Monday, February 04, 2008

Suzuki wants to jail political deniers

David Suzuki at McGill:

He urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science.

...He gave a scathing critique of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, chastising them for neglecting the environment in favour of economic growth and development of the tar sands...


Well, I suppose if we are supporting Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn in their fight for free speech, we have to allow David Suzuki the right to spout such inflammatory tripe too.

And isn't his organization supposed to be non-partisan so that it can receive public funding? Can someone please confirm that?

(Update: "...donations from individuals and by grants from other charitable foundations. The David Suzuki Foundation does not accept government grants, except in relation to the direct funding of scientific research through the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada." - FAQ)


In any case, I agree with Lorne Gunter - Shun the hate-merchants.

I'll be shunning Suzuki. No 'Nature of Things' for me, boy. I'll be shunning the advertisers too.


* * * *
More Outrage!!!

SDA - Y2Kyoto: CBC Fruit-Fly Fascist...

Five Feet of Fury - Better yet, let's just lock up David Suzuki.

Just Right - David Suzuki - Enviro-fascist

A Dog Named Kyoto - Suzuki calls to jail politicians.


* * * *
Thursday Update - By any means necessary: Terry O'Neill (Post)

46 comments:

West Coast Teddi said...

This is far too scary to comment on. The Key-u-too Kastapo will be at Parliment's door with the Taliban Jack Boots of Socialist Korrect-nice waiting in the wings.

I am sick of Fruit Fly Mentality

skuleman said...

So does that mean Suzuki will happily go to jail if he is proven wrong on anything?

Anonymous said...

Suppose just for a moment that a Conservative whose platform was fiscal restraint , stood in front of an audience and suggested that any politicians who oppose deficit reduction should be prosecuted in the courts and jailed ?

Can you imagine the outcry ? Yet the lib-left Suzuki stand up and suggests the equivalent in the context of climate change, knowing full well there is a significant debate about the validity of human induced climate change and the MSM says nothing. Worse the lib-left cheer him on.

liberal supporter said...

This is far too scary to comment on.
Baloney.

The Key-u-too Kastapo will be at Parliment's door with the Taliban Jack Boots of Socialist Korrect-nice waiting in the wings.
Ever heard of Godwin?

I am sick of Fruit Fly Mentality
So why do you keep displaying it in your comment (or lack of comment because it is "too scary")?

Worse the lib-left cheer him on.
Hahahaha!


Do you have a link to what Suzuki actually said? I'd be interested in reading it, unlike, apparently, the commenters above.

Just because Harper is a CPC does not make any criticism of him "partisan".


Why has nobody compared this bit of over the top rhetoric to the guy who writes that he wants to see mass murder of civilians and troops? The first commenter comes close through.

Based on what you've quoted (though I'd like to see the original), Suzuki is being an idiot, but has not called for any lawbreaking, in fact he says "find a legal way". That of course won't happen, politicians can't be prosecuted for their actions or inactions outside of breaking existing laws. That's what elections are for.

But carry on trying to milk it and use it as an excuse to continue to do nothing about climate change. This is, after all, the month when Canada is going to formally renege on Kyoto, right?

West Coast Teddi said...

Link is at: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=6970

I'm not a professional internet person so hope this works. I would "assume" that the writer attended the meeting and quoted correctly.

The article does "advocate" that environmental denial" be considered a crime and that is scary. Science is NEVER settled because it is science.

lanarklady said...

Brillant critique liberal-supporter. I have done something about climate change... bought a higher pair of winter boots ,two new shovels, and winter tires for the truck. Time to go milk the sheep but don't forget Dion will have to go to jail too!

rabbit said...

About a year ago, I posted on a progressive blog about Suzuki's close ties with the NDP, and questioned whether this was a violation of the rules on charitable organizations.

As an example, he gave a talk at an NDP fund raiser (note the reference to donation forms.)

Suzuki was also mentioned on some NDP candidates' web sites in what could only be viewed as endorsements. I can't find those endorsements anymore, so perhaps Suzuki has cleaned up his act.

In my youth I respected Suzuki. Now I find him arrogant and often unscientific.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Teddi, thanks. I meant to include that link in the main post and forgot. I think I should take a little break soon, just like my friend Sandy.

Ruth said...

