Friday Funny: Apparently, I’ve irritated the fruit fly

David “fruit fly” Suzuki goes ballistic, and advocates retracting all rights from skeptics. I’m mentioned as some sort of baddie central, but at least I don’t dress up with Santa Claus to scare the kids and ask their parents to send me money. Where’s that DDT when you need it?

From the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/climate-change-denial_b_1325198.html

“This public responsibility is especially important in light of the stepped-up efforts to deny the reality of climate change, or the role humans play in it. Cases in point are illustrated by the “denialgate” scandal revealed by the release of Heartland Institute documents and the revelation that Ottawa’s Carleton University hired Tom Harris, a PR man for a number of “astroturf” groups with a mechanical engineering background, to teach a course on climate change.

“There are many credible sources of information, and they aren’t blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts, or industry-funded fake science organizations. One place to start is at Skeptical Science. Click on the tab that says “Arguments” for scientific responses to all the main climate change denier talking points.

=============================================================

Apparently, I’ve irritated the fruit fly. WUWT must be having an effect then. In truest fashion, he can’t be bothered to name the website much less link to it, but it is nice to see that I’m irritating him.

– Anthony

UPDATE: It seems all is not well in Fruit Fly land. His foundation website doesn’t even register on Alexa.com due to it having a traffic rank greater than 100K. Lower number is better:

And, “skeptical science” is down in the grass.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/davidsuzuki.org+wattsupwiththat.com+skepticalscience.com

Here’s Suzuki’s traffic ranks by country (lower is better, for example, Google is #1)

And here’s mine:

Must really bite when a web site run by some “evil denier TV weatherguy” kicks your butt in your own country. WUWT actually does more than twice as well in Canada as Suzuki.

Maybe I should send him some “denier swarms” to boost traffic.

About these ads
This entry was posted in GLOC and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

235 Responses to Friday Funny: Apparently, I’ve irritated the fruit fly

  1. Sean Peake says:

    Congratulations!

  2. Antonia says:

    Congratulations, Anthony, for irritating David Suzuki. He’s been irritating me for decades.

  3. dtbronzich says:

    He is advocating destroying the first amendment freedoms of speech and the press. How Orwellian of him.

  4. L Nettles says:

    Did you notice the backhanded compliment, you are a Weatherman not an oil company funded stooge!

  5. Mark Bofill says:

    Do you suppose he’s aware that John Cook is a cartoonist?

    Sorry, I had to get my quota of ‘Orwellian doublespeak’ in. I guess I’ll swarm off someplace else now.

  6. Hartog says:

    I cannot understand is how anybody who reads the information provided on and through wuwt can come out with a comment like that. Or maybe he does not?

  7. Scarface says:

    Hahaha, very funny to read the rant of this fruit fly.

    Does Dr. Drosophylus know that his own beloved leader is a RAILROAD ENGINEER?

  8. Growlzler says:

    Let’s see, “David Suzuki, Feckless Climate Change Agitator Plunges into the Soft Belly of Skepticism – Hopes to retain Hopeless Blog Position at Puffington Post”…,

  9. jack morrow says:

    I never get over how how grants and money affect people-and the bias in the MSM.
    Keep up the good work .I seem to stay irritated too.

  10. John from CA says:

    “Apparently, I’ve irritated the fruit fly.”

    Looks that way : )

    I’m honestly perplexed, his headline has nothing do with his article which is a rant after the first 2 paragraphs.

  11. pwl says:

    It’s alright Anthony, you’re hitting the hammer on the nail, and besides Canadians aren’t buying David Suzuki’s epic irrational (and now) anti-freedom anti-science rants anymore. He’s an embarrassment just like Maurice Strong, their eco-zeal has gotten the better of their rational mind as they no longer consider evidence necessary nor desirable. On behalf of Canadians I apologize. Now how to get David committed?

  12. Ron says:

    Suzuki is a climate commissar, denying your right to speak, denying real science, denying his movement is purely political. A fruit fly guy denying that someone in thermofluids mechanical engineering may know more than he does about anything. He’s a pest.

  13. bladeshearer says:

    One side of the climate debate calls for silencing of their opponents. The other side laughs at them. It’s easy to see which side is winning. :-)

  14. gingoro says:

    If Suzuki told me it was raining outside, I would want to verify that by looking out a window.
    Dave W

  15. Allen says:

    He must be running another fundraising campaign for his foundation.

  16. Scarface says:

    OT – please delete this – but the font on the frontpage of WUWT is really messed up. It has turned into some kind of unreadable capitals. (Sorry, couldnt get into Tips and Notes)

    REPLY:
    Probably time to upgrade your browser, IE6/IE7 won’t work anymore. Tried to duplicate your problem but don’t see any issues on my machine in three browsers, but they are all updated. – Anthony

  17. Dr. Dave says:

    So let me see if I understand this. A biologist who taught genetics is qualified to speak to the issue of AGW whereas a mechanical engineer who actually understands heat transfer is not? I remember seeing one of Suzuki’s programs maybe 20 or 30 years ago. It was about cultural differences and subtle cultural cues. It was pretty interesting and from what I remember not particularly political. But I guess that changed a long time ago. It’s obvious the AGW activist-alarmist coalition is in a state of panic.

  18. Gleick and Sks

    Dig here

  19. Scott Covert says:

    This proves beyond any doubt you are correct in your opinion Anthony.

    I think David Suzuki just split the CO2 atom. He should have stuck to motorcycles.

    He will be forever known for the discovery of Crazyium, a highly volitile element with no nucleus.

  20. geo says:

    Clearly what is required is show trials, with public recantations by noted sleep-deprived skeptics involuntarily hopped up to their eyebrows on psychedelic drugs while their families are held hostage. That’d do it. Then we can call the account 30 years later as people start to come to their senses “Gulag Rotten-ice”

  21. William says:

    David Suzuki is so full of crap. I would consider it a badge of honour to be on his sh*t list.

