David Suzuki insults, but won’t debate

David Suzuki, Canadian environmental activist

Image via Wikipedia

As the climate scare fizzles, Canada’s celebrity environmentalist resorts to ad hominem attacks

Guest post by David R. Legates

David Suzuki has never met, debated or even spoken with my colleague, scientist Willie Soon. But as more people dismiss Mr. Suzuki’s scare stories about global warming cataclysms, Suzuki has resorted to personal attacks against Dr. Soon and others who disagree with him.

Dr. Soon’s brilliant research into the sun’s role in climate change has helped make millions aware that carbon dioxide’s influence is far less than Suzuki wants them to think. In a recent column that was picked up by the Huffington Post and other media outlets, Suzuki attacked Dr. Soon, mostly with a recycled Greenpeace “investigation” that is itself nothing more than a rehash of tiresome (and libelous) misstatements, red herrings and outright lies. It’s time to set the record straight.

First, the alleged corporate cash. Suzuki claims Dr. Soon received “more than $1 million over the past decade” from US energy companies – and implies that Dr. Soon lied to a US Senate committee about the funding. In fact, the research grants were received in the years following the Senate hearing; the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics took nearly half of the money (for “administration”), and what was left covered Dr. Soon’s salary, research, and other expenses including even toner for his printer.

By comparison, the Suzuki Foundation spends some $7 million every year on its “educational” and pressure campaigns – many of them in conjunction with various PR agencies, renewable energy companies, other foundations and environmental activist groups. They all stand to profit handsomely from Suzuki’s causes, especially “catastrophic climate change” and campaigns to replace “harmful” fossil fuels with subsidized, land-intensive, low-energy-output, “eco-friendly” wind and solar facilities.

Under another convoluted arrangement, the Suzuki Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, University of Alberta, US-based SeaWeb and other organizations provided or divvied up some $23 million, to promote an anti-fish-farming campaign. The years-long effort suddenly and inexplicably ended – and all traces of it disappeared from the Suzuki Foundation website – after Vancouver-based researcher Vivian Krause raised serious questions about its claims.

And yet Suzuki is criticizing Dr. Soon – while alarmist climate catastrophe researchers share over $6 billion annually in US and Canadian taxpayer money, and millions more in corporate cash, to link every natural phenomenon to global warming and promote renewable “alternatives” to fossil fuels.

If it is wrong to receive grants from organizations that have taken “advocacy” positions, then virtually every scientist with whom Suzuki has associated would be guilty. Even Suzuki recognizes this. “We should look at the science, and not at who is paying for the research,” he wrote recently.

But if he truly believes  real science must stand or fall on its own merits, not on the source of its funding – why does he insist on double standards and continue to attack Dr. Soon over his funding sources?

Second, Suzuki repeats an absurd Greenpeace claim that Dr. Soon tried to “undermine” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “peer-reviewed” work. In reality, scientists are required to examine, review and even criticize other scientists’ research – especially when it is used to justify slashing the hydrocarbon energy on which our jobs, living standards and civilization depend.  In reality, the IPCC solicits reviews of its publications but is under no obligation to address any criticisms that scientists raise – in contrast to the normal peer-review process.

Moreover, the IPCC refuses to conduct its own quality control – and repeatedly promotes scare stories about rising seas, melting Himalayan glaciers, disappearing Amazon rainforests, more severe storms and droughts, and other disasters. By now anyone familiar with the Climategate and IPCC scandals knows these headline-grabbing claims are based on nothing more than exaggerated computer model outputs, deliberate exclusion of contrary findings, questionable air temperature station locations, and even “research” by environmental activists.

Third, Suzuki’s most egregious distortion of reality involves the Climate Research journal’s handling of two papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, regarding solar links to climate change. The publisher concluded that the manuscript editor had “properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions,” and the authors “revised their manuscripts accordingly.”

However, when Dr. Hans von Storch became editor-in-chief, he circulated a hurriedly written editorial declaring that the review process had failed, and the Soon-Baliunas manuscripts should not have been published, due to alleged “methodological flaws.” He intended to publish the editorial prior to a US Senate committee hearing, thereby discrediting Dr. Soon. von Storch even asserted that Soon and Baliunas should be barred from publishing again in Climate Research – a disciplinary action usually levied only for convictions of plagiarism or fraud.

The publisher refused to publish the editorial until the editorial board could be consulted – which meant after the hearing. So von Storch and other editors and review editors resigned. Senator Jeffords highlighted the resignations during the hearing. But fortunately, I was a hearing witness and provided a correct account.

Nevertheless, after the hearing, the publisher changed his mind and said the Soon-Baliunas paper should not have been published. I resigned as review editor because I felt the journal had succumbed to pressure from activist scientists and was no longer an unbiased outlet for healthy climate change debates.

Climategate made it clear that the truth was even worse. The emails paint a vivid picture of advocacy scientists strong-arming the publisher, threatening to destroy Climate Research by boycotting the journal, and intimidating or colluding with editors and grant program officers to channel funding to alarmists, publish only their work, and reject funding requests and publications from any scientists who disagreed with them on global warming chaos. Suzuki’s increasingly strident and desperate attacks mirror their campaign, as do Al Gore’s – and no wonder.

The global warming scare has fizzled. The sun has entered a new “quiet” phase, and average global temperatures have been stable for 15 years. Climate conferences in Copenhagen and elsewhere have gone nowhere. Kyoto has become little more than a footnote in history. Countries that agreed to “climate stabilization” policies are retreating from that untenable position. The public realizes that climate science is far from “settled.” The climate-chaos religion is about to go the way of Baal-worship.

Most important, Canadians, Americans and Europeans alike are beginning to realize that the real dangers are not from global warming.

They are from potentially cooler global temperatures that could hamstring agriculture – and from government (and Suzuki-advocated) policies that are driving energy prices so high that companies are sending jobs to Asia, and millions of families can no longer afford to heat and cool their homes, drive their cars, or pay for electricity that powers all the wondrous technologies that make our lives infinitely better, safer and healthier than even kings and queens enjoyed just a century ago.

 

Dr. David R. Legates is Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware and a former review editor for the journal Climate Research.  He has worked with Dr. Willie Soon since they were the first to uncover the flaws in the so-called ‘Hockey Stick’ in 2002.

 

About these ads

153 thoughts on “David Suzuki insults, but won’t debate

  1. “Suzuki has resorted to personal attacks against Dr. Soon”

    That’s the default setting……….the more they do it, the more they turn people off and open their eyes

  2. The Suzuki/Gore nexus are terrified that the AGW gravy train is ending. I hope that it costs them their fortunes.

  3. “In a recent column that was picked up by the Huffington Post and other media outlets, … “

    No! Not the Huffington Post! (What the shrinking-circulation ‘New York Times’ may not see fit to give ‘life’ to, the AOL-acquired Hufffing and Puffington post will does …)

    Say it isn’t true Buckey!

    /pure sarc

  4. Us Great White Northers have been watching Davey “Dr. Fruit Fly” Suzuki for years because the Canadian Broadcorping Castration has provided him with a TV Bully Pulpit from which to rant & rave and flog his “Humans Suck” message.

    He still is much loved by the warmista/progressive/PETA crowed up here but anyone else that can read & think for themselves knows he is well past his best before date and plumbs new depths of enviro hypocrisy with every new Press Release from his “Foundation”

    I met him years ago . . . he was a bitter, angry man who refused to forgive and can’t forget that his family was one of the thousands of Japanese who got a rough go in WW2. Can’t change that but his on going campaign for vengeance for what happened in WW2 makes him a loser.

  5. “all the wondrous technologies that make our lives infinitely better, safer and healthier than even kings and queens enjoyed just a century ago” so often forgotten by so many.

  6. Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.

    Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?

  7. It’s terrible to age ungracefully. I remember watching Suziki on the CBC back in the 70’s. I liked his programs. Today he is but a shell of his former self.