Please don't take a break Joanne,we need you. There might be an election this Spring and people have to somehow find out the truth. Can't get it in media.

liberal supporter said...

The article does "advocate" that environmental denial" be considered a crime and that is scary. Science is NEVER settled because it is science.
There is certainly a difference between the "settledness" of science that says "dumping plutonium in rivers will kill people" and "if we don't cut GHG emissions we'll flood all the coasts in a couple hundred years".

The real problem is that anything longer term than the current and next term of elected governments gets put on the back burner. Just look at things like debt reduction. It won't pay back much immediately, though the fact it pays at least a little immediately makes it more likely to get done.

Since the IPCC says it is "likely" that 50% of observed warming is human caused, we should certainly give it some sense of urgency. Where the government can help is providing tax incentives to develop technologies. Kind of like the above market oil pricing that spurred Alberta's oil patch development in the 60s.

Anonymous said...

Last election he endorsed political candidates.

He offers no balance nor opposing opinion on his CBC shows.

He repeatedly violates CBC codes of conduct and balance for programming and personalities.

Enough is enough!!!

The CBC needs to fire this lunatic ASAP.

Because it is a (taxpayer funded) current affairs show, the Nature of Things is under the authority of the ombudsman. Please courteously complain:

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
250 Front Street West
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
e-mail: ombudsman@cbc.ca

BillM said...

Check out this link.

Dr Suzuki, please address the following

Caveat said...

So, when is Suzuki running for office? Seems to me it's pretty easy to shout from the sidelines.

A lot of people have forgotten - oh, wait, I don't think it ran in the MSM - that Harper put aside 10 million acres in the MacKenzie valley as a protected area - no development, no industry.

Guess that's not 'Green' though.

Kyoto was spotted as a scam a few years ago. Why haven't these coneheads got the memo yet?

I used to like Suzuki but I think he's gone to his own head.

Run for office, Dave - 'change from within'.

liberal supporter said...

Check out this link.

Dr Suzuki, please address the following

I can't speak for the doc, but the carbon ledger analogy given is incorrect. A better one would be current vs. long term ledgers.

The current ledger is a normally balanced carbon cycle. So trees take up carbon and when they are combusted the carbon is released. The current ledger is balanced. Growing plants fix carbon, decaying (or burning) plants release it.

However the burning of fossil fuels is taking carbon that was stored over a period of millions of years, and releasing it over the last couple hundred years. To continue the ledger analogy, that would be like mortgaging your house and using the money on entertainment.

BillM said...

To Liberal Supporter:

Note that the data were for SUSTAINABLE forestry and agriculture. New trees and crops are planted annually.

This is also only the actual Hectares under forestry management. This is a small fraction of the annual arboreal growth (CO2 inclusion).

This is the equivalent of cash flow in the ledger.

paulsstuff said...

I have an idea. Lets all chip in a few bucks for airfare and get Suzuki to make the same comments in China.

Better yet, let's make the law retroactive and lock-up the enviroment minister of the former governing party who allowed emissions to rise roughly 30%.

If only Suzuki wasn't so stupid to believe what left-wing politicians tell him. The only differance between the Conservative party in power now and the previous Liberal party led by Chretien/Martin is that Harper won't lie to gain votes and tells it like it is, unlike the Liberal's who promise the moon and deliver squat.

And perhaps when Suzuki starts living in a 600 square foot rowhouse, run by solar power, sells his diesel-powered tour bus, and starts flying stand-by on flights not at full capacity,I'll start to take his rants seriously.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And perhaps when Suzuki starts living in a 600 square foot rowhouse, run by solar power, sells his diesel-powered tour bus, and starts flying stand-by on flights not at full capacity,I'll start to take his rants seriously.

The problem is that a lot of impressionable students are easily seduced by his rhetoric.

liberal supporter said...

And perhaps when Suzuki starts living in a 600 square foot rowhouse, run by solar power, sells his diesel-powered tour bus, and starts flying stand-by on flights not at full capacity,I'll start to take his rants seriously.

That makes as much sense as discounting his views because he has the same name as a brand of car.

liberal supporter said...

Despite the hysterical shrieking all over the blogsphere, Suzuki's rhetoric has caused the article to receive a much wider audience than it would otherwise. Some folks may actually read it.

