootfly walk the walk he talks? Evidence I see is that he does not. It is this hypocrisy that is despised. If Dr. Frootfly started walking the walk, I would give him credit for acting with integrity.

It is my opinion that Dr. Frootfly is trying to bullsh*t people. That's bad behavior. Weak character.

Similar to the rock stars that use grand causes to compete with each other. If you're so damned concerned that Africa is poor, then give them YOUR money, or STFU.

My belief is that what is admired here is character and integrity. What is consistently called out here is lack of character, or acting without integrity. Also consistently mistaken, mostly by the leftish visitors here, is that the denunciations of lack of character are expressions of hatred for a person or persons. Wrong. It is their behavior that is the issue.

That's my opinion about this blog, and this community. Fools are not suffered gladly, and most excuses presented for lack of character or bad behavior end up, as in not all but most cases they should, tattered.

quebec separatiste - (removing the 'atheist) - It's too bad that you don't know basic logic, but you shouldn't mock knowledge that you don't know. That would be like people mocking evolution because they didn't understand its science.

Here's an example of the false logic you used:

You, Quebec separatiste, are an ethnic nationalist
Hitler was an ethnic nationalist
Therefore, you have the same ideals and agenda as Hitler.

Get it? It's a false analogy, using the fallacy of undistributed middle.

The other fallacy, as I said, was to assume that because the Left promotes the envt; and the Right rejects the Left..that the Right ALSO REJECTS the envt. You can't make such a 'leap of faith'. After all, the Left promotes human rights. Are you going to say that because the Right doesn't like the Left...that the Right rejects Human Rights? Hmmm?

I'd suggest 'Improving your Reasoning' by Alex Michalos. However, you can find courses on critical thinking and logic on the internet. Just google 'critical thinking' or 'syllogistic logic'. You might enjoy learning these things.

Tim Ball sums up Suzuki...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1824

sample..Good environmental policy making in Canada is seriously compromised because of the hysteria his actions have engendered, and those who truly understand the issues are afraid to speak out because of fear of attack.
While claiming to care about the environment, Suzuki has created a poisonous atmosphere in which politicians are forced by political correctness to make decisions that are clearly bad for Canada and the natural world.

ET,

You waste your time reasoning with people who can't do it.

The school system has degraded so far that self-esteem and jargon are the only objectives.

We no longer teach people how to think. We teach them what to think by instilling a demand for conformity while drilling in them the jargon they don't comprehend. We then have them regurgitate their empty platitudes over and over again until it becomes a mantra.

This is why when you try to "debate" with a leftard they yell "racist" at you 15 times (when race isn't even a subject of debate) then sit there with a smug look on their face and patting themselves on the back for their superior debating skills.

But, they feel really good about themselves. I guess the self-esteem thing works. We have illiterate graduates that feel really good about it.

I'm positive the reason for this is liberal voting prospects. They absolutely require ignorance in the public for their success.

Nothwithstanding the (non)debate over the merits of AGW, two things bother me about Suzuki's, and others' approach.

First, if human induced climate change is going to be so catastrophic, why do they support the Kyoto treaty. This treaty, in its present form, allows developed countries to continue/grow emissions, provided they purchase carbon credits, which ostensibly are to be used to create clean energy alternatives. The reality is that China and India aren't good candidates for energy technology research - but we are.

China is growing its emissions at a breathtaking pace, in fact one study argued that the mere growth in China emissions will outpace the entire emissions of four developed countries - Canada, Australia, France and Germany (or GB not sure).

Second, the issue is pollution, not CO2. That's OK, because we get rid of CO2 when we get rid of fossil fuel induced pollution. Why doesn't Suzuki talk about that? I suspect because it will put the Kyoto nonsense into the light of day, which he doesn't want.

Suzuki prefers to argue, fallaciously, that the developed world wants to continue to pollute, driven by the profit motive. Has he seen the cesspool that is Russia and China? He thinks some collective approach, like Kyoto is the only way to climate salvation. Since capitalists are the problem, they should have consequences for their "intergenerational crimes."