  8. Oh, boy, David Suzuki – the Canadian Paris Hilton of poor taste, fashion, and common sense. Famous because of the CBC, the Canadian AGW jihadist TV station run by the left and far left wing on the taxpayer dime here in Canada. Personally speaking I’m severely struggling to write without using every swear word in my arsenal – Suzuki is that detested by the majority here in Canada. My hometown, Fort McMurray, Alberta home of the Canadian oil sands and Suzuki have a long and mutually relationship built on pure loathing. Of course the coward doesn’t have the gonads to debate Soon – he doesn’t even have the gonads to debate anyone. Suzuki has recommended all “deniers” should by jailed – and still the CBC highlights this fool and throws big bucks for his eco-fanatic end of the world CBC television show. And like all AGW eco-fanatics Suzuki’s audience are the left and the far left he rarely if ever fails to disappoint. Thank GOD we have a conservative majority government in Canada who removed us from the Kyoto accord driving Suzuki and his eco-freaks into near suicidal frenzied of agony. Trust me Soon would do well to ignore this Chicken Little – Suzuki’s day has passed by him by – however like all AGW fanatics who have lost the war we’re just beginning to witness the desperation of the true believers – or the lost of the easy AGW revenue base. Personally thinking – I believe it’s the latter. And of course fading into irrelevance – now that’s justice!

  9. Suzuki and his wife cry themselves to sleep over global warming every night . I think the cheese fell off this man’s cracker awhile ago.

  10. Can a Leopard change its spots? He can’t help it. The CAGW ideology has him under its spell. Well, ok, the money, power and fame aren’t bad, either.

  11. Amazing that $1m of research can overturn $6bn of research really.

    Also that out of the $6bn there wasn’t enough money to pay for someone to come in and do the filing a couple of afternoons a week.

  12. Is there anyone left that doesn’t lol, when they hear the name David Suzuki? Well, perhaps not Dr. Soon, and that’s understandable, but, Suzuki is simply the butt of climate jokes now.

    Dr. Legates, I have sincere sympathy for the position researchers such as you are in. Scores of your “colleagues” have made a mockery of your profession. The once esteemed journals so eagerly succumbed to the influence are no longer regarded as outlets for legitimate scientific discourse. In fact, it is their advocacy that will lead to an entire reconsideration of what passes for valid science. Today, it seems like on a nearly daily basis, some peer-reviewed piece of ….. laughable facsimile of science gets published.

    I believe it is past time to change the definition and procedure for what passes as science. The garbage that gets put out today isn’t worth reading. I used to like the challenge of picking a paper apart, now….. much of what we see today isn’t worth commentary. ———– “I saw floating dead polar bears!!!” ——— “A model told us the ocean is going to rise 30 feet!!!” ——- “Pollen will increase with CO2!!!!”——— “Forests cause GHGs!!!!”

    Sorry for the cynicism, but I’m sure it can’t be any worse than what you see in your circles.

    James

  13. The Suzuki-Gore tactic of demonising anyone with even tenuous links to the fossil fuel energy ha sbeen hugely successful. Basically it clears the field so that only one voice can be heard, and only one line of arguement can be published. Then they can say without contradiction that sceptics rarely publish anything substantive.

    Unfortunately, as the majority of working scientists, engineers etc are employed in industry rather than in academia, the tactic Suzuki-Gore tactic has had the effect of drastically reducing the pool of talent from which useful research can be drawn. This is a shame as it appears that in the real commercial world the standard of scientific research is higher than it is in academia. Standards basically have to be higher outside academia because there is far greater accountability out there. Scientists working in industry have to meet a high standard of scholarship. They are accountable for the time they spend and for the money they spend. They also need to be as correct in their findings as possible because somebodies money (shareholders, company owners etc rather than the endless taxpayer pocket) is on the line. This extends to health and safety as well because the work they do may ultimately have consequences in terms of death or injury if not done to the highest standards. There is very little in the way of academic freedom to hide behind in the private sector.

    In the private sector researchers need to perform. If they don’t then they will be looking for a new occupation. In academia the “publish or perish” system for job security and promotion does not inevitably lead to a quality product.

    There are plenty of sharp minded scientists out there in the private sector. The expertise they represent is being squandered in relation to climate science at present. The research carried out in the private sector is generally cutting edge stuff, and typically just as complex as climate science. From a public interest perspective why wouldn’t we want to tap in to this resource. I think the answer is clear. The climate alarmism cult is frightened by the massive pool of talent available in the private sector, and will do anything to marginalise the ability of that sector to make a contribution to climate science.

    Lets open up the door to competative tendering for a component of the climarte science research budget. If we do then within a few short years the quality and quantity of genuine science thart is published will increase markedly. New perspectives will emerge. Scrutiny will increase. Progress in the improved understanding of the climate will accelerate.

    Thats my 2 cents worth for today.

  14. This seems like a watershed moment to me. We should do everything we possibly can to turn back Suzuki’s criticism of Soon. It is surely a case of enough is enough. At very least Suzuki’s attack on Soon highlights the fact that the CAGW supporters are indeed on the run. More power to your elbow Anthony.

  15. I think ad hominem attacks have a proper place in the climate debate. If the science was blatantly clear and easily replicable, then we could stick only with the hard evidence. But climate science is too complex for most of us to figure out who is telling the truth when the entire climate science community is defending the attempt to “hide the decline”. When it is so easy to insert a fudge factor into the evidence, or drop some contradictory evidence, those who bring the evidence have to have some credibility. Many people don’t believe in honesty any more than enough to fool people. There are scientists on both sides with this problem. Appeal to authority doesn’t settle an issue, but evidence supplied by scoundrels is not to be given much weight.

  16. Bystander says:
    August 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.

    Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?

    =============================================================
    We do it all just for you………………………………….

  17. All Soon and Baliunas did was gather up hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers and collate it into a regional emphasis climate article that suggested there was indeed an Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age. This caused the Team to almost have a coronary and they went “All In” to get it discredited.

    To the Team, it was a “bad paper”, to quote Michael Mann. The hockey stick was, at the time, the “new” accepted wisdom and the paper called that into question. Boards were forced to resign. Soon and Baliunas were blackballed. Soon is still on the hitlist to this day.

    But we now know that it was, in fact, a “good paper” because there really was a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age and the hockey stick was … well something else. Read the paper yourself and decide.

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

  18. While all this finger pointing and name calling is interesting, it is not science. Good science and solid observations will carry the day, regardless of who calls names and who writes damaging emails. I would REALLY like it if WUWT would get out of the gossip business and get back to looking at the evidence.

    If we need to look at anything, it’s what the real data says, and what our investigations tell us about the relationships between TSI, Solar magnetic flux, cosmic rays, cloud formations, ocean currents, Pacific and Atlantic oscillations, and greenhouse gases. We need to put our own peer reviewed science out there, if we have to start our own circle of Pal review and our own Journals to do it. As my friends across the pond would say, the truth will out.

  19. MindBuilder says:
    August 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    I think ad hominem attacks have a proper place in the climate debate.
    =====================================================

    Ad hominem is a fallacious argument tactic by definition.

    From Webster….. “appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. 2. : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the …”

    Mind, the problem with using prejudices is that they are often incorrect assumptions. For instance, many alarmists believe “Big Oil” is resistant to the climate change agenda. They are not. To them, this is an opportunity for larger profits. If all prejudices were correct, then ad hominem would have a place other than political rhetoric and gamesmanship, where winning is more important than doing good.

  20. At 4:32 PM on 16 August, Bystander writes:

    Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.

    Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?

    When has what’s been written on this Web site risen to the levels of libel and criminal fraud?

    Loathe though I am to feed any starving lawyers, I’d think that Dr. Soon has a case for both compensatory and punitive damages against this Suzuki stronzo.

    Be nice to see the allocation of that “$7 million every year” of Suzuki Foundation spending “on its ‘educational’ and pressure campaigns” turned over to Dr. Soon in perpetuity as funding for his research and the work of Dr. Soon’s associates in the skeptical examination of the preposterous bogosity of the AGW scam.

  21. Bravo, Mr. Legard, for a rational account of then ” Climate Research ” resignations.

    Unlike a certain ” Inconvenient ” has- been who makes his hypocrisy and corruption well known, David Suzuki has hid his biases a little better. He’s still as corrupt, and thanks for bringing this out into the open.

  22. Ted Swart says

    “This seems like a watershed moment to me. We should do everything we possibly can to turn back Suzuki’s criticism of Soon. It is surely a case of enough is enough. At very least Suzuki’s attack on Soon highlights the fact that the CAGW supporters are indeed on the run. More power to your elbow Anthony.”
    * * *
    Much agreed, but I’m just not sure what this would acomplish, as Suzuki has no intention of turning back from his propaganda, nor will admit he’s wrong. He is not a scientist in the slightest.

    However, a link to this great article of WUWT left on his website might let him know that not everyone drinks his ” Green Kool-Aid.” ( Too paraphrase Steve McIntyre)

  23. It gets better. Appearently someone in the media saw Suzuki and wanted to ask him some questions. She indicated she had written to him before with these questions. When he recalled who she was he told her to F-off. This is not hearsay, the woman was interviewed on Sun News today.