After reading the article, I see Suzuki provided a forceful rendition of the old business school lecture about "externalities". Externalities are things outside the discussion, originally intended for simplifying economic models. But it has been abused to allow avoiding costs you'd rather not be paying.

For example, once you dump toxic waste into the river, it becomes an externality, i.e. someone else's problem. It's only in jurisdictions where the waste might be found, and traced back to you, and you get fined, that it suddenly stops being an externality. But it is still part of the calculation, and sometimes you continue to pollute and pay the fine as a part of the cost of doing business.

Oddly enough, when the penalty becomes jailing the executives, the same "externality" conundrum works the other way. Jailing the CEO becomes an externality as far as financials are concerned, but when faced with this, businesses tend to clean up their act anyway. Or move someplace where they can get away with it. Why not boycott products from such places, instead of boycotting the messenger? I do.

So, do all the snide comments about jailing other political leaders mean you prefer to have no penalties for polluters that involve jailing executives? After all, it is just science that determines their factories dumped the toxic waste, right? You might find it better to argue on the basis of doubts about the science involved.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

o, do all the snide comments about jailing other political leaders mean you prefer to have no penalties for polluters that involve jailing executives?

The issue I have with all this is Suzuki's attempt to egg on the young people to "look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science".

Just because we disagree with a political POV doesn't mean the politician or party should be thrown in jail - at least not in a free country.

Möbius said...

Based on what Suzuki said, Dion would be in the soup as well, so I don't think the Libs will be pushing too hard on this.

It's simple hyperbole, paid for with government dollars through his CBC salary.

Since no politician went to jail over sponsorship, I don't think it's likely it will happen over environmental policies.

Möbius said...

Since the IPCC says it is "likely" that 50% of observed warming is human caused, we should certainly give it some sense of urgency. Where the government can help is providing tax incentives to develop technologies. Kind of like the above market oil pricing that spurred Alberta's oil patch development in the 60s.

I agree with you to some extent. We need to immediately double the price of gas, and likely triple the price of electricity to start forcing conservation.

What is the likelihood of a CPC government doing that, if a so-called Liberal government did nothing in the last 10 years?

Möbius said...

And perhaps when Suzuki starts living in a 600 square foot rowhouse, run by solar power, sells his diesel-powered tour bus, and starts flying stand-by on flights not at full capacity,I'll start to take his rants seriously.

That makes as much sense as discounting his views because he has the same name as a brand of car.

You don't think pointing out his hypocrisy is relevant? How about Gore spending more on electricity in one month than I spend in two years. Your analogy is completely off-base.

liberal supporter said...

Based on what Suzuki said, Dion would be in the soup as well, so I don't think the Libs will be pushing too hard on this.
Not sure exactly what there would be to push, really. He wants government decisions treated with the same laws corporations live by?

But for the sake of argument, let's see. Dion was in a government that took us from $40 billion a year deficits to $10 billion a year surpluses. So we now have the money to pay for some initiatives. However, when the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to come into effect, the Liberals were in a minority and then out of power.

Meanwhile the CPC started off talking about "so called" global warming, and not only did nothing, but gutted all programmes that were being set up at the time. This month, they will formally renege on an international treaty.

It's simple hyperbole, paid for with government dollars through his CBC salary.
Yes, that's always what you guys want to do. Silence the messenger by attacking his livelihood. Kind of like the good old days of "fire anyone that talks about working conditions".

He was an invited speaker. Now all CBC employees must have their outside speaking engagements vetted by the PMO? Of course someone did suggest he run for office. Looks like you want him to act like he's already in the CPC caucus.

Since no politician went to jail over sponsorship, I don't think it's likely it will happen over environmental policies.
It's that old tracing the toxic waste problem. They never did trace it to deliberate decisions of Cabinet, did they? Unlike the reneging on Kyoto expected this month.


Just because we disagree with a political POV doesn't mean the politician or party should be thrown in jail - at least not in a free country.
So as long as it is a political POV it's ok?

I am starting a new party. The "dump sewage in peoples' yards" (DSIPY) party. No problem, right? I shouldn't be jailed if I dump sewage in peoples' yards, right? I just have a different POV. Or maybe I could start a religion. Would my religious freedom allow me to dump sewage in other peoples' yards?

Anonymous said...