  22. doug s says:

    Apparently Big Oil is even paying people to visit realist (formerly referred to as skeptic) sites, because obviously no one would go there or find it credible on their own…
    /sarc

  23. Good onya. You have Stirred the Ire of our champion Weeper. Donna L. has Kindled it. Suzuki needs to just retire and be quiet. He’s the archetypical Taxpayer-trough guru-from-another-era used to the adulation and deference afforded the mavens of the Canadian Broadcorping Castration. No more.

  24. Cris says:

    Unlike certain professions, weathermen need to be reasonably correct a large portion of the time.

  25. George says:

    The is the typical left-wing strategy of “shut up”. If they can not get you to keep your views to yourself though such measures as making your viewpoint seem less popular than it really is, then they will attempt to use other means, even legal means, to silence you.

    Andrew Klavan produced this video that demonstrates how it works in political speech:

    It works the same with any viewpoint that challenges a leftist meme.

  26. Iggy Slanter says:

    Great news to see that you are doing better and better. Always remember the USAF bumper sticker:
    “If you are not taking flak, you are not over the target.”

  27. Gary Pearse says:

    “…Tom Harris,…. with a mechanical engineering background, to teach a course on climate change.”

    And so we should be listening to a geneticist on the subject? I think a mechanical engineer is on the right spot to teaching about a heat engine. By the way, I see the Arctic ice extent/area has risen to within 1 sigma of the long term average – go to “Sea Ice” resource on WUWT header. Variability is sure nipping nipping away at the “feedback margin”.

  28. 007 says:

    Who is David Suzuki?

  29. Eyes Wide Open says:

    David Suzuki – The perfect eco-fascist!!

  30. wermet says:

    I can’t think of a group of people more deserving of being irritated than Suzuki, Gore, Mann, Hanson, et al.

  31. Nothing in Suzuki’s blog supports restricting free speech. Protesting someone pretending to be an expert on something they are not an authority on isn’t supressing free speech, it’s protest. That’s free speech. Meanwhile some poor islanders in the south Pacific are buying land in Fiji so they have somewhere to live when their island is overrun by rising sea levels. They’ll take great comfort knowing some weatherman out of his depth tells them it’s not happening

    REPLY: LOL ROFL! But we should listen to a geneticist (Suzuki) and a cartoonist (Cook) as experts on climate?

    Hey read the title of his post:

    Deny Deniers their Right to Deny!

    What part of that don’t you get? Take away the right to deny, gosh you’re the one in denial there Grant.

    BTW bow_en_arrow@twitter.example.com is not a valid email address, it takes one to comment here per site policy, you’ll need one to respond. – Anthony

  32. Smokey says:

    George,

    Thanks for posting that Andrew Klavan video. Perfect.

  33. Tonyb says:

    Gleick and now Suzuki. Don’t you get the feeling there’s an air of desperation emanating from the warmists?
    Tonyb

  34. JJ says:

    Wow. That guy is off the deep end. Listing SS as a source of reliable info? That’s like pointing to Meryl Streep as a reliable source for pesticide info.

    And this bit:

    Energy is at the heart of modern society’s needs, but when the source is finite, it seems foolish to be hell-bent on using it up in a few generations, leaving the problems of depletion and pollution to our children and grandchildren. The longer we delay implementing solutions to our energy challenges the more costly and difficult it will be when we have to face the inevitable.

    Really? We have at least a couple of hundred years worth of fossil carbon energy on tap. Why would we turn our back on that and impose artificial hardships on our societies now? That would harm us as well as handicap future generations, by denying them the benefit of building on our progress . The longer we are able to use that fossil carbon to delay the onset of whatever energy challenges Suziki thinks are hiding under the bed, the less costly and easier it will be when they (we wont be around) face those challenges.

    Think about it – two hundred years of delay. Think about the world 200 years ago. Name a serious problem we are facing today that could have been dealt with more easily and less costly when limted to the manpower, technology and resources available in 1812? It’s pretty damn tough to save the planet by the light of a whale oil lamp.

  35. Ron says:

    Welcome, fruit flies!

  36. Adam Gallon says:

    I prefer a Suzuki GSX1100R, myself!

  37. Chuck says:

    Wow. That’s some blog post. Starts out on the wrong foot with the “Appeal to Authority” logical fallacy and proceeds to the bizarre. Almost sounds like it was written in a parallel universe where most of that might actually be true but incorrectly published in this universe where little or none of it is true.

  38. Some time, when I have a whole lot of time that needs wasting, I need to see if there are two (or more) “David Suzukis”.

    I am very sure I used to have a lot of respect for one, but my failing memory does not say why.

  39. sunsettommy says:

    David Suzuki talks like an used car salesman.He does it because he is TERRIFIED of open debate on their cherished propaganda.

    He used the nasty word Denier over and over in the last few years.He advocates abolishing free speech on his opponents but allows his side to still have it and he is a hypocritical jerk.His diesel guzzling bus tours to promote their never debated propaganda is a classic example of abject hypocrisy.

    Notice that he pushed two incredibly bad books written by Oreskes and Littlemore as if they were rationally authored books.It only exposes him as a intellectual midget since they are pure propagandist garbage.They attack …. free speech and make smears against those who are not convinced of the long debunked AGW conjecture.They are stupid too because a simple read of these crappy ideological propaganda writings is like reading brainwashing literature.

    It is clear that this Canadian embarrassment will never be rational or decent on science matters.Propaganda and smears is what he runs on.Thus he is going to be easily exposed as the warmist goofball he is.

    I despise the man for what he is and what he represents.