  24. I always laugh at how the warmists trolls like Bystander make a throwaway comment without any proof in the hope it will be accepted. Unfortunately for him , regular readers to this site know that we only play the ball , never the man. So go ahead Bystander, show just one single example of an ad hom attack. Just one. Should be easy shouldn’t it?

  25. I completely agree with your position but I strongly suggest you refer to him as Dr. Suzuki. respect starts at home.

  26. Thanks J Felton. Your suggestion seems a good one. What about a mass campaign directed at Suzuki asking a simple question:

    Why will you not debate Soon?

    If enough people did that and it became known that they did that it might just cause Suzuki to bend. The debate would, of course, be lop sided since the evidence for AGW (which never really existed in the first place) is being eroded by the day.


  27. Bystander says:
    August 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.

    Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?

    Yes Bystander, we do read what is written here.

    Snark is to the written word as the smell of victory in the morning air.

  28. They are from potentially cooler global temperatures that could hamstring agriculture –

    Indeed. As if on cue, Washington State governor, Christine Gregoire (D) is requesting federal disaster assistance for the entire state.

    From the link:

    “Everyone knows we’ve had lousy weather this spring and summer, but most of us don’t suffer serious economic consequences as a result,” said Gregoire. “Farmers across the state have watched their crops develop late or fail to thrive during this year’s cold and wet weather. This is the first time in recent memory we’ve requested that USDA determine the extent of agricultural disaster statewide. My request is the first step in the process that allows growers to access any disaster mitigation tools they may need.”

    The last two years in Western Washington have been very cool year round. If this little dip is all it takes to warrant “disaster”, why on earth would environMENTALists want to return to CO2 levels, and presumably climate, of the Little Ice Age??

  29. I have been listening to David for more years then either of us choose to count. I do not fully understand what caused this fine scientific mind to become overly dramatic, more interested in entertainment then empirical accuracy and loose the scientific discipline and detachment of deductive reason for pseudo religion.

  30. Dr. Suzuki should be applauded and cheered for his anti-scientific, illogical and caustic behavior–It only proves “climsci” people like him have nothing substantive to their argument! They’re becoming more obvious in their loss as each day goes by.

    Go, Dr. Suzuki, Go! Be obnoxious to the extreme! We “love” you for it!

    (Gosh, I hope he stops by and reads this!)

    And the person above that insists that Dr. Suzuki should be respected because he carries the title of “Doctor” should have their head examined. Truth trumps “Dr.” any day.

  31. If Suzuki is so concerned about climate change, it seems strange that he would have so much invested in prime waterfront property in Vancouver. Surely Gore, Suzuki and Flannery would have sold their property and moved to higher ground if they thought the danger was real.

    http://maps.google.ca/maps/place?cid=17409738348056910091&q=kits+yacht+club

    Suzuki lives in the house right behind Kits yacht club. If you are looking for a great way to enjoy Vancouver, stop by the club and go for a sail or a paddle. Leave your navy blue blazer at home. Kits is jeans and T-shirts, having fun and getting out on the water. In the same location since 1934, a stone’s throw from the water, the clubhouse is still high and dry in spite of Hansen’s claims to the contrary. Sea level rise remains permanently 20 years in the future, no matter what the year.

  32. Its about time some one pushed back against this whack job. I’m canadian and have absolutely NO patience for Suzuki.

  33. “Robw says:
    August 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    I completely agree with your position but I strongly suggest you refer to him as Dr. Suzuki. respect starts at home.”

    I’m old enough to be a contemporary of Suzuki (and was, though not in the same schools). He walked away from his PhD the moment he graduated. There is nothing left to respect.

  34. “Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says:
    August 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm
    I have been listening to David for more years then either of us choose to count. I do not fully understand what caused this fine scientific mind to become overly dramatic”

    How about “follow the money”?

  35. As an addendum to my previous post, print convention today accords the title “Dr'” in print to Doctor’s of Medicine only. Other use is as a courtesy.

  36. ” CO2 is NOT changing climate. In the name of CO2 many are making. $$$ in Millions. By capturing conc: Deicers from Desalters 2*C can be very easily reduced. Welcome to visit Sarva Kala Vallabhan Group & Airconditioning of Mother Earth & comment “

  37. Re Anthony’s: The global warming scare has fizzled.

    And under its own weight. But also with thanks to you any many others who respect the scientific method and ideal, Anthony.

    God bless you and yours.

  38. I happened to be driving through Vancouver….

    … and making a left turn, I was suddenly confronted by a jaywalker!

    I slam on my brakes…. stopped in time for the pedestrian who leaped over the front of my car with a push and a wave…

    Ah…. Dr. Suzuki!… I waved back as he made a short run to the curb….

    Yes, I thought the world would be a better place had I NOT hit the brakes….

    But…
    … with all his fallacies, irrational rhetoric, misguided understandings…

    …the world still is a better place with him then without…

  39. Robw says:
    August 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    I completely agree with your position but I strongly suggest you refer to him as Dr. Suzuki. respect starts at home.
    =============================================================
    Indeed. But if none is given…..none is received. I think many should no longer be given the respect usually afforded to people that believe it is an honor to spend much of their productive lives slurping on the backsides of other people that hold the same honor….. all the while pretending that they are learning something. There is a point one comes to, when they realize the best learning comes from doing and not talking. I’ve some dear family members with the title of Dr…….. I’ve done more.

    You can call me Sexton or James, Mr. or dude or what ever. Respect is earned and not freely given…..staying in the comfort of an alma mater for as long as possible isn’t something to be particularly proud of……….. unless we’re going into the bottle vs breast conversation….

  40. Suzuki is a geneticist. Soon is an astrophysicist. Soon seems much more qualified to discuss how our sun is the main driver for climate change.

  41. Bystander says:
    August 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.

    Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?

    Great move, Bystander, You’ve admitted the case that Soon was attacked personally by saying “and you’re one also”, but haven’t made any case whatsoever for your own claim!

  42. Dr A Burns says:
    August 16, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    Suzuki is a geneticist. Soon is an astrophysicist. Soon seems much more qualified to discuss how our sun is the main driver for climate change.
    ==============================================

    Suzuki knows we’re predisposed to be really bad for nature…………… See? What would Soon know about that? :-)

    Anyone lending Suzuki any credence is of the same ilk…….though, I believe it is nurture and not nature that causes such predisposition.

  43. Dr. Legates,
    I’ve tried to follow this story through several accounts over the years, and I just end up confused. Your account didn’t really help, but it looks like you were close enough to the thing to have some real insight.
    I didn’t see a link to what Suzuki had to say about the publishing of Soon and Baliunas, so even though you’ve given an account, I don’t know how yours differs from his. I don’t end up knowing how Suzuki is misrepresenting what happened.
    I follow this much: Soon and Baliunas wrote the paper, and it was published. Van Storch didn’t like it, but the reason you’ve provided, “supposed methodological reasons” doesn’t explain why. Was it the methodology of the peer review process, or the paper? Did Von Storch ever really explain exactly what his criticisms were, and if so, do you feel they were invalid? More importantly, did Von Storch ever explain why he felt that Soon and Baliunas should not be published in that magazine again? Were S&B convicted of some publishing crime, such as plagiarism, and if not, if the paper had flaws but was published, why would that be S&Bs “crime” and not the reviewers crime, in which case it would be the reviewers who should never be allowed to review for the journal again?
    Further, what did the publisher say when they changed their mind…did they point to any supposed methodological or ethical considerations? Did the editorial board ever meet, and if so, is that also their conclusion?
    Lastly If I remember the Climategate letters right, it seemed to me that the Hockey Team were blaming Von Storch for the paper getting published…but from your account, it sounds like he wasn’t involved until after the paper was published. Is that the right sequence of events?
    Thanks,
    RDCII

  44. @David in Georiga on August 16, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    “If we need to look at anything, it’s what the real data says,. . .”

    That is the big problem. What is the “real data” of the Earth’s surface temperature over time? Anthony has pointed out many large and serious errors in that data. Others have, also. The “adjustments” that cool the distant past (pre – 1970 roughly) and warm the more recent past (post – 1970) are not the marks of good science. Chiefio on his blog has pointed out many, many serious errors and changing temperature locations while the keepers of the data were deleting many, many measuring stations.

    The result is that no one really knows if there’s been any warming, or much warming, or how much warming. If we in industry ran our data gathering and analyses in such a manner, every factory and refinery in the world would have either ground to a halt or exploded long ago.