He ignores the fact that pollution (I don't mean CO2 emissions) has decreased (not increased) in the developed world because of cleaner technology, and that the developed world is the place where pollution, and emissions, are rising dramatically.

Any sane person understands that we need to transition out of fossil fuels. Destroying developed economies will only increase pollution. Shifting industrial production to the Third world will increase pollution. Absolving them of any responsibility in the name of social justice (not science), will increase pollution. Using collectivist unbalanced schemes like Kyoto, with likely (already evidenced) invite corruption and are ineffective, will increase pollution.

Maybe Suzuki should jettison his unbalanced hatred of capitalism and engage them as serious players in the drive to developed clean energy technologies. His analysis is so flawed that one can be forgiven for questioning his motives.

Although Suzuki does his best to blame government and corporations, it's actually the average Canadian who is driving the agenda.

Look at all of the trucks and SUV's on the road. Look at the the 4000 sq ft homes going up, the vacations to far-off lands people insist on. Consumers don't choose these things at a point of a gun - they choose them because they put their own welfare above other concerns.

Does Suzuki think that a government who does not worry about the GDP and employment will stay in power for long?

Suzuki doesn't blame the average Canadian because he knows that such an argument will be unpopular. Far easier to blame big, bad corporations and conservative governments.

William,

Yup. The other thing that grates me is that stupid leftards think that if you don't buy into their Kyoto horsesh*t you must hate the environment.

It's just unreal.

It's like they don't think we realize that we need to breath, too.

If environmentalists were people who care about the actual environment, they would not reject all free market solutions and they'd be focusing on real problems.

I remember a time when the environmentalists cared about habitat protection, the rainforests, species at risk, effluents poured into waterways...

Now enviro-leftards are burning down the rainforests, killing endangered species and polluting the rivers and lakes to make way for Palm-oil plantations to make bio-diesel so that retarded eurotrash can drive around pretending they're saving the environment.

You never hear of the rainforest. You never hear of mine tailings and chemicals seeping into groundwater. You never hear of any real threat to the environment. All you hear is how we must destroy the economy so that we can rid the world of plant food.

CO2 is plant food. It is made up of carbon and oxygen - formerly referred to as the building blocks of life back when we taught facts in school. We are all carbon-based life forms.

I love the outdoors. I am an avid mountain biker, hiker, kayaker, snowshoer, skier, etc… I summated 3 mountains this summer in the Rockies. I want the environment protected. I'm a nature lover. I want endangered species protected. Fruit fly is putting that at risk by his insane, partisan hackery. This a-hole clearly has never read the "boy who cried wolf."

Once this farce is exposed as the politically (and for Gore et al the financially) motivated fraud that it is, who will ever listen to the enviro-nazis again? They will have discredited the environmental movement for generations - and science along with it.

The two groups in society who should be most offended and aggrieved about this crap are people who actually care about science and the environment.

You nailed it, rabbit.

Cult leaders also, do not tell the sheeple the truth.

As an aside, can we dispense with the "frog" taunts? What does that add to any argument? But, Doug and Warwick, is that really what you want your viewpoint based on? A cheap slur from the 70's?

Yukon,

Anyone who is an ethnic nationalist who calls themselves a separatist deserves whatever abuse they get.

And it may have been a slur from 1270's for the amount of time the English and French have been at each other.

first: i am not an ethnic nationalist.

If you beleive that quebec nationalist must be an ethnic nationalist then you are wrong. You have prejudice.

Maybe I should post my comments under a ID like "John Smith" and I am sure all the racists here would suddenly take me seriously.

2 points, one from Suzuki's column, and one from the comments here.

1. Just because Bouchard was assigned to listen to a bunch of interest groups to come to a conclusion on how important a topic the environment is, does not make Boucahrd a reliable source on the actuality of Climate Change or our ability to "fight" it. Please excuse me for not rememebring the correct name, but this is a logical fallicy, appealing to a famous figure for legitimacy.