Suzuki is encouraging action against an identifiable minority group and that is illegal in this country.
Where Levant and Styne inform' Suzuki incites.
He crossed a line and should pay a price, freedom of speach does not include inciting action against a group, any group.
Suzuki in his typical fashion is accusing the politicians of exactly what he is guilty of, ignoring the science. The lying little piece of......

liberal supporter said...

You don't think pointing out his hypocrisy is relevant? How about Gore spending more on electricity in one month than I spend in two years. Your analogy is completely off-base.
So a tobacco addict who says they want to stop but can't is a hypocrite as well? Those old ads with dying Yul Brynner telling people not to smoke show he was just a hypocrite?

Does this "hypocrisy" mean we can all go home and see if we can all double our carbon emissions? No problem because Al Gore uses a lot of power in his house?

Only problem with the hypocrisy card is that it is based on a bogus premise, as usual. Part of the reason Al Gore's hydro bills are higher (and no they are not 20x higher) is because he is paying a premium for green power. Solar and wind. Renewable. Not depositing carbon that was stored over millions of years. Check here

If you still don't like him having higher hydro bills, maybe you're not really a conservative. Usually conservatives don't begrudge someone else having a higher income and more money to spend.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Comment at SDA: "Maybe he should force them to start wearing denier patches on their suits."

Ha!

Möbius said...

It's that old tracing the toxic waste problem. They never did trace it to deliberate decisions of Cabinet, did they? Unlike the reneging on Kyoto expected this month.

Apparently, they did trace it back to the leader, or JC would not be in court now trying to fight Gomery's report conclusions. I love him, he just can't leave well enough alone. In the (hopefully) upcoming election, we'll be treated to articles about this, just to remind everyone why we changed governments.

But for the sake of argument, let's see. Dion was in a government that took us from $40 billion a year deficits to $10 billion a year surpluses. So we now have the money to pay for some initiatives.

Of course, taxpayers solved the deficit crisis, by paying more and more taxes, and accepting spending cuts. The Chretien government reacted to deficits only when external markets began to refer to us as a looming financial basket case. Thank God for that GST he was going to scrap. I suspect you're too young to remember the details.

I have admiration for Paul Martin for forcing JC to attack the deficit. To bad how he turned out when he got into power. It's been so long since I've seen him, I've forgotten what he looks like.

Ah yes, and we agreed to Kyoto when? And how many majority Liberal governments did nothing approaching what needed to be done since? Had the Liberals made an effort, any effort, we might have been able to meet the Protocol targets on time. I'm sure they were "studying" it like crazy.

Möbius said...

If you still don't like him having higher hydro bills, maybe you're not really a conservative. Usually conservatives don't begrudge someone else having a higher income and more money to spend.

I don't begrudge him his big house and shiny cars at all. More power to Big Al. I do think it's hypocritical to be a Minister and spend all your money on whores.

Möbius said...

So a tobacco addict who says they want to stop but can't is a hypocrite as well? Those old ads with dying Yul Brynner telling people not to smoke show he was just a hypocrite?

What a strange analogy. So Gore is "addicted" to using much more energy than the average person, but still preaching about it?

A better analogy is my dear old Dad. An inveterate smoker, he gave me a hard time when I took it up. Needless to say, that didn't make me quit. Hacking up my lungs in my 30's did.

liberal supporter said...

In the (hopefully) upcoming election, we'll be treated to articles about this, just to remind everyone why we changed governments.
I hope so too. You're focused on underlings mishandling money. We're focused on the top leadership mishandling a war.

You worry about 1/10 of 1% of the federal budget being stolen. I do too. But we worry more about the 10% of the budget being squandered so the next government will have no room to do anything without raising taxes.

Thank God for that GST he was going to scrap. I suspect you're too young to remember the details.

My company was happy to stop having to explain the hidden federal sales tax, and just tack on the GST separately.

Ah yes, and we agreed to Kyoto when?
1998 agreement.
2002 ratified.
1994 enough international ratification that it would come into effect.
1995 February 16, in effect.

And how many majority Liberal governments did nothing approaching what needed to be done since?
0. Zero majority Liberal governments were in power when Kyoto was certaion to come into effect. The Russians very nearly did not ratify it at all.

Had the Liberals made an effort, any effort, we might have been able to meet the Protocol targets on time. I'm sure they were "studying" it like crazy.
I am doubtful we would have met the targets, even had the rest of the world ratified in 1998. But we would have had a much better chance, since there would be time to actually do the research and development needed. We would not have had the last 2 years when programmes were actively being dismantled.

paulsstuff said...