    What we can (perhaps) reliably say is that some temperature measuring stations’ records show that there is no warming whatsoever for many, many locations. None, zip, nada, zero. Others show a slight cooling over an approximately 100 year span. What we must conclude from this is that CO2 is either capricious and selects which cities it chooses to warm, and which it chooses to ignore. Or, CO2 is not at all the direction mankind should be looking. CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere and to suppose that one city is warmed by CO2’s influence, while another nearby city is not is just absurd. Physics does not work like that. If a principle is truly physical, then it works impartially. In other words, CO2 is not nearly smart enough to play favorites.

  45. I have been to several of David Suzuki’s lectures over the years and he seems to get increasingly cranky with age and has a tendency to throw little hissy fits when contested. I gave up believing in what he claims he stands for, being we humans are using too many resources, be it fossil fuels and much of everything else in the environment. And yet he has produced 5 children – all of them the big middle class consumer category – so he hardly practices what he preaches. If he really believes in reducing human pressure on the planet he should have remained childless as a true believer to the cause. Basically I try not to listen to hypocrites as their real purpose in life is to feather their own nest despite what they may preach.

  46. Problems with the Mann Hockey Stick graph? The blue chip panel on the Mann Hockey Stick graph said this:

    “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”…”

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4

    The Mann Hockey Stick graph does not show a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age. It cannot be trusted to be accurate.

  47. People, if you’d bothered to investigate, you’d know that Soon’s body of climate work has been shown to be error-riddled nonsense and fantasy.

    Scientifically, Soon couldn’t carry Suzuki’s protractor..

  48. Bob says:
    August 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    [much blathering)

    Scientifically, Soon couldn’t carry Suzuki’s protractor..
    ===============================================
    Sure Bob, you can give examples….right?

  49. Last month I read the Wikipedia entry on the Soon-Baliunas paper, and it repeats the same story that the paper was so bad several people at Climate Research resigned over it. Sounded fishy but I couldn’t find a succinct write-up on what really happened.

    Thanks for providing the rest of the story.

  50. Bob says:
    August 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    People, if you’d bothered to investigate,…..[much blathering]
    ======================================================
    ‘Cause you’ve investigated………right?

    I’ve got several Soon papers…….. Suzuki? Well, I’m not into genetics….. ..Do they use protractors in genetics? He might know more than I do in the subject of genetics…..climate? My grandchildren know more. Heck, you’d probably know more if you bothered to think instead of investigate the lunacy of that whack job.

  51. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 16, 2011 at 8:27 pm
    _____________________________________

    Apparently, he still uses a protractor. It’s purportedly somewhat weighty too.

  52. James Sexton wrote regarding “ad hominem”:
    From Webster….. “appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. 2. : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the …”
    I was unaware of definition one for “ad hominem”, regarding feelings or prejudices. I had thought it was an attack on a person like in definition two, and from the latin meaning of ad hominem “to the person”.
    I totally agree that arguments based on feelings or prejudices are inappropriate. But while I’m aware that attack on a person is often considered a logical fallacy, I don’t think it is inappropriate here. We can’t always make our judgments based purely on sound logical evidence. If we are unable to determine by our own evidence gathering and analysis whether an argument is sound, we may have to rely on our judgment of the credibility of the experts.

    It is not only OK that we do this, but inevitable. Take for example a voter with little scientific training. The voter must make a judgment about the issue, if nothing other than whether it is safe to ignore it. When climate scientists tell voters that the risk of great disaster is far too high to be ignored, the voters who can’t gather and analyze the evidence themselves, must asses the credibility of the experts on each side. In cases like this, where the entire climate science community has been and is defending the hiding of data, both in graphs and in spite of freedom of information laws, even a scientist with advanced skills may have to make a judgment about the urgency of the problem in the face of doubts about the evidence that are impractical to resolve in the near term. That judgment will rest in large part on credibility.

  53. Fred from Canuckistan says:
    August 16, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    I met him years ago . . . he was a bitter, angry man who refused to forgive and can’t forget that his family was one of the thousands of Japanese who got a rough go in WW2. Can’t change that but his on going campaign for vengeance for what happened in WW2 makes him a loser.

    An unfortunate side truth about Dr. Suzuki. But it doesn’t erase the fact that he is angry and bitter about EVERYTHING. Just ask Tim Ball. Fortunately, there is a resurgence of reason in Canada led by the likes of Andrew Miall, who organized a conference (ignored by the Broadcorping Castration) in Ottawa, examining the climate issue. No alarmists appeared, despite invitations to do so. The jig is up, David.

  54. Fred Berple,
    While not trying to dismiss legitimate criticism of Suzuki, I need to point out that I have walked/driven past Suzuki’s house many times over the years. For what it’s worth, he has been living in that house for many years, long before global warming-induced sea level rise became a fashionable cause-celebre. And the house is on an escarpment, some 12 m above the water level. So, even with the most extreme sea level rise projections (Al Gore perhaps excepted), his home is in no risk of inundation.

  55. Suzuki is an embarrassment to Canada. He is so putridly infected with his hatred of white westerners that he cannot stop preaching his Pol Pot ideology. He manages to twist all science into a presentation about the morality of our successful Western energy intensive consumer society and the absolute necessity of going back to a sustainable agrarian socialist society. Like many left wing nut jobs he is also a total hypocrite and does not live anything close to a sustainable lifestyle.

  56. I’m Canadian. I still live in Canada (not for lack of trying). Do people actually watch the CBC for anything other that Simpson’s re-runs and good hi-def sports?

  57. Suzuki still flies to Ottawa with Air Canada despite the solar battery on his back pack…LOL
    Glad the work of Vivian Krause is recognized here!

  58. MindBuilder says:
    August 16, 2011 at 9:00 pm
    ………In cases like this, where the entire climate science community has been and is defending the hiding of data, both in graphs and in spite of freedom of information laws, even a scientist with advanced skills may have to make a judgment about the urgency of the problem in the face of doubts about the evidence that are impractical to resolve in the near term. That judgment will rest in large part on credibility.
    =======================================================

    Mind, it cannot be the entire climate science community if several climate scientists disagree. Willie Soon being one of many. Indeed, the author of this article, David R. Legates, is one of the community. It is beyond silly to believe or even purport the entire climate science community is in agreement on this issue. We both could list several more climate scientists who for some reason or the other, disagree with the media’s view of the science.

    The way you were presenting the thought, was a “consider the source” argument. Which, at times may be valid, however, if one did “consider the source”, then we’d have to acknowledge the source of the opposing view also stands to, and does, gain considerable finances. In other words, using the ad hominem is still a fail.

    Voters, while it is incumbent upon them to inform themselves, they should understand they can’t inform themselves about every issue. When the occasion arises, that they can vote on specific issues, and they aren’t properly informed on the specific issues, they should abstain. It is their civic duty to abstain from voting on issues they know they don’t understand.

  59. In an interview on global warming Suzuki had this to say.

    Dr. David Suzuki: I do despair. My wife and I huddle at night and weep for our helplessness. We are losing big-time and I’m enough of a scientist to see we are heading right down the tube.

    When he thinks of global warming it makes him sad. It makes me think of this GEICO commercial:

  60. Interesting to hear how many Canuks are fed up with the Man of TV Science. I read Soon’s paper and criticisms of it, and rebuttals and the guy is correct: the sun’s variations are much more important than CO2 to global temperatures. What seems to piss people off is Soon knows what he is talking about and has the relevant scientific credentials his critics do not possess.

    I also note that comments that are pure ad hominem have no effect whatsoever on the arguments and proofs that the climate is dominated by solar events. Libelling the messenger is rarely effective in the long run. If a man of popular standing with massive access to TV and its consequent influences as Dr Suzuki cannot sell CAGW to the people around him, the movement has no future as a social and economic imperative.

  61. David Suzuki is a TV star, plain and simple. He narrates (Gore received a Nobel for his narration), an entertaining science program – The Nature of Things. For those educated primarily by TV: He is the Man!

    Suzuki, like Hansen, bought into CAGW early, by first report data, synchronicity with socialistic ideology, and went “ALL IN”. All in, for these men, meant the mission was so important – that the end justifies the means. Once this line was crossed, he became a non-scientist, and the letters after his name… decorations. Influence and large sums of money greased the path beyond the point of no return. Pity! GK

  62. Bystander says:
    August 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    “Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.”

    Careful, that white powder will rot your brain.