  40. Louis says:

    “There are many credible sources of information, and they aren’t blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts, or industry-funded fake science organizations.”
    – David Suzuki

    “Orators are most vehement when their cause is weak.”
    — Cicero

    “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
    — Socrates

    Enough said.

  41. Chris B says:

    Ezra Levant exposes drysophilla rex……..

  42. Lance says:

    i have long lost any respect for this guy!

  43. Robert M says:

    Scarface says: March 9, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Hahaha, very funny to read the rant of this fruit fly.
    Does Dr. Drosophylus know that his own beloved leader is a RAILROAD ENGINEER?

    Yes, but the beloved leader is published. Well that is if you count fluffy romance novels…

  44. Pittzer says:

    Try to piss off Bill Nye next. I’d love to see him turn all red and see his veins bulge. I put him and Suzuki in the same category.

  45. Gerald Machnee says:

    The responses you get on his site are a joke – they just recycle the worn out phrases from IPCC.

  46. Bryan A says:

    I would say that it is probably time for David Suzuki to go Elf Himself but it appears that he already did

  47. clipe says:

    For 2009 and 2010, 10 environmental organizations reported more than half a million in foreign funds. These were the David Suzuki Foundation ($1.2-million)…

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/02/08/65-million-for-ducks-and-more/

  48. sunsettommy says:

    David Suzuki is a man who is known to lie,insult and like the chicken he really is NEVER debates a skeptic.

    David Suzuki insults, but won’t debate

    http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/4978

    This is a despicable man.

  49. Al Gored says:

    To fully appreciate Suzuki, one needs only look at his childhood – in a World War two internment camp for Japanese people. That left a massive angry chip on his shoulder which is most evident when you meet him in person and discover he swears like a drunken sailor (when not describing people as maggots etc.). He’s a sociopath, and a dangerous one, who just happened to have found the means to his ends in the ‘environmental’ movement.

    Thus his eagerness to send ‘deniers’ to jail, as he once suggested, or to silence critics like now, is entirely predictable. So are all his lies. When you give somebody a soapbox like he has, it just goes to his swollen head… which could easily blow up with a little more tickling. So tickle away!

  50. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    007 says:
    March 9, 2012 at 1:48 pm
    Who is David Suzuki?””

    David is a Japanese guy who lives up the end of my street. He likes being Japanese, but he doesn’t like his surname. When he goes to visit his fathers relations in Tokyo he gets goaded about his surname. The locals guys call him names like, buzzybox, slippery suzy and uki suzuki. When he tells them he doesn’t even have a motorbike, they just laugh at him.

  51. ScepticalScotsUnited says:

    Well done!!! the man is a without doubt a complete fruit loop. I cannot think of a more anti-democratic, unscientific and anti-educational thing to advocate. Keep up the good work, it is obvious to all that these quasi-religous nuts are on the ropes.

  52. Peter Miller says:

    OK, the real question raised when reading this post is: Why is WUWT so popular in Honduras?

    All that stuff about Suzuki is a side show – he is just another CAGW crank, addicted to bad science and inflating his own ego – so who cares?

  53. Beesaman says:

    Why are they so afraid of free speech?
    Because they are frightened we will hear the truth…..

  54. Joseph Murphy says:

    There is quite the back and forth going on in the troll-ments over at HP. Nice to see the ‘debate’ is alive and well everywhere. What would the world be like if most people had a general knowledge of science so that political arguments did not fill in for scientific evidence?

  55. Seth says:

    This site’s usual vilification of scientists aside, the northern sea ice volume is a serious problem, with high cost impacts on people, global warming feedback and ecosystems.

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?

  56. matt v. says:

    He says that : “Armed with credible information we can challenge those who misrepresent science and spread confusion”.It would be nice if he took some of his own medicine himself . Was he not the same guy who went on Canadian National Television[CBC] and said solar energy is free , or buy CFL light bulbs that were never tested , or that Canadian winter sports would be finished , etc . Who is really spreading misinformation. Debate the science David instead of smearing anyone that happens to disagree with you . Your idea of freedom seems to apply to only those who think like you. I guess you have never heard of the Canadian Charter of Rights . Very unfortunate .

  57. Harold Ambler says:

    As for the idea that the warmists are on the run, that’s unfortunately not what I’m seeing.

  58. John A. Fleming says:

    Deny Deniers their Right to Deny!

    OK, this is a headline, written by the headline writers. In keeping with the spirit of the article, the missing second clause, as written in the article, is

    by “becom[ing] informed”

    A person normally becomes informed by reading the literature to learn about and then understand the issues, the relative effects of this issue, the pros and cons of the proposed responses by the various advocates. And they are all advocates: very few people write for free, there are no disinterested and/or dispassionate analysts, they are all looking for a payday.

    A charitable interpretation of the headline is: get informed so you can make an informed evaluation, rather than taking somebody else’s word for it.

    (Of course, the uncharitable interpretation of the headline is obvious: free speech only for the “right” advocates. Everybody else: shut up, or you’ll be muzzled.)

    So what does Suzuki recommend as the path to become informed:

    [Don't read Watts or those] courageously unnamed [fake sites]
    There are many credible sources of information …
    Skeptical Science …
    New York Review of Books [article] by Yale University economics professor William D. Nordhaus.

    So his recommendation is, only become partially informed, read what he considers are “credible” sites, and then appeals to authority: New York … Yale … Professor.

    Lame. That’s all they got? Shut up and read what I tell you?

    This is the writings of a true believer, or somebody looking to preserve his payday by ad-homming down the other claimants. Man, this is weak. Either they think we are all stupid, or having lost everyone else, they are trying to preserve their core. The agonal utterances of losing advocates.

  59. DRE says:

    For a guy who spent time in a Canadian Interment camp you’d think he’d be more sensitive to basic human rights.