2. People do not question if Jupiter exists, because it has held up to scientific scrutiny for THOUSANDS of years. I have never heard of any High Profile Astronomers questioning the existance of Jupiter. (And yes, personally, I think I would have heard if one did.) I do hear Many prominant scientists questioning the validity of a THEORY based on shaky data collected over 100 years and scrutinized for approx 20-30 years.

"Today it is the same thing with right wingers and climate changes. Simple:
1. Environment issues are mostly championed by the left.
2. Right wingers hates leftist.
3. Hence environment issues change must be discredited."

OR

1. Right wingers believe that the climate is affected more by the sun than mankind.
2. Leftards hate Rightwingers.
3. Hence, the left must believe that the sun has nothing to do with climate.

If you are going to make an arguement, at least try to make one that I can't turn 180 degrees without at least thinking about it.

you are using a fallacy to try and discredit an opposing view. I believe there was a link to a page about that on this blog.

Basically, the fact that I hate the left has nothing to do with my opinion of global warming.

On Suzuki, can anyone show me an example where the science is settled on anything? Yet it is settled on global warming and we can't predict the weather 7 days from now. Why don't we use our global warming models to tell us if it will be nice in March.

Newton's laws were settled science until Einstein proved they were only valid at low speeds.

The settled science mindset of Global Warming fanatics is typical unreasoned, Leftist pap. When we have settled science, environmental or any other science, we no longer exist.

It's too bad the likes of Suzuki and Gore are so willing to spend all their intellectual capital on mythical/junk science. They're pretty well spent at this juncture, they don't take questions even though they imply they have all the answers.

I think you will find a lot of support here for the cause of Quebec separation QS. I for one. Enjoy. My reasons center around what is my opinion the unreasonable amount of power Quebec holds in this federation. It may have made sense in 1867, but less and less today. So, bon voyage is what I say. If supporting your cause makes me a racist, well, I guess that makes me a racist.

But back on topic, the discussion here is how best to maximize the quality of the environment. Me writing a big cheque to the Chinese government just doesn't seem to cut it for me.

On the other hand, driving the speed limit is something I can do to reduce my impact on the planet. On a daily basis. Do you do the same? Do you ever speed?

I choose to drive strictly within the posted speed limit voluntarily for a variety of reasons, the environment included. It's less stressful, so it is better for my health. There is less kinetic energy if I end up in a collision, which means potentially less trauma. Both reasons equate to less risk for the state operated and funded healthcare system. I use less fuel, so it conserves my financial resources. It's less wear and tear on my vehicle, so my vehicle lasts longer, which means I use fewer of the planet's resources in my lifetime, and have more funds to donate to charity. It's a good example to my children. It's a courtesy to other drivers. It's logical, so I do it.

Do you? Why not start, tomorrow. Drive no more than the limit. Ever. Anywhere. Take action!

atheist quebecois separatiste -- I think that the difference is that no one is questioning the existence of Jupiter, while many scientists have argued against the theory of global warming . . . their numbers are increasing and their arguments increasingly have more credibility than the sanitized "science" sponsored by and published by the IPCC. It is always important to be alert to situations in which you are being manipulated (even where credible public figures may be involved -- they are easy to manipulate also.) I am concerned because in this case even the press seems to have succumbed to a conspiracy of silence as more evidences emerges that the earth clearly is not warming.

shaken, you are correct.

Driving the speed limit will do more for the environment than sending money to a Gore/Suzuki/China scam.

But Snake Oil Salesmen know where the most compliant customers will be found. In University classrooms -- not in the middle of a highway.

Suzuki has used this tact all his life. It isn't about success on the environment. It's about succeeding as a Cult Leader.

separatist,

Anyone who denies that the basis for the quebec separatist movement is pure, racist, ethnic nationalism is either ignorant of history or lying.

It's a movement for the "pure lain" quebecor. This is why "money and the ethnic vote" was blamed for its failure in the last referendum.