    “Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?”

    Actually, I could give a rats arse about it. Suzuki is no more credible than Kaku when he starts his bobble head yammering out side of his field. Both now fall far short of being scientists and are more of a little show ponies that the media trots out when they are trying to drum up attention to their point.

    And as for attacking them… the TRULY ironic part is they they place themselves on a pedestal and sling invectives at people who have differing views despite having no evidence to support their claim…. okay, no verifiable evidence. You know, that stuff that can stand on it’s own merit with out any cheerleading or obfuscation.

  63. It’s a given that Wikipedia is a biased source, so Dr Soon is mentioned as having received over US$1M from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.

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

    Contrast that entry with that of Dr Suzuki. There is no mention of his loot, only a list of honours, awards & honourary degrees.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._David_T._Suzuki

    Early in his research career Dr Suzuki studied genetics & is a zoologist. Where is his expertise in Astrophysics? He’s no Willie Soon, that’s for sure!

  64. Bob says:
    August 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    “People, if you’d bothered to investigate, you’d know that Soon’s body of climate work has been shown to be error-riddled nonsense and fantasy.”

    If any such work had been done, it’s a good bet it would have been discussed here. So perhaps you’re referring to Phil Jones’ email to Mann in which he said “Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow [Soon & Baliunas] even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    It is evident that while Soon had committed the sin of doing actual science, his detractors were busily engaged in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Greenarse Wankerism. They didn’t have a case in 2003 and they don’t have one now. Take off the blindfold and see where the real nonsense is taking us.

  65. James Sexton wrote:
    It is beyond silly to believe or even purport the entire climate science community is in agreement on this issue.
    I left out the qualifier – almost. Almost everyone on the alarmist side of the climate science community is defending the hiding, or at least failing to criticize it. For future reference, when it is claimed that everyone in a group of many thousands is doing something, it is usually not meant that every last one is doing it. Unless you think the difference is really material to the argument, don’t quibble the obvious. What I meant is that if so many of the alarmists are so willing to defend misleading science and hidden data, even an expert could find it very difficult to sift through the bad science and come to a reliable conclusion.

    if one did “consider the source”, then we’d have to acknowledge the source of the opposing view also stands to, and does, gain considerable finances. In other words, using the ad hominem is still a fail.
    Even if both sides are found to be unreliable sources, that is useful decision making information, not to be disregarded as a logical fallacy. If alarmists say you should spend a trillion dollars to stop global warming, but you find they consider it acceptable to hide data, you might reasonably consider that to be important information in deciding whether to spend that trillion.

    It is [voters] civic duty to abstain from voting on issues they know they don’t understand.
    I don’t generally agree with that. Sometimes the vast majority of voters who understand an issue are those with a special interest in the subject. Leaving the vote to only those who have a special interest is often not the best course for the people as a whole.

  66. Bystander says:
    August 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm
    Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.

    Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?

    Garethman says.
    I agree. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. If we are the good guys, we should not be behaving in the same way. And lets face it, a quick review of our posts will see some pretty obnoxious insults aimed at warmists from time to time. Don’t let this site get like Skeptical Science where cyber bullying is the norm rather than an aberration.

  67. I thought that Suzuki was great in the early days but I changed my mind 2 years ago he is on the gravy train sitting next to Al Gore and this mad mates

  68. Suzuki wrote this column a few years back. Its hows his utter lack of knowledge in the subject of global warming.
    From the good doctor:

    It has been known since the last century that carbon-bearing compounds are transparent to sunlight but opaque to infra-red. In other words, sunlight passes through carbon-containing air whereas infra-red heat rays tend to be reflected by the carbon.

    We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in.

    Suzuki made these 6 elemental scientific errors, in two short paragraphs.

    1. Carbon in glass? Maybe in the front windshield, sandwiched between 2 sheets of glass. As glass is mostly opaque to infrared (IR), its moot.

    2. Carbon compounds may or may not trap heat. Polyethylene, for example, is transparent to IR.

    3. Heat in the car is from modifying convection, not radiation. Decreased convection = increased radiation. Polyethylene vs glass in greenhouses shows no difference in heat retention, in spite of the different IR properties of the two barriers. The heat retention is from preventing convection.

    4. Glass is mostly opaque to IR, not the supposed carbon in it. Suzuki assumes it’s not opaque, by needing the “carbon” in it to stop IR.

    5. Carbon molecules may, or may not, allow visible light through. Again, it depends on the molecule.

    6. Suzuki says carbon bearing compounds REFLECT IR. Some compounds allow IR through. The ones that don’t, ABSORB IR photons, then re-emit photons. They don’t reflect.

    Suzuki wrote that column for a newspaper, but did not bother to research his facts. Suzuki is ignorant of simple elements of chemistry and physics.

    This man is not a scientist. Any university education has long since leaked out.

    Here is the column, and if I can steal a line from the Daily Bayonet, prepare to start banging your head on the desk, in an effort to make the stupid stop.

    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/suzuki/story.html?id=4bee3fa9-9a10-46f1-9d6a-648a19710b30

  69. Suzuki is not above trying hide when he is obviously wrong:

    Suzuki’s web site pulled articles and posts on salmon, after the salmon population recovered. Suzuki was stating “up to 95%” of salmon died from sea lice from salmon farms. He did not state the full range, 9% to 95%, and even that was based only on computer modeling.

    This article also shows the realtionship between the various actors and the foundations that support them. These foundations are admittedly promoting anti-salmon farming. In other words, the foundations are paying money to groups and researchers to flog the anti-salmon farming message.

    Again, US charitable foundations plays a prominent role in promoting Canadian “environmentalism”.

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/05/31/the-missing-sea-lice/

  70. Suzuki stated, in a radio interview, that his Foundation

    “corporations have not been interested in funding us.”

    A look at his 2006 annual report shows different facts. From an article by Joseph Ben-Ami, via Tim Ball on SPPI:

    Actually, the David Suzuki Foundation’s annual report for 2005/2006 lists at least 52 corporate donors including: Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Brothers, RBC, Canon and Bank of Montreal.

    The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants… which begs the question – is Suzuki now pro-nuclear power?

    The radio interview (the best part is where he loses it, and storms out):

    Tim Ball’s post:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/sad_legacy.html

  71. Of course, like Gore, hypocrisy runs rampant with Suzuki. He owns at least 2 homes, two of them on the ocean, of course. He may also own another home in Toronto, but I have not confirmed that. He might also own a little pied de terre in Vancouver, according to University records.

    He also, when not speaking on the evils of over population, has made time to have 5 children.

    http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2008/06/5_letters_6.html

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/Suzuki/2009/08/12/10440256-ca.html

    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/my-unexpected-encounter-with-david-suzuki-1.html

  72. How about a looming prospect of using lie detectors? Let’s get “our” people to pledge that they’ll take a lie detector test on live TV to declare that they are SINCERE in their belief that human CO2 is, say, not causing or not going to cause any amount of global warming large enough to be ‘X’ or cause ‘Y’. Let’s see shills like Suzuki, Mann, Schmitt, Hansen, etc. step up to make the same pledge to confirm their sincerity in believing the opposite. I just want to put them on the spot and force them to make excuses for their likely refusal to make the same pledge.

    Then the whole subject changes from science to integrity as I think it ought to at this point. Instead of ABC news asking a climate shill if they think the next heat wave, (snow storm, tornado, hang nail, etc), is going to be worse because of our CO2, the elephant sitting on their camera will always suggest that they first ask them the question “Why to you continue to refuse to pledge to take a lie detector test when all of these other distinguished PhD scientists have pledged to do so?”.
    Somehow, they need to be exposed and discredited for their arrogant dishonesty so that no one will listen to them or want to be associated with funding them any longer. Maybe there are other approaches to that end so, whatever it takes.

  73. And speaking of the lame tobacco reference he mentions, (they ALL do..), is it just me or does anyone else see the obvious connection as made apparent by the following quasi-algebraic parallel?

    Tobacco -> Declare it Bad (whether it is or not) = Collect a lot of tax money
    CO2 -> Declare it Bad (whether it is or not) = …..

  74. Dr. Fruitfly (the least pejorative name I can come up with for him) is a supreme hypocrite. He has a large house not far from UBC in Vancouver; some of the highest priced real-estate in that city. It’s my understanding that he also has another house on one of the small islands between the BC mainland and Vancouver island — again very high priced real estate. While he lives a luxurious lifestyle in one of the expensive cities of the world, he preaches about the need for everyone (excluding him) to decrease consumption and eliminate industrial civilization. I’m sure he buys carbon offsets which seem to excuse any level of excess consumption by the high priests of Gaia.