  60. bubbabrown says:

    Dr Fruit-Fly and his Leader Choo-Choo Pachuri are getting more and more frantic they are as dated as platform shoes, disco balls and bell bottoms.Thank you for getting the little tyrant in a snit.
    Funny comments! When they start laughing at you…..it’s over.

  61. Steven Kopits says:

    Suzuki links through to Yale economist William Nordhaus, writing about why the sceptics are wrong. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false

    This is a truly weakly argued piece, but does contain this nugget:

    “A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.”

    If we wait 50 years, then it’s only $4.1 trillion? That’s not very much. That’s less than the cost of the recession. And if that’s the global total, then the US share then would only be something less than $1 trillion, about the budget deficit for a single year nowadays. I straight-forward interpretation of Nordhaus would seem to suggest that we should wait of couple of generations and handle it then, should the need arise.

  62. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ 007 says:
    March 9, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Who is David Suzuki?
    =======================================================

    He makes little rice-burner motorcycles. ;)

  63. sunsettommy says:

    Guys like David Suzuki highlights what is so wrong with AGW believing people who have no respect for open debates and does not respect the basic parameters of the “Scientific Method” that is normally followed in critically assessing science papers that are published.

    He is against all that because he is a propagandist and a supporter of a new world order.He made that clear in the article with these words:

    “What’s important though, is for those of us who rely on facts rather than spin to look at solutions. We can all do much more to reduce our environmental footprints, but the problem has grown so much that large-scale efforts are needed, and many of these must come from decision-makers in industry, government, and academia.

    However, there appears to be reluctance in some of those circles to act unless the public demands it. And so it’s up to all of us to become informed. Then we can hold our leaders to account, and challenge those who refuse to see the big picture.”

    Who’s big picture David?

  64. mkelly says:

    Taking away freedom has always been the hallmark of the CAGW crowd. Free speech, property, money take it cause they know better. Oh forgot about the food police.

  65. Sparks says:

    I visit this site to get up-to date with meteorological events and catch up with the industry-funded fake science. and laugh my ass off all day long. (LMAOADL)

  66. George says:

    When all other arguments fail, “shut up” is the only thing they have left. You shouldn’t be allowed to “deny” because …. what? Because it’s denying? And denying shouldn’t be allowed?

    I challenge him to show me one database with any warming since 1998. Even with this year’s exceptionally mild winter due to the jet stream position, and even with NCDC’s continued fiddling with the database adjustments we still see 0.34F/decade cooling in the Continental US. Globally it is “even worse”. And so nobody accuses me of “cherry picking 1998, here is HADCRUT since 2004.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/trend

    We can safely deny that any “global warming” has happened since 2004.

  67. Skeptic says:

    As a Canadian I am embarrassed by our home grown nut cases; the “Fruit Fly”, Maurice Strong and Andrew Weaver. At least we have countered with McIntyre, McKitrick and Laframboise.

  68. mikemUK says:

    Hopefully this kind of ‘tosh’ will stiffen Heartland’s resolve (as if it was necessary) to pursue their legal case against the fraudulent Gleick.
    I was astonished to read just now on Donna L’s Blog that Gleick has somehow been rehabilitated in some quarters already – they seem to live in some kind of Wonderland

  69. 1DandyTroll says:

    Is it any wonder that they really do sound like the old sovs and third reich-ers with the whole it is “your duty to deny those [input: anti-socialists, capitalists, realists, skeptics, "goblins", women, and children] the rights of ordinary true believing citizens” …

    What’s really odd is why they keep saying to “think of the children?!” When, in fact, if the world danced to their tune, they’d go all erlich on the planet and sterlize everyone for their own good to save the future children (from what? To be borne!)

  70. wwschmidt says:

    Delingpole’s piece, linked to on Bishop Hill, is awesome. He makes a note that the alarmists will all cry “Godwin’s Law!” at the point that it’s 1945 in the Furherbunker for the AGW alarmists right now. Amazing how Suzuki lets his inner nazi slip out so easily. Yeah, yeah, Godwin’s law, big whoop. (as delinpole says) if the swastika fits, suzuki can wear it proudly.

  71. Ken Hall says:

    Typical of the warmists to seek to deny everyone else freedom of speech, deny freedom of research, deny freedom of thought, deny freedom of opinion and deny reality. Yet they call us the deniers!?!?!?!?!?!?

  72. P Walker says:

    Funny how something that would have seemed sinister and threatening not that long ago now just seems pathetic .

  73. sunsettommy says:

    David writes this at the very end of his disjointed babble:

    “The misrepresentation of Nordhaus’s research is typical of the Orwellian doublespeak deniers employ, but scientists and researchers are calling them on it.

    Armed with credible information, we can challenge those who misrepresent science, and spread confusion. If nothing else, we’ll be able to breathe easier!”

    Really YOU a guy who NEVER debate anyone and post obvious name calling,smearing attacks on those who holds a different view of the science.That you have been doing this for many years speaks for itself.You are a pathetic creep for doing this.

    Let’s face it David you have NOTHING credible to work with.Just your usual misleading propaganda is all you sell these days.

    There has been a credible reply to Nordhaus’s incredibly bad article already that YOU somehow forgot to mention:

    It is funny too because Anthony Watts (Who is on the “other side” and a “denier” too) allowed a guest post who posted the New York Times Nordhaus article with an excerpt and provided a link to rest of it.Thus allowing the AGW believing side’s commentary widespread exposure on a prominent skeptic blog.

    Then Guest David Middleton who is a Geoscientist made a fairly comprehensive reply to the main points made by Dr. Nordhaus and Economic Professor.

    How come YOU David never do that? Are so afraid that reading “the other side’s” commentary will make your followers fall away from you?

    Does this mean that deep within yourself you KNOW that your side of the debate is so weak in their convictions that you feel the need to make all kinds of personal attacks and smears and avoid debates.While avoiding a serious debate on the contents of skeptical writings?