"And perhaps when Suzuki starts living in a 600 square foot rowhouse, run by solar power, sells his diesel-powered tour bus, and starts flying stand-by on flights not at full capacity,I'll start to take his rants seriously.

That makes as much sense as discounting his views because he has the same name as a brand of car."

I'm sorry L.S., I was merely thinking about how Gore, Dion, Layton, and yes, Suzuki, seem to think we should lead by example whether countries like China and India sign on or not. I just figured that they might also lead by example themselves, and show us "deniers" how serious this is and why we must act.

But don't think for a minute that means giving up houses that could house 20 families, get rid of that inground pool(hydro sucker ya know), flying regular class(yech), driving a smart car9no place for the barfridge), using less hydro.

Nope, do as we say, not as we do.

"However, when the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to come into effect, the Liberals were in a minority and then out of power."

Time for the math lesson again.

Liberal's 1993-2004, majority government, meaning they could have passed any Kyoto legislation they saw fit.

Liberal's 2004-2006, minority, and only required either the Bloc or NDP to pass any Kyoto legislation.

So spare me the crap about minority government. They knew for years the commitments they signed onto, and instead emissions were up around 30% in 2005.

Guess they didn't get it done.

liberal supporter said...

What a strange analogy. So Gore is "addicted" to using much more energy than the average person, but still preaching about it?
No, he is not using a lot more, considering the size of his house, the part of the country he lives in, and the fact he runs an office out of the house.

Plus the fact that his message is to look at your usage and try to reduce it. He has and does.

A better analogy is my dear old Dad. An inveterate smoker, he gave me a hard time when I took it up. Needless to say, that didn't make me quit. Hacking up my lungs in my 30's did.
Still, I doubt you called him a hypocrite for telling you not to start. You probably figured that somehow you are immune. At least I did. But you start to smoke to be rebellious. Then you quit to be rebellious again, to prove you're tougher than the old man and can do it.

liberal supporter said...

I was merely thinking about how Gore, Dion, Layton, and yes, Suzuki, seem to think we should lead by example whether countries like China and India sign on or not. I just figured that they might also lead by example themselves, and show us "deniers" how serious this is and why we must act.
China and India are in fact signatories. They get a by on this first round, but we have the ability to do the research. They can't.
But they are signed on.


So spare me the crap about minority government. They knew for years the commitments they signed onto, and instead emissions were up around 30% in 2005.
And until November 16, 2004, it may not have come into effect at all. It's hard enough working with 50% of the emitters while the rest get a by, it would be much harder all by ourselves. So they did things like getting the financial house in order.

It certainly is frustrating to scrimp and save up for something only to have a new government come in an squander it all.

paulsstuff said...

L.S., here are the facts on Gore's actual hydro use in kWh per year, and the fact that he buys carbon-offsets from a company he owns is even more of a croc. Here's an idea:

Cut back your hydro use to more normal numbers, and that hydro saved can be used by other consumers wanting clean energy but who don't have $100 million in the bank to buy offsets.





“Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES)."

Lest we not forget that in his celluloid tribute to junk science, “the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.”

As a frame of reference, “[t]he average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.”

By contrast, in 2006, Dr. Global Warming “devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.”

The release elaborated:

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.


Yet, the really delicious hypocrisy was still to come: “Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.”

paulsstuff said...

"And until November 16, 2004, it may not have come into effect at all. It's hard enough working with 50% of the emitters while the rest get a by, it would be much harder all by ourselves. So they did things like getting the financial house in order."

So what, if it wasn't ratified we should do nothing?

That pretty much throws out the window, Dion, Gore, Layton and Suzuki's argument about leading by example then.

Thanks for pointing that out L.S.

liberal supporter said...

So what, if it wasn't ratified we should do nothing?
It wasn't ratified, so we concentrated on getting the financial situation in order. The surplus was pretty much there for getting started quickly. Had it been ratified earlier, the implementation could be stretched out more.

That pretty much throws out the window, Dion, Gore, Layton and Suzuki's argument about leading by example then.
Your first premise is wrong, so your conclusion does not follow.

The more countries that are on board, the more effect "leading by example" has. The world trading systems worked better as more countries joined the GATT (now WTO) for example.