    In a classic example of CAGW cultists not practicing what they preach, he has absolutely no training in the area of climatology. He used to do research on fruit flies and I don’t think he’s done much work since the 1970’s. He did have some expertise in the area of molecular biology back then. Even when I was in my environmentalist phase in the 1970’s, my impression of one of his talks that I attended around 1974 was that he was an idiot. My opinion of him hasn’t gone up any during the last 35 years.

    He’s Canada’s version of Al Gore living a lifestyle that only a few percent of the population can afford and telling everyone else about why they should never aspire to his lifestyle. The only reason that he’s considered to have any scientific expertise is because of the Commie Broadcasting Corporation providing him an outlet for his views supposedly on science topics. Hopefully that outlet will soon be closed and the Canadian government can save $1.5 billion currently spent on Canada’s CAGW propaganda network.

  75. An angry man with a messiah complex and a bizzare dislike of humankind and a strange perception that we are killing the Earth mother Gaia. Shrieking like Gore but personally living the good life. A wasted and bitter life,sad and some what pathetic.

  76. Frank says:
    August 16, 2011 at 9:36 pm
    I’m Canadian. I still live in Canada (not for lack of trying). Do people actually watch the CBC for anything other that Simpson’s re-runs and good hi-def sports?

    ——

    Appearently so. I stopped watching CBC long ago, because of their gross leftist/socialist bias.

  77. Suzuki’s “Nature of Things” program is a great series (when it is not promoting global warming which is actually quite rare). It goes way back to before any of us, Suzuki even, had heard of global warming. Lately, it has been running a series called Geologic Journey which goes through the geologic/plate tectonics history of the Earth – 12 programs and it never mentions climate change or CO2. So, there is an actual scientist in there somewhere.

  78. Bystander says :-

    Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.

    Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?

    Suzuki is not a scientist.

  79. Mindbuilder says:
    August 17, 2011 at 12:21 am

    James Sexton wrote:
    It is beyond silly to believe or even purport the entire climate science community is in agreement on this issue.
    ==============================
    I left out the qualifier – almost. Almost everyone on the alarmist side of the climate science community is defending the hiding, or at least failing to criticize it. For future reference, when it is claimed that everyone in a group of many thousands is doing something, it is usually not meant that every last one is doing it.
    =======================================================

    Mind, I think at this point we should just agree to disagree about the use of ad homs

    I would point out though, I don’t believe there are thousands of alarmists in the climate science community. Much less constituting an overwhelming majority. A large majority to be sure, but I think I can name a skeptical scientist for every 2 or three alarmists I can name.
    =====================================

    “It is [voters] civic duty to abstain from voting on issues they know they don’t understand.”—JS

    “I don’t generally agree with that. Sometimes the vast majority of voters who understand an issue are those with a special interest in the subject. Leaving the vote to only those who have a special interest is often not the best course for the people as a whole.” ——MB

    And that, my friend, is why we have the president we do today. Can you describe to me an interest that you wouldn’t, or someone else wouldn’t classify as a ‘special interest’? I’ve long been an advocate of providing cheap and reliable energy to this entire nation…… that view is characterized as a “special interest”. The onus is upon the voter to educate himself(or her) as to the issues. Failure to do so and then voting on the issues anyway is a corruption of the process and damages the idea of democracy.

  80. Mike M says @ August 17, 2011 at 3:30 am

    Tobacco -> Declare it Bad (whether it is or not) = Collect a lot of tax money

    Are you saying that Tobacco isn’t bad for human health?

    Your analogy actually serves to just remind everyone of the skeptics using the Tobacco industry methods/tactics.

  81. As the chinese (not japanese) philosopher said: “Just wait seated at your front door and you´ll see the corpse of your enemy passing by” (Confucius). It´s a matter of time: The next winter and following winters will tell the truth….his words along all armageddonian forecasts will fall, as the carbon shares, frozen under a real reloaded and new “Maunder Minimum”… :-)

  82. Gareth Phillips says:
    August 17, 2011 at 12:31 am
    Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. If we are the good guys, we should not be behaving in the same way. And lets face it, a quick review of our posts will see some pretty obnoxious insults aimed at warmists from time to time. Don’t let this site get like Skeptical Science where cyber bullying is the norm rather than an aberration.
    Actually, given what the Warmist camp has done and/or is trying to do to science, to truth, and to humanity I believe we have shown remarkable restraint.
    Ditto with the feces-hurling Warmist trolls who grace us with their presence from time to time.

  83. Well, I hope this isn’t considered an “ad hom,” but I’d like to say, that Mr. Sexton should refrain from talking about what he thinks other people know about anything. Don’t vote because you don’t know about an issue? Oh, coming from a man who just knows it all! I’m SO unworthy, forgive me for polluting the voting process with my puny brain, you big jerk.

    Oh, that came off like an ad hom, dang it! Sorry! Nothing personal Mr. Sexton.

    Also, I’d like to see the title of this post changed to, “David Suzuki sulks, but won’t debate…”

  84. Darren Parker says:
    August 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm
    I always laugh at how the warmists trolls like Bystander make a throwaway comment without any proof in the hope it will be accepted. Unfortunately for him , regular readers to this site know that we only play the ball , never the man. So go ahead Bystander, show just one single example of an ad hom attack. Just one. Should be easy shouldn’t it?

    It’s the old childhood game of trying to get your goat. Don’t feed the trolls, and they will go away.

    We do have some warministas here who are regulars and who mostly try to engage people in a civil manner. Plenty of room for disagreement — one is not a troll simply for disagreeing with the ‘consensus opinion’ ;-) on this site.

  85. JPeden says @ August 16, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    ….but haven’t made any case whatsoever for your own claim!

    You must not read the forum comments here – there is a knee jerk attack on any one that challenges the “skepticism” and knee jerk cheer-leading for any post (regardless of how many laws of physics it breaks) that challenges AGW.

  86. Like Gore, his elite genetic makeup requires more than the replacement level of reproduction. 5 kids for him, but the genetically inferior should be limited to one child or less.

  87. David R. Legates wrote:
    “[…] anti-fish-farming campaign. The years-long effort suddenly and inexplicably ended – and all traces of it disappeared from the Suzuki Foundation website – after Vancouver-based researcher Vivian Krause raised serious questions about its claims.”
    [bold emphasis added to “inexplicably”]

    ANYTHING BUT “inexplicable”.

    You’ve missed something massive here.
    That was the MASSIVE salmon run of last year.

    The article by Vivian Krause, which I’ve never seen & can’t imagine had a fraction of the impact, certainly wasn’t the hammer. The hammer was NATURE itself.

    The problem as I see it is that the true environmental movement has been severely diluted (truly divided & conquered) by those who call themselves “environmentalists” but place worship of anthropogenic abstractions above observation of & respect for nature. There is an environmental movement vanguard (might look like a rearguard depending on one’s perspective) that sees things a little more clearly. Toxic pollution & land use are real environmental issues at the core.

  88. The first time I saw Dr. Suzuki was in 1989 when he debated Dr. Philip Rushton at Western (London Ont) on whether orientals were smarter than whites who were smarter than blacks. I did my homework – the science on this is so ridiculous (they had to adjust the data because blacks are bigger than whites who are bigger than orientals so unless you “normalize” the data you get the wrong answer). Suzuki showed up and engaged in ad hominem attacks and zero facts. He didn’t do his homework. Very frustrating for me because Rushton (who seemed like a racist to me) came out looking like the smarter guy.

    The last time I saw Dr. Suzuki a few years back he was in the Vancouver airport. He ordered a large double double at Tim Hortons and then carried his coffee onto an airplane. That, to me, is the calling card of the AGW leaders. Do as I say…

  89. “Robw says:
    August 16, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    I completely agree with your position but I strongly suggest you refer to him as Dr. Suzuki. respect starts at home.”

    Generally. around the world, Dr. is a courtesy title, as, indeed, is Mister. In many countries the law entitles those with certain qualifications to call themselves Dr., Eng. or whatever, but I have not come across one that makes such use obligatory and I don’t imagine that Canada is an oddity in this respect. Accordingly in the most unlikely event that I should ever find myself in Suzuki’s company, I would no more consider addressing him as “Doctor” than I would consider shaking his outstretched hand.

  90. “Dr. Soon’s brilliant research…”

    According to the Astrophysics Data System, he has 13 first-author peer-reviewed publications, and his most cited first-author paper has 35 citations. His papers have an average of 12.5 citations each.