    Face it David you are being exposed over and over as a hater of science.A hater of rational debate and a coward to go face to face with those who do not share your convictions on the AGW CONJECTURE.

  74. AndyG55 says:

    Suzuki truly has become a pathetic little man.. poor guy, I sort of pity him… but not much.

  75. P Walker says:

    Harold Ambler ,
    The link to your site didn’t work .

  76. pwl says:

    Suzuki makes his purely political point of view clear:

    Ah, David Suzuki, the “majority consensus” argument is purely political and completely anti-scientific method. The reason people disagree David Suzuki is that we don’t see the causation of CO2 driving Temperature in the Real Actual Atmosphere that you claim is a “slow moving catastrophe”.

    While passion is common in politics it’s not so useful in advocating science as it gets in the way of those pesky things called the scientific method and it’s absolute requirement for cold hard unemotional facts that can be independently verified or refuted.

  77. Richard S Courtney says:

    Sparks:

    If those are the reasons you visit this site then I suggest your time would be better spent in asking your Mummy to teach you how to behave like a grown-up. I feel sure she would help you with this and you will get great benefit from it by the time you reach your mid-teens.

    Richard

  78. Gail Combs says:

    Seems David Suzuki is taking his cues from Australian Ray Finkelstein these days.

    “…Mr. Ray Finkelstein QC, a left-wing former Federal Court Judge with no media experience, at the request of the Gillard Government, issued a 400 page report which calls for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to ‘regulate’ political speech and – among other things – impose new laws with the power to stop climate change realists from speaking up…..”
    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia/

    I am not happy that we are seeing censorship rearing its ugly head in Canada, Australia and the USA. See: SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act)

  79. Brian says:

    Disturbing! I just looked up the definition of fascist and that describes David Suzuki. The global warming liars are desperate now!

  80. sunsettommy says:

    I wonder if David Suzuki exhibits the symptoms?

    This is based on published research:

    Study: climate alarmists represent 30% of OCD psychiatric patients

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/study-climate-alarmists-represent-30-of.html

    I personally have seen signs of it in some of the AGW believers in various forums I visit as part of my effort to expose their mistaken beliefs.

  81. Jeff says:

    The only person Orwellian is Suzuki himself.

    He also needs to learn the difference between doublespeak and a straw man argument.

  82. tolo4zero says:

    “Deny Deniers their Right to Deny”
    Hey Suzuki, you could probably reuse some of the Japanese internment camps in Kaslo B.C. that were used during the second world war, at least that would confine the deniers to one place.
    http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/canadianhistory/camps/graphics/japannot.gif

  83. General P. Malaise says:

    suzuki is just a parasite. the end.

  84. Matt G says:

    Sparks says:

    March 9, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Typical of someone calling others that themselves can’t demonstrate any truth.

  85. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Anthony says:

    Apparently, I’ve irritated the fruit fly.

    Actually he’s a fruit cake, possibly covered by flies, but a fruit cake all the same.

  86. George says:

    Another tactic of the left is to pick out someone who isn’t “supposed” to hold the position they hold, say an academic who questions AGW or a person of an ethnic group who holds a position that ethnic group isn’t “supposed” to hold, and then absolutely decimate them in public through the most vile possible insults. The idea here isn’t so much attacking that person, but to send a message to others like them that they better hold their tongue or they will be subjected to the same “treatment” or that they will also be those same names that the person under attack was called. It is a way to shut others up by making an example out of someone.

    The key is very simple: don’t shut up. Stand up to their intimidation. The more that they do it, the less impact it has. Pretty soon people tire of hearing it and they have to go to greater and greater extreme in order to maintain their shock value and at some point they cross the line into becoming a caricature. At that point they have so completely beclowned themselves through their desperate rants that nobody pays them any attention.

    I think someone on one of the blogs put it best: “The AGW hypothesis works best in a data-free environment”.

  87. TomRude says:

    David Suzuki is worried. Tides Canada is worried. There are calls to review their charity status in Canada. Tides is involved in politics through astroturfed sites such as OpenMedia or LeadNow that are openly campaigning against Canada’s government. LeadNow is actively involved in a call campaign to Election Canada on behalf of opposition parties. Tides yesterday received the implicit support of Globemedia owned by the very green Thomson Reuters International whose trustee Sir Cripsin Tickell is well known as an UK alarmist. The Globe & Mail has federated the opposition to the Oil Sands pipelines, its editorial board has qualified as “noise” investigative journalism that revealed the US funding of Tides Canada and is now offering a national media platform to Tides justifications…

    In clear, green internationalists are exerting pressure on the Canadian government. However, since investigative work has blown the cover of the Canadian groups, the debate is radicalizing along usual political lines, for all to see: they are exposed for what they are.

    Real information on the Suzuki Foundation funding:
    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/david-suzuki-foundation-70-million.html
    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/charity-or-lobby-group/1439306081001

    Real investigative work on Tides Canada:
    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2012/03/far-less-transparency.html

  88. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:

    Thanks for finally giving me a reason to visit the Huffpo. I had no idea that Traci Lords was blogging there. I can’t imagine she’s too happy about being associated in any way with the likes of Suzuki.

  89. Kasuha says:

    With all respect to WUWT I’d like to say that you are not more right because you have higher Alexa ranking. It’s as good argument as that the “other side” has greater deal of “consensus”.

  90. Tim Ball says:

    From the right, comments about funding of the David Suzuki Foundation.
    “Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values, Joseph C. Ben-Ami, citing this statement in his article “Global warming charlatan” notes that the foundation’s 2005-2006 annual report lists 52 corporations, including Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Scotia Capital, Warner Bros., Canon (company) and the Bank of Montreal, amongst its 40,000 donors. Other corporate donors include EnCana Corporation, a world leader in Natural gas production and Oil sands development, and ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and OPG which is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants.”

    http://green.wikia.com/wiki/David_Suzuki_Foundation

    From the left, comments about daring to raise questions.