Tom said...

Same old story we see over and over again. Those who question man-made climate change are to be discredited and silenced. The climate alarmists don't have to answer the difficult questions that challenge or conflict with their view. Real scientists welcome questions and do their best to support their claims through rational answers. Suzuki is ignoring science through not maturely dealing with critics and scientists who present evidence conflicting with the man-made climate change doctrine.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Please don't take a break Joanne,we need you. There might be an election this Spring and people have to somehow find out the truth

lol! I didn't realize I was so indispensable, Ruth.

Actually, I may be forced to take a bit of time off shortly to deal with an ailing monitor.

liberal supporter said...

Please don't take a break Joanne,we need you. There might be an election this Spring and people have to somehow find out the truth

I wholeheartedly agree!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I wholeheartedly agree!

Something tells me that your meaning is not quite the same as Ruth's, L.S.

;)

Möbius said...

Yet, the really delicious hypocrisy was still to come: “Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.”

Mine went from around 700 kWH per month to about 900 per month in the last few years, after I got that "modern central air-conditioning". Barring the A/C addition, I've reduced my consumption steadily each year.

Of course, I don't run an office preaching others how to conserve.

Möbius said...

Same old story we see over and over again. Those who question man-made climate change are to be discredited and silenced.

Not quite. Most scientists, myself included, believe man-made climate change is occurring.

Where we would argue is how to deal with it. Kyoto and carbon-trading systems? Not in my opinion.

The big stick (vastly increased prices on carbon-based fuels) is necessary. Neither the CPC or Liberals will do this to the extent necessary to help solve the problem. The biggest emitters won't as well.

Caveat said...

Kyoto is a red herring, it would have zilch effect on environmental problems. I thought everybody knew that by now.

The point of bringing up Suzuki's hypocrisy is that it IS hypocrisy. Let him set the example, like Ed Begley Jr, put his money where his mouth is. Anything else just makes him sound shrill. Show us how it's done, Dave.

I know that humans are affecting the earth in a negative way. Overpopulation, habitat destruction, pollution, who could possibly argue that it isn't true?

Global warming is just one possible outcome. What's happening right here and now is obervable and measurable and it's not just about greenhouse (water based) gases.

Being conservative doesn't mean being ignorant.

So, what are we going to do about it? When are we going to see serious grants for refitting houses with new technology, R&S programs, hydrogen cars, super fuel efficient cars, magnetic trains, intense recycling, the setting aside of habitats in perpetuity, the preservation of animal species, water, air quality?

When there's more money in being proactive than in being static, in protecting the earth than in pillaging and defiling it.

Until then, the individuals and handful of companies who are environmentally conscious are as effective as a drop in the sludge bucket.

Alberta Girl said...

Listening to the radio on Saturday, I heard one of the global warming "scientists" answer a query from a listener as to whether he would take Roy Green up on his offer to have a debate between any global warming believer and Tim Ball.

The "believer" said that he might do it but Tim Ball had a way of doing magic tricks with his data to make it seem correct.

My husband and I just laughed. Me thinks the only "magic tricks" being done is by the pseudo-scientists who play games with the data.

Not to the "believers" - hard facts from a climatologist trump the pseudo-facts from a Fruit Fly Guy and a Failed Presidential Candidate - both whom have a vested interest in the world buying into their "facts"

liberal supporter said...

Not to the "believers" - hard facts from a climatologist trump the pseudo-facts from a Fruit Fly Guy and a Failed Presidential Candidate - both whom have a vested interest in the world buying into their "facts"

Are they not simply popularizers of the IPCC's view? How big do you suppose this great conspiracy actually is?

Why is a debate now the way to resolve scientific issues? If you want to pit debaters against each other, why not have a full court case, with real trial lawyers instead of these amateurs? I understand the Biblical Creation account was proven in a court case in 1925. Should this important scientific debate be laid to rest in a similar fashion?

Even though I have a lot of scientific background, I doubt I could win a debate on the question of whether cars operate due to the mechanical contraptions contained there in. Someone more skilled in rhetoric than I could no doubt win a debate and thereby prove that cars are simply magical creatures that serve us.

Ah, I see it is lunch time. Excuse me while I perform the car starting incantation (if it doesn't start, Joanne would delete my "alternate" incantation).