It's ethnic nationalism. Period.

shaken,

Supporting separation for quebec from outside both quebec and pure lain society isn't racist, it's housecleaning.

Why wouldn't we want to rid ourselves of an expensive pest?

quebecois separatiste - the term 'quebecois' refers to a 'people' defined as a nation. Not a geographic site, Quebec, defined as a nation. Hitler was also defining a 'people' as a nation.

My point, which you are ignoring, is that your attempt to link people who are opposed to AGW as biased, in the manner of people being against a scientific theory because the scientist was Jewish is a totally invalid analogy.

Equally, your attempt to declare that the Right dislikes the Left - means that anything the Left supports must be rejected by the Right - is invalid.

I also disagree with people calling you names (frogman); it's ad hominem. I'm against your arguments because they are invalid arguments. Nothing to do with you speaking French or living in Quebec.

By the way, I'm totally in agreement with your desire for Quebec to separate; I think that the ROC can't and shouldn't support Quebec.

However, with Mario Dumont's perspective, Quebec is changing from being an immature socialist welfare state, insisting that the ROC support it, to, gradually, taking responsibility for its own lifestyle. It still has a long way to go - it has to break the power of the unions, and take charge of its own funding for many of its services.

Again, I suggest that you spend some time on the internet, on critical thinking, and 'fallacies of thought'.

shaken - I agree with you about the unreasonable amount of power Quebec has been allotted, in the federation. This includes its House seat allotment, no matter its population. And it includes the Charter, which in my view, was primarily written to entrench bilingualism in Canada. Since we are not and never will be, a bilingual nation, it's an enormous expense, and in addition, has a result that 80% of the population are barred from key economic and political positions in govt in Canada.

I think we should have a unilingual Quebec and unilingual the ROC.

shaken and shamrock - good arguments on the pollution/emissions situations.

"Settled science" is an oxymoron. "Skeptical scientist" is a redundancy. To claim that the science of global warming is "settled" reveals a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. To claim that the AGW theory of climate change is proven reflects a profound misunderstanding of even rudimentary physics and thermodynamics. Computer "modelling" of the climate is even more risibly absurd. The equations which could describe major determinants of climate such as convection, turbulence, cloud formation, precipitation, wind etc. simply don't exist. "Modelling" of the global climate by computer is therefore a fool's quest for anything beyond rough descriptors of immediate contexts.
Credible scientists who believe they have defined a theory accurately describing natural phenomena invite scrutiny of that theory and look forward to defending it against its critics. This is part of the scientific process and successful defense adds credibility to the theory. The fact that Suzuki and his ilk shun debate and offer only ad-hominae in their defense exposes them as charlatans.

LindaL: You said: their numbers are increasing and their arguments increasingly have more credibility than the sanitized "science" sponsored by and published by the IPCC.

Do you have a couple of examples of the more creditable arguments?

Thanks,
John

I didnt realize what a forward thinker Lucien Bouchard was. I think the scientists in 1988 were still preaching global cooling.

A couple of BIG examples; The Sun and Mars.

Many, many nore. But they will not be found in the Media, Public Schools, University Arts classes, The United Nations or Hollywood.

Most citizens know the truth but are too busy working and paying taxes to the above to call the Gore/Suzuki crowd on it.

"Perhaps we should jail any scientist that denies there is a political motive behind climate change..."
Or maybe ... go Islamic on their asses!

"What distinguishes human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom is foresight, the ability to look ahead, to recognize dangers and opportunities"

Animals are better at recognizing enemies, while many people seem to have completely lost that instinct. Some people DO recognize "opportunities", like Suzuki and Gore and the rest who stand to get rich off the fear mongering.

And many people, in discussing "climate change" act like the lemmings in that old Disney film, stampeding off the cliff into the ocean, ably played by the Bow River, not far from Calgary.

When David Suzuki abandons his luxury, diesel fume spewing tour bus and Al Gore his personal jet and hired limos for ox carts, perhaps then I will start to listen to them. I don't think it is unreasonable for those preaching sacrifice and restraint for others to at least set the example.