    “I want to talk to you!” a red-faced and agitated David Suzuki said, finger pointing at my chest.
    “You have no right to demonize me!” he yelled, causing people around us to back away.

    http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/06/09/DavidSuzuki/

  91. Ric Werme says:

    “One place to start is at Skeptical Science.”

    Uh, yeah. Been there, fled that.

    Why the nickname “Fruit Fly?” Oh, searching for |”fruit fly” suzuki| yields lots of answers.

    http://www.everything-canadian.com/david-suzuki-we-are-all-fruit-flies.html says “We Are All Fruit Flies” Pass the bananas, please.

  92. Goldie says:

    Some people really worship this guy, but everything I’ve ever seen from him has been laughable. Coupled with being extremely self righteous and self important, i just can’t stand it.

  93. John Blake says:

    Groucho: “Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like watermelon.” JPB: Suzuki flies lice. (Parse it.)

  94. john s says:

    Suzuki has been living off of his rediculous genetics doctorate for decades. Funny how he pretends a PhD in genetics makes him an expert on global warming. This is not the first time this ass clown has tried to silence debate. He is a dangerously stupid man and an embarassment to the scientific community and Canada.

  95. john s says:

    Is there a disease I could blame for always spelling ‘ridiculous’ that way?

  96. Grant says:

    “…and the guys that become tenth level maggots are really big wheels!”
    Dave offered this long before he was a big wheel…

  97. john s says:

    Or disease for that matter?

  98. The Infidel says:

    Can someone please restart the nuremburg trials, these warmists are using the same playbook as the nazi’s. How long until they start to demand ugenics for “undesirables”, oh wait, they already are, abortion to full term, post natal abortion, organ harvesting of handicaped people, uthenasia for anyone over a certain age, “re-education camps” for deniers, death threats to deniers and non-greenies (greenies = subsistance nomadic hunter gatherers). I also notice that the loudest voices for cutting greenhouse gasses are those who have the highest carbon footprint, perhaps we should start ugenics on those and work out from there (joke BTW for all the militant greenie leftards who want to “expose hate speach of the right”), mind you, once we got rid of the feral greenies the world would return to normal, so hey its a small price to pay, I for one would not miss any of the feral militant greenies.

  99. Robert Austin says:

    Seth says:
    March 9, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    “This site’s usual vilification of scientists aside, the northern sea ice volume is a serious problem, with high cost impacts on people, global warming feedback and ecosystems.”

    Assuming that PIOMAS is an accurate representation of Arctic ice volume, why is this a serious problem? Arctic ice coverage is known to have been lower than present and perhaps ice free during the summer previously in the Holocene. You might also consider how “convenient” is the starting point (1979) for determining the trend in Arctic ice coverage or volume. You might find this chart taken from the first IPCC report enlightening as to how previous ice coverage data has been ignored as diluting the purity of the message.
    http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ScreenHunter_102-Mar.-03-07.04.jpg

  100. John Gf says:

    We’ll see who ends up in jail, not from “denial” but from conspiracy to defraud. Ever heard of the RICO act Mr.Suzuki? America is coming after the thieving CAGW crowd, the ringleaders will be first. Your political cover will be gone very soon. Maggots.

  101. Max Hugoson says:

    Comment:

    “To fully appreciate Suzuki, one needs only look at his childhood – in a World War II internment camp for Japanese people. That left a massive angry chip on his shoulder which is most evident when you meet him in person and discover he swears like a drunken sailor (when not describing people as maggots etc.). He’s a sociopath, and a dangerous one, who just happened to have found the means to his ends in the ‘environmental’ movement.”

    Sorry, but I recently saw a “year book” (one of several) owned by the husband of a NATURAL BORN American Japanese lady…she was born and raised in Hawaii. (NO ONE INTERNED THERE!) It was OBVIOUS from the pictures, that aside from being “uprooted” from their homes and businesses on the West Coast, the Japanese AMERICANS made Lemonade out of Lemons!

    They were given materials, and built SCHOOLS, INFIRMERIES, COMISSARIES, ICE RINKS, soccer fields. Put up basketball courts, tennis courts, went off (in buses) to work at local places (usually an hour or two away, alas..rural Washington State). Came back to the “very bored”, but congenial “guards”…who closed the gates on the compounds TO KEEP OUT THE WOLVES AND THE CYOTETES!

    This lady explained (on behalf of her late husband) that aside from a “minor irritation factor”, NO ONE FELT as though they were treated poorly, that they were “deprived” (They were allowed to make their living quarters their HOMES and they did so very well, I saw pictures of the interiors…very nicely put together and decorated!!!!) They had phone and mail service to people on the outside. Frankly, having lived in a SMALL TOWN (800 people) in MN for 8 years of my young life…looking at the GREAT COMMUNITY the Japanese made in the camps, I can see they were better off socially THAN I WAS FOR 8 YEARS!

    SO, sorry…NO, can’t excuse D.S. for being a psycopath. That’s his own CHOICE.

    Max

  102. Scottish Sceptic says:

    You ask him politely to reframe from calling people “deniers” and he just carries on even worse.

    We had a cockerel like him. Every time I heard him crow, I just felt sorry, because we couldn’t keep a noisy bird like that. I did try to train the cockerel to stop crowing … but I knew the dumb bird wouldn’t learn …

    He tasted good.

  103. Jim Cripwell says:

    May I suggest to Canadians that you do as I have just done. Email your MP, and request that she/he contact Mr. Suzuki, and point out to him that our rights to free speech are guaranteed under the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. MP’s email addresses are public information. surname dot initial at parl dot gc dot ca.