    For a comparison, James Hansen has, according to the same database, 127 first-author peer-reviewed publications, with an average of 36.4 citations each, and the most cited having 488 citations.

    How are you defining “brilliant”?

  91. I’m a Canadian geologist working in the oil and gas industry. I’m a skeptic. He insults me by saying I am (not must be but “am”) an anti-environmentalist being paid by the oil industry to cause trouble. He also complains about being insulted.

    Suzuki is such an egomaniacal hypocrite.

  92. Bystander says:
    August 16, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    Snort – you guys complaining about personal attacks on scientists.

    Now that is ironic… Do y’all ever read what you write?

    Oh, I agree Bystander. It’s just that one side has been saying for a long time that the debate is over. Now that there’s legitimate reason to doubt and debate things, it seems the side that was claiming previously that debate was unnecessary because this was “Settled science” has abandoned reasoned arguments for self-promotion and ad hominem attacks. I would consider the comments here mere laughter at how the previously unassailable position of CAGW has fallen into throwing insults rather than talking and debating about how sound their “science” is.

  93. RDCII raises some good questions. Thanks to Bill Illis for linking to the paper. S&B 03 is a meta-analysis of various papers that reaches the conclusion that “the 20th century is probably not the
    warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” The primary thrust of the paper is actually the latter half of the conclusion, that studies not performed or sanctioned by the Hockey Team tend to not show anything particularly notable in the recent record. The Hockey Team was incredibly successful at strawmanning S&B 03 as a paleotemperature study by drawing attention to the ill-advised first half of the conclusion. The Team argument had some merit in the sense that precipitation and other tangential studies shed little light on paleotemperature. On the other hand, the second half of the S&B 03 conclusion, that we see little objective evidence of ongoing catastrophe, is well supported and a useful contribution to the literature.

  94. re: Suzuki is a geneticist.

    He even blew that expertise in his feud with J. Philippe Rushton who espouses significant heritability of IQ–something becoming more and more obvious.

    Dan Kurt

  95. Ran into this guy about ten years ago in northern Saskatchewan. (Canada). He was standing on the side of the road being interviewed by a CBC news crew. (native land claim issues I believe). This was before I was aware of the AGW fraud. I hated this dude even then. Its all I could do to not put my hands on buddy’s steering wheel… well you know the rest. Instead buddy honked his horn repeatedly to get their attention and when he looked over at us there were at least three middle fingers being waved. Its the least we could do for the fruitfly dude.

  96. Suzuki: We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in.

    Really?… REALLY???????????

  97. Let us all try very hard NOT to allow discussion to be sidetracked into the tobacco debate. If we want to discuss tobacco, then let’s start a new thread to discuss it. Please don’t respond to tobacco provocations. GK

  98. Megalomania is a terrible thing………….

    meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (mg-l-mn-, -mny)
    n.
    1. A psychopathological condition in which delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence predominate.
    2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions

  99. ferd berple says:
    August 16, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    If you had any idea how much time I spent poking around there as a kid… We lived a few blocks from there from 1970-1996, and I came to know every rock and tree all along the shore from the Planetarium all the way to Wreck Beach. Though I was a member of the RVYC… Much better sort of clientele there don’t you know. (lol) I believe I still hold the record time for for under 12’s, sailing a Laser solo from the RVYC across to Whytecliff then back again. Ah, the memories…

  100. David Suzuki won’t debate because he’s a lousy debater. I’ve seen him debate in the past and he is terrible. I saw him debate a guy who did not have a leg to stand on, the audience was completly on Suzukis side (including me), the other guy was a sitting duck and Suzuki still could not defeat the guy. I was astonished.

    No wonder Suzuki won’t debate, he will lose. And anyone who has seen him debate in the past knows this. It would be painful to watch, really.

  101. klem: I agree about his debating skills. It shows even in that newspaper column I quoted.

    He does not do research; does not know the science; and he apparently makes the science up if he doesn’t know it. Pathetic.

  102. @A Lovell says:
    August 17, 2011 at 9:15 am
    Megalomania is a terrible thing………….
    Very common in show business, as nowadays “farandula science” like Suzuki´s

  103. I think lots of scientist just are not great public speakers. And if they’re not they probably will not fair well in debates.

  104. juanita says:
    August 17, 2011 at 6:13 am

    Well, I hope this isn’t considered an “ad hom,” but I’d like to say, that Mr. Sexton should refrain from talking about what he thinks other people know about anything. Don’t vote because you don’t know about an issue? Oh, coming from a man who just knows it all! I’m SO unworthy, forgive me for polluting the voting process with my puny brain, you big jerk.
    ==========================================================

    lol, sorry about the offense Juanita, but I’ll stand by the assertion. But, I can’t take credit for the original thought. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. ———- James Madison

    Just to clarify, I do practice what I preach. If there is a question on a ballot I haven’t researched or a ballot of people of which I don’t have any particular knowledge, I abstain. I consider it the height of irresponsibility to vote on stuff of which one doesn’t have any particular knowledge. So, while I may be a big jerk, my conscience is clear in that I didn’t unknowingly impose upon my fellow citizens. Imagine all of the insipidly stupid laws that have been passed because the voters failed to properly vet the candidates. Imagine our nations if the citizenry had fulfilled their obligation before casting their ballots. I submit, we’d be an a far better position than we are today. But, maybe people like to be in a nation where the usurpation of liberties and capital are the norm and not the exception.

    I’m gobsmacked that people would argue for the strength of ignorance. But, that isn’t a first…….sigh

    Best regards,

    James

  105. Sonicfrog says:
    August 17, 2011 at 9:04 am

    Suzuki: We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in.

    Really?… REALLY???????????

    Carbon glass? is that like Transparent Aluminum? ☺

  106. Paul Ehrlich, the all time champion of apocalyptic predictions that have not come to pass is an honorary member of the Suzuki Foundation board.

    It makes perfect sense that Suzuki would appoint a board member who has been demonstrably wrong on major global issues than any human being on earth – birds of a feather!

  107. [Snip. No more personal attacks on Willis. Argue about his science, fine. But enough with the baseless jabs. ~dbs, mod.]

  108. James Sexton says “I’m gobsmacked that people would argue for the strength of ignorance..”

    Oh really…

    James Sexton says:
    June 14, 2011 at 6:33 am “I haven’t seen one alarmist even recognize the fact that the earth has cooled in the last decade or so.”

  109. Brian: your

    I think lots of scientist just are not great public speakers. And if they’re not they probably will not fair well in debates.

    But Suzuki is a great public speaker. But a great voice combined with lousy research and ill-stated facts is still a poor debater.

  110. Bystander says:
    August 17, 2011 at 11:30 am

    James Sexton says “I’m gobsmacked that people would argue for the strength of ignorance..”

    Oh really…

    James Sexton says:
    June 14, 2011 at 6:33 am “I haven’t seen one alarmist even recognize the fact that the earth has cooled in the last decade or so.”
    ====================================================
    lol, Bystander, I’m kinda at a loss as how to respond….. are you stating your are an alarmist and are acknowledging the earth has cooled in the last decade or so? If so, you’d be the first I’ve seen. So, I would be correct, but no longer able to make that statement.

    Or, are you like the rest, still refusing to see reality?

    Just curious.

  111. Bystander says:
    August 17, 2011 at 11:02 am

    [Snip. No more personal attacks on Willis. Argue about his science, fine. But enough with the baseless jabs. ~dbs, mod.]
    ===================================
    lmao!!! Then the very next comment is

    Bystander says:
    August 17, 2011 at 11:30 am

    James Sexton says

    Dbs……. look at what you did!!! Poor Bystander, apparently has a trolling quota……

  112. I can’t resist:

    Richard Day says:
    August 17, 2011 at 5:40 am
    Suzuki should stick to fruit flies.

    …and fruit flies should stick to flypaper.

  113. Well I must confess, that I too have never met; nor debated Dr Willie Wei Hock Soon regarding his climate research.

    But ! I have exchanged a number of quite fruitful e-mails with Dr Soon, regarding his work; and I also confess to having; and having read cover to cover; several times, his landmark book; “The Maunder Minimum, and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.”, and perhaps his co-author is simply a gujost

    That book really opened my eyes to the inescapable conclusion that the sun affects earth’s climate, in ways that are not simply covered by the current measures of the TSI, nor simple descriptions, of its near black body spectral characteristics.