John Cross ... is this the first time you have ever read this blog?
Click HERE You lazy tw*t

There is not One single scientist nor scientific paper arguing against agw, that john cross would not diss.

There is not ONE single iota of IPCC science that john cross will not cling to till the end of his days.

We could present every sinlge argument, article and scientist to john cross- including the increasingly large number of IPCC scientists that have jumped ship, stating that their arguments have been distorted, words deleted, and that the sience is looking increasingly WRONG- and jc would find something 'wrong' with it.

Why bother? We're supposed to ignore trolls.

I add CO2 to my freshwater aquarium to encourage plant growth. I do not add any air or oxygen, although the powerheads produce surface rippling that aerates when it's on. The plants grow lushly. The fish love it. Just like 3rd grade science, the animals need oxygen producing CO2 gobbling plants a lot more than plants need CO2 producing oxygen gobbling animals, which turns out to be not at all.

Yes, I agree with many of the previous posts. Would everyone please quit calling quebecois separatiste a frog -- it is unfair to frogs

Repeat with repaired LINK
John Cross ... is this the first time you have ever read this blog??

CLICK HERE You lazy Tw*t

Well said ET at 200. I am in complete agreement.

I think there should be a study to find out why Saskatoon seems to lead the west in embracing the likes of Suzuki and Gore. Is there something wrong with the water? Does the presence of a university affect the rest of the population? Or is it something as simple as the balance of nature,Fruitfly and Goracle counteract the common sense of SDA?

There is something sadly funny that we allow Suzoooki to divert our attention from what we could all do to improve things.

If the planet is warming or cooling, makes no difference anyway. The planet is being poisoned much more quickly.

Oil man and ex-premier, a very wise Peter Lougheed, says we should slow Tar Sands projects. The toxic settling pools are numerous and can be seen from space. The surface area equal to Florida will be stripped.

Clean water tables are life*s priority one, warming or no warming. If toxic pools leach into a massive clean water table, there is no way to turn it off.

Soutern Alberta, Saskathewan and Western states are running low on good water. California must allocate Billion$ to build more de-salination plants.

Giant coal liquifaction complex in Africa is a bigger poisoner than the Tar Sands.

Global warming? Waste of time!

Just on the radio today. The government is about to legislate low or no phosphates in laundry and dish cleaning products because our lakes are becoming marine moss pools.

That will help 2%. The major offender is landscaping and farming run-off. No word on that though.

While we are diverted by Suzuki and Goracle, the government does a little here and there. = TG

[quote]Credible scientists who believe they have defined a theory accurately describing natural phenomena invite scrutiny of that theory and look forward to defending it against its critics. [/quote]

DrD,
They would also exhibit the "Correct Amount of fear" that they may be wrong!

Only an Idiot would "not" question theory!

Nobody dares to talk about the WATER that goes into the environment when fossil fuels are burned, even though it has a specific heat capacity of 4.19(almost four times that of CO2).
Whatever.
Obviously politicians ARE as powerful as God, what with the ability control the weather and all. Let's just accept a carbon tax already...

Oh, don't pay any serious attention to Saskatoon's U of Sask, wallyj.

They have a Prof there that called the Candian Wheat Board the 'Wayne Gretzy of barley marketing' in the world.

He obviously had no understanding how the CWB grain marketing programs were being constrained by the Crooked Liberal party du Canada.

In fact, as a testament of CWB selling prowness, the Maltsters threatened the CWB with about a $50 million lawsuit to get the cheap barley that the CWB had pre-sold them waaaaaaayyyyy below the market prices.

But it is tough to get that comfortable old commie feeling out of the system that poor old Sask has been cursed with, for too long.

Let us pray for them.

Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

settled, indeed.

John Cross -- try this for a start:
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-Theory-Climate-Change/dp/1840468157

Let me know what you think.

LindaL: It is an interesting idea and it deserves to be examined in more detail. However there are several strikes against it.

First, this image shows a plot of cosmic rays against global temperature (GISS). As you can see there appears to be no relation.