  104. John from CA says:

    John A. Fleming says:
    March 9, 2012 at 2:39 pm
    Deny Deniers their Right to Deny!

    OK, this is a headline, written by the headline writers. In keeping with the spirit of the article, the missing second clause, as written in the article, is

    by “becom[ing] informed”
    ============
    That makes sense, the article without the subtitle is a rant. Doesn’t a guest author have editing rights to the posted article? Did he just send them an email without bothering to review the post?

  105. George says:

    Tides Canada is worried. There are calls to review their charity status in Canada. Tides is involved in politics through astroturfed sites such as OpenMedia or LeadNow that are openly campaigning against Canada’s government.

    The entire PURPOSE of Tides (they used to say this on their website, not sure if they do anymore) is to act as a donation laundry. They support “progressive” causes. If you want to donate to a “progressive” cause but do not want your name or your foundation associated directly with an organization, what you do is donate to Tides and “earmark” your donation to the causes you wish to receive your money. At various intervals, Tides bundles your donations along with those of others who have also earmarked donations to those organizations and gives a lump sum donation. The “cause” sees a single donation from Tides. Tides shows your donation but is not required to show who you “earmarked” it for. So there is no way someone can trace a donation to a specific organization to a specific individual. It is designed for “donation laundering”. It is how Soros and Heinz (John Kerry’s wife) keep at arms length from many of the causes they directly finance without being linked to them directly.

  106. Hawkwood says:

    We Canadians are generally an affable bunch, not so this loathsome toad.

  107. Smokey says:

    Kashua says:

    “With all respect to WUWT I’d like to say that you are not more right because you have higher Alexa ranking. It’s as good argument as that the “other side” has greater deal of “consensus”.”

    The high ranking of WUWT is due mainly to the fact that it allows different scientific views without censorship, and with light moderation. Readers can then make up their own minds. When a blog censors out comments it doesn’t agree with, it becomes an echo chamber and it’s site traffic drops off.

    So it’s not “consensus”, it’s a wide variety of viewpoints. People like to read the different sides of a question, then make up their own minds. That’s why the skeptical point of view is winning the scientific debate. The truth eventually emerges.

  108. George says:

    We should wear the “denier” moniker as a badge of honor.

    I’m A Denier (to the tune of I’m a believer by The Monkeys)

    I thought ice was only seen in fairytales
    Meant for someone else but not for me
    That’s the way it seemed
    Global Warming haunted all my dreams

    Then I saw the stats, now I’m a denier
    Not a trace of doubt in my mind
    I’m enraged, I’m a denier
    I couldn’t believe it if I tried

    I thought Al was more or less an honest guy
    Seems the more I gave the less I got
    What’s the use in trying?
    When he called for sunshine I got rain

    Then I saw the stats, now I’m a denier
    Not a trace of doubt in my mind
    I’m enraged, I’m a denier
    I couldn’t believe it if I tried

    Drought was out to get me
    Now that’s the way it seemed
    Global Warming haunted all my dreams

    Then I saw the stats, now I’m a denier
    Not a trace of doubt in my mind
    I’m enraged, I’m a denier
    I couldn’t believe it if I tried

    Yes I saw the stats, now I’m a denier
    Not a trace of doubt in my mind
    Said I’m a denier, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

  109. pat says:

    anthony -
    re scarface post & your reply re IE browser etc:

    yesterday, every time i opened WUWT i got strange, faint, capitalised text throughout the comments. could barely read anything. also tried to post something and got told i needed verifiable email or something. tried again later and did manage to post a comment.

    i didn’t upgrade IE or do anything else, but today WUWT is completely back to normal.

  110. Ron says:

    An Alexa ranking measures popularity (number of hits), not correctness of opinion. The point being that the perceived correctness of opinion on Anthony’s site is far more popular than the correctness of opinion on Suzuki’s freaky commissar-driven site.

  111. feet2thefire says:

    All in all, maybe this whole “denier” thing has a positive side. The word “denier” lost its automatic connection with the Holocaust. They’ve pummeled the world with the term so much, it has no sting or heinous connotation anymore. Whereas at first it was equating us all with neo-Nazis, people now just go “Ho hum.”

    Maybe the biggest thing now is just that they think it is being taken seriously, since all it means now is someone who doesn’t happen to agree with the speaker/writer.

    I don’t know if, in the big scope of things, that means anything. Except there is no shame heard by third party listeners anymore.

    They’ve just beat it into the ground too much – to the point where they have to put THREE in a headline, like shrill temper tantrum. Pitiful…

    And not only that, but Suzuki probably lost a good bit of his more-or-less geeky listening audience by jumping on the warmer wagon.

  112. Sparks says:

    Richard S Courtney

    (insult)

    Shut up my mum is a nice person! :)

  113. Michael H Anderson says:

    It is always salutary to remember that David Suzuki is not a scientist, but a *documentary film narrator* as well as a profiteer on environmental fear-mongering. That is what he has done for a living his entire adult life. Moreover, the films he narrates are created entirely by a state broadcasting institution – one that has always been in the pocket of the socialist Liberal Party of Canada, which until recently clutched the reigns power in a way that would have impressed Enver Hoxha. Canadians, however, are clearly waking up from a four-decade-long daymare and starting to see through the illusions woven by these socialists – which of course inevitably includes fake science in the service of powerful, elitist self-appointed social engineers.

  114. Harold Ambler says:

    Thanks for head’s-up re link. Here’s what I was talking about: Poll showing public concern rising over AGW.

  115. bk says:

    Suzuki is gradually realizing that the CAGW fight is lost as he is now moving on to advocating more control over energy for reasons other than AGW.

    “Energy is at the heart of modern society’s needs, but when the source is finite, it seems foolish to be hell-bent on using it up in a few generations, leaving the problems of depletion and pollution to our children and grandchildren. The longer we delay implementing solutions to our energy challenges the more costly and difficult it will be when we have to face the inevitable.”