    Hendrik Svensmark’s theory regarding Cosmic Rays, or at least near earth charged particles, as it (may) relate to cloud formation, seems at least hinted at by Dr. Soon in his book.

    OK, so English is not Willie’s native language, and perhaps his co-author is simply a ghost writer; I’m sure the book is better for that. But I can attest from the exchanged e-mails, that Dr Soon lacks nothing in his ability to communicate to his readers; and those who have heard his oral presentations, I am sure were never in doubt of his meaning.

    As for some nefarious agenda sparked by some imagined enslavement to funding from a natural resource Company; what nonsense. Does anybody really imagine, that such tainted and biassed work would not be immediately recognized by anyone reading his work; and I dare say that such propagandizing, would be just that much more obvious, from an author who is ESL challenged.

    As for David Suzuki; I have only seen him a handful of times; usually on PBS TV programs; and with the caveat, that this may not be a fair evaluation of his expertise; I have to say that he seems to be every bit as knowlegeable of what he speaks, as is the well known “Science Guy”; or for that matter, that woman “Expert” on the weather channel. Sorry I’m not much for remembering names of obscure public figures.

    As for general principles, and the sacred place of “double blind” methodology. Would you REALLY want to live in a place, and under a system, where every critical decision was made by totally unbiassed persons, each of whom had no interest or stake in the consequential outcome of their decisions; a total and complete absence of “special interest” bias in the outcome of their decisions. yes what a wondrful system that would be; to be ruled by folks with NO skin in the game.

  114. Hey dbs – what is with the double standard of not snipping FAR worse thrown at mainstream science? Seems kinda selective, no?

    And James Sexton;

    “Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.

    Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

    But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real”.

    Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.
    Continue reading the main story

    By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.

    If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.

    Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

    “The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.

    “Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

    REPLY: “Bystander is actually the banned troll “moderate republican” under a new fake name, fake email address, and fake connection. But I’m pretty good at spotting fakes, of which he is one. So don’t feed the troll – Anthony

  115. Bystander: you really need to read James Sexton quote again:

    “I haven’t seen one alarmist even recognize the fact that the earth has cooled in the last decade or so.”

    A decade or so would be 2000 or 2001. Using HADCRUT data, not only has there been no warming in a “decade or so”, but there has been an insignificant cooling.

  116. juanita says:
    August 17, 2011 at 6:13 am

    “Well, I hope this isn’t considered an “ad hom,” but I’d like to say, that Mr. Sexton should refrain from talking about what he thinks other people know about anything. Don’t vote because you don’t know about an issue? Oh, coming from a man who just knows it all! I’m SO unworthy, forgive me for polluting the voting process with my puny brain, you big jerk.”

    You’re forgiven, sweety. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it one more moment.

  117. Sonicfrog says:
    August 17, 2011 at 9:04 am
    Suzuki: We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in.

    Really?… REALLY???????????

    I learned something today. I thought glass was a silicon based product made from sand (quartz). I had heard of leaded glass though does that count?

  118. There is likely no end to this debate, because likely neither side can actually prove their point.

    Our weather men have sophisticated computer models that cannot predict weather accurately for an entire week. The climate change weather model has to be 1000 times harder to build. Yet all of these climate theorists that are preaching either ‘gloom and doom’, or ‘there is nothing to fear’ claim to know the truth in one direction or another. In actual fact, when you look at the total amount of information that needs to be known about climate to predict it accurately for 100 years, our best minds are still not much more advanced about climate knowledge than cave people were during the last ice age. Yes the modern scientists know a lot more, but it is a drop in the ocean of what must be learned.

    As far as the comments about David Suzuki and his personal negative impact on the environment.
    I heard something once that seems appropriate:
    The difference between an environmentalist and a developer is that the environmentalist already has his little cabin in the woods.

  119. Spam post:

    #
    #
    Raveendran Narayanan says:
    August 16, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    ” CO2 is NOT changing climate. In the name of CO2 many are making. $$$ in Millions. By capturing conc: Deicers from Desalters 2*C can be very easily reduced. Welcome to visit Sarva Kala Vallabhan Group & Airconditioning of Mother Earth & comment “

    ________
    The reason for Bugman’s decay is the suppressed knowledge that the admiration he garnered as a TV star on “The Nature of Things” was undeserved. Fear of disclosure as an impostor is common amongst the vain.

  120. While Suzuki will never admit he is wrong, he’s not the worthwhile audience for highlighting his errors and ethical failings – the media is. (Most importantly politicians are, but they tend to pander to media claims of “public opinion” which they think is votes.)

    Suzuki’s performance in complaining about money given to Soon’s employer when he takes in huge amounts is in general a method of con artists and politicians – give only part of the picture. That’s “politicking” in one sense, might be defamation in some cases. Suzuki’s performance is typical of Modern Liberals, who put on a nice personna but turn nasty when they run out of ability to debate (indeed their ideology is at root one of appearances and emotions, not facts and logic).

    The internment of persons with a genetic background typical of residents of Japan was a travesty, but it should have demonstrated to Suzuki the potential for bad in mobs, whether ad hoc (as in the attacks on persons of Chinese and Japanese ancestry in Vancouver BC) or a majority of voters through who they elected (as in the internment of Suzuki). Yet he tries to use the latter in saying that politicians who don’t agree with his prejudices should be jailed. (The Marxist mob in Russia that executed the first elected legislative assembly would also be a good example for most environmentalists of the nature of the ideology whose teachings most of them believe.)

    As for referring to David Suzuki as “Doctor”, I stopped using titles because so many people hide behind them, and one of the very best thinkers for human life did not have fancy degrees – Ayn Rand. Among her accomplishments is thinking in principles of knowledge acquisition, which is a fundamental problem in climate debates. Put erroneous methods of figuring things out with the negative view of humans that she explained the causes of, and you have climate alarmists. Rand had a reputation for patience in explaining to sincere people but not debating with smearing types.

  121. As for the claim made by a commenter herein that Suzuki pulled anti-fish-farm material from his web site because of the huge Fraser River return last summer, I ask what the timing of removal was relative to that, Krause’s expose, and the hearings that I gather are illuminating many possible reasons for salmon mortality including small sharks north of Vancouver Island.
    Krause claims the pages were removed on or about February 16, 2011, which is several months after the huge sockeye salmon run up the Fraser was widely reported. Krause claims the pages were removed soon after she publicly questioned Suzuki on the issue.
    Krause also points to a very high return of pink salmon to the area supposedly most affected by fish farms, in 2000 – ten years before the huge sockeye run up the Fraser.
    (Refer to “The case of the missing sea lice”, by Vivian Krause, in the National Post of May 31, 2011. (I doubt she wrote the headline, which is typical sloppy media headline writing – the issues are the source of sea lice and its impact on salmon mortality, how much lice is secondary.))
    One thing to remember about fish is that mortality is high. That’s true of most living things, but especially of those whose eggs are left to emerge on their own and whose young then migrate across open territory or travel long distances to feeding areas. (One salmon may lay 4,000. eggs.) Researchers are slowly increasing the breadth of data they collect – I see the accoustic monitoring network being set up on the WA-BC coasts as promising.
    Another question for Suzuki is why salmon returns to rivers in AK, OR, and WA vary so much – no fish farms in the ocean off OR and WA, I doubt any off AK either. Studies from OR suggest returns shift north-south depending on the PDO, and varying with type of salmon.

  122. People use data and conclusions from past work in their advocacy. That’s fine if accurate, but many people build on their own inaccuracy. Such is the case with attacks on farmed salmon for PCB content. Not only is the level low *, but PCBs have not been shown to be harmful. (A chairman of B.C. Hydro even drank a glass of PCB in public, and lived for years afterward (dying at an old age).

    But activist perpetuate myths, and politicians believe them.
    * According to the “Positive Aquaculture Awareness” group, who quote Hites, Ronald A. et al, 2004, Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon, Science 303 (January 2004), pp. 226-229.

  123. The good Doctor , since offering a public endorsement election ad for the Ontario Liberals, has had his foundation brought under scrutiny, as a charity organization.

    First response to the news was that although usually Dr Suzuki speaks for the foundation, sometimes Dr. Suzuki expresses his own personal opinion.

    The next foundation response was to claim that Dr Suzuki quit the Board of Directors sometime before the endorsement.

    “Wayback Machine” gives a July 13 snap with his photo and profile as a director, which is after Liberal acknowledgement of receipt.

    Looking further back, we can see that Suzuki’s “jail denier politicians” comment was PR handled by the foundation.

Comments are closed.