There are some other problems with how it could explain some of the recent observations and we can go into these if you wish.

So, like I said - an interesting idea but a long way from being more than speculation.

Regards,
John

LindaL: the idea is an interesting one that deserves to be examined. The problem is that it does not match the observations.

Cosmic rays have followed up and downs but have remained essentially constant for the last 50 years. On the other hand global temperatures have gone up significantly.

Regards,
John

Otter: I would not diss anyone. What I would do and like to do is to follow the science wherever it leads. If that is your definition of a troll - so be it.

Regards,
John

Suzuki's slick Vancouver PR firm is not taking this lying down:

http://www.desmogblog.com/national-post-rabid-response-team-assails-suzuki-over-jail-quote

Suzuki lacks focus. . .

Far from trashing *Doc* or anyone, I would rather he gain some real ground.

If his intellect is really as shiny as you suggest, Suzuki would have simplified things and provided focus for us who are trying to be effective.

A simple 10 item list of *things to do* would help people to choose their *project*. He does have various lists, but not in priority or simplified order.

It could begin with . .

[1] Organize for a slow down of the Alberta Tar Sands. Oil man and Conservative wise man Peter Lougheed suggests this is a priority. Shouldn*t the Doc run with this?

[2] ... Well you get the idea. Checked Greenpeace, Sierra and others and no priority list. They should all agree on a list and then campaign on it. = TG

ET wrote to "quebecois separatiste": I also disagree with people calling you names

I agree. Quebec has only recently seen its middle and upper levels of income earners become largely populated by native French-speakers and their corporations managed by French-speakers (most of the people that have gotten there are bilingual by necessity, though, and there's no way avoiding that, I'm afraid).

So it seems that any malcontent who has a gripe or is impatient can cause language havoc and cry foul.

I have a great deal of respect for les Quebecois, but not for the whiners.

Click HERE You lazy tw*t

Just curious; is the missing letter an 'a' or an 'i'? There IS a difference in interpretation...

'What I would do and like to do is to follow the science wherever it leads. If that is your definition of a troll - so be it.'~ john cross

Nope. Not my definition, just words you are trying to put into my mouth. Perhaps you can explain to us why Western Greenland is seeing the most massive ice increase in 15 years. I'm sure there's CO2 floating over that region also....

"Real change is happening. We need to let our leaders know that nothing can stop it."
If this is true, why bother? CO2 emissions grow proportionally to the growth of GDP in developing countries, like China and India, that is, exponentially at rate 9-11% every year, and they have no other option for decades to come - except for starve their population, which comprise half of the Earth population. No amount of measures taken in developed countries can compensate for this growth. If the West needs to curb its energy consumption and switch to nuclear energy and hydrogen transport fuel, it has much more compelling reason to do it: stop paying to Arabs $100 for oil extracted at 3-4$ cost, and so fund enemy terror war against us. This has nothing to do with alleged global warming.

otter: can you post a link?

Regards,
John

John Cross: "Cosmic rays have followed up and downs but have remained essentially constant for the last 50 years." . . . can you provide me with references for this. It makes no sense at all.

LindaL: Yes I have a link and I tried to post it twice last night but the filters put both in the moderation queue and from bitter experience I know that my posts seldom get released from the moderator queue.

However I have put a link in the URL under my name. It is not my website, but hopefully it will get the link through.

Regards,
John

LindaL: Unfortunately the software tends to put messaged from me that have links into the moderation queue and they seldom get released. There are three there right now with different attempts to put a link in. The best I can do is to say that it is in the following if you can figure it out (add the http:// at the start and remove the spaces)

www.realclimate.org/ images/ TheChillingStars.jpg

I look forward to your comments after you have reviewed it.

Regards,
John

AH, I see that one of my posts was released from purgatory. The link is there.

John

John -- please check your link -- I get "Not Found". I must say, though, that I am disappointed that this link is to realclimate -- they are seriously biased. Nevertheless, I will read what's there if I can access it.