    His view of “energy solutions” is of course more government planning, control and taxation.

  116. Sparks says:

    Matt G says:
    March 9, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    @Sparks
    “Typical of someone calling others that themselves can’t demonstrate any truth.”

    Matt G. good call… I think!! (or do I?)

  117. Jason H says:

    David Suzuki should be crying himself to sleep within the hour.

  118. Kozlowski says:

    The MSM and all their acolytes just don’t get it. They will continue to bleed listeners, watchers and readers until they start telling us the truth again. Until they start reporting news. Until investigative journalism comes back. They are supposed to be the 4th estate, to watch those in power, to act as a check on those in power. Instead they have become in thrall to those in power.

    So for now we just get our news from sources we can trust. Why do you think Fox News in the US has 4x the viewership than any of the other MSM news sources.

    I’ve read recently that Canada and Australia both now have their own type of Fox News. So hopefully the MSM media monopoly is being broken.

    Apple Computer’s 1984 ad comes to mind.

    Cheers!

  119. Ian L. McQueen says:

    Anthony-
    Have you changed the format of the comment section? Comments now are in all-caps and in a very faint typeface on my monitor. Is it WUWT or a trick of my confuser?

    IanM

  120. DavidA says:

    That’s funny, my initial glance at that picture had me thinking, “haha, another hilarious skeptic cartoon taking the piss out of alarmists”; then, “what, it’s real??!”

  121. RockyRoad says:

    There would have been much more substance to the message had Suzuki said something like “Forgive Forgivers their right to Forgive”.

    That would have made a whole lot more sense, especially coming from a guy that (as far as I can tell) hasn’t added one iota to the science of climate.

  122. Frank K. says:

    “Deny Deniers Their Right To Deny!”

    Modern environmental fascism on display for all to see.

    Unfortunately for Mr. Suzuki, we here in the U.S. take our liberty and freedom VERY seriously. And that’s one reason we have a second amendment…

  123. Gary Hladik says:

    Suzuki: “Cases in point are illustrated by the ‘denialgate’ scandal revealed by the release of Heartland Institute documents and the revelation that Ottawa’s Carleton University hired Tom Harris, a PR man for a number of ‘astroturf’ groups with a mechanical engineering background, to teach a course on climate change.”

    When Tom Harris next offers his “denialist” course on climate change, he should bill it as “The course David Suzuki doesn’t want you to take.” My guess is he’ll need a stadium to fit in all the applicants. :-)

  124. Wayne Liston says:

    I am disappointed in the level of discussion about David Suzuki on this thread. He is a far more complicated individual than the caricatures pilloried here. If we skeptics wish to gain traction on the issues, we should be understanding much better who and what we are up against. Suzuki Foundation hits may be much lower than WUWT but Suzuki’s relative influence in Canada and Australia would be hugely greater

    In Canada his status is close to sainthood and for the CBC he is a very significant part of the Canadian national broadcaster’s image and reputation: http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/
    The science program he has hosted for decades produced many worthwhile episodes with lots of good content. His anti-American and anti-capitalist tendency, (a normal legacy of a 60′s U.C. Berkeley degree) has been an undercurrent of course, but the weirdness of describing the heart as “pumping the dirty blood back to the lungs to have the carbon removed” and endorsing Environmental Defence claim that “we are all walking around with several pounds of plastic dissolved in our bodies” has been in the last decade.

    There is an interesting biopic http://www.nfb.ca/playlist/force-nature-david-suzuki-movie/ which would be well worth studying to understand how he developed his views and influence.

    Suzuki is an easy target as the “small footprint” guy with the three wives, five kids, three waterfront homes, massive travel budget, self admitted racism etc. but that does nothing to advance our knowledge of how opinions are formed.

  125. markx says:

    Mod – clarifying addition:

    Also remember that this “extremely concerned about the fate of the world” scientist is in fact so concerned that he pays himself an annual salary, from the funds collected by his foundation, of $C4 million per year, plus travel.

  126. Mac the Knife says:

    David Suzuki, the metaphorical moped of climate scientists!
    Forced to peddle the same tired old AGW drivel because the hot air has leaked out of ‘global warming’, as the planet has naturally cycled back to global cooling.

  127. markx says:

    Max Hugoson:March 9, 2012 at 4:13 pm
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/09/apparently-ive-irritated-the-fruit-fly/#more-58743

    “….the Japanese AMERICANS made Lemonade out of Lemons….They were allowed to make their living quarters their HOMES …”

    Geez Max, you make it all sound so lovely – that was a GREAT thing to do for them, right?

    I’ll just say, as per the overall subject of this site, there is a lot of propaganda, revisionism and general bending of the truth in this world.

  128. markx says:

    Ron says:March 9, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    “…An Alexa ranking measures popularity (number of hits), not correctness of opinion….”

    Aah, um, thanks Ron, I think we all get that bit.

  129. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    It’s so nice that “deniers” are getting press time. The world is being made aware of them! It’s a win for the “deniers”! Thank you David.

  130. markx says:

    This is something we should not laugh at.

    It is very obvious that governments (and others – big business?) are finding that the ready access by the general public to information and other opinions on the internet is drastically undermining their usual modus operandi of ‘fooling some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time’.

    I predict there will be very determined efforts to limit what we can all do and find online in the future, and it will mainly be levered on the failure that is occurring now, (hopefully later to be known as “The Great Global Warming Indoctrination Failure”).

  131. DavidA says:

    I followed Suzuki’s advice and went to Skeptical Science, clicked Arguments. Amongst all the strawmen we find something of substance, “Climate sensitivity is low”.

    “What the science says…”
    “Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.”

    Bull crap.

  132. Paul Coppin says:

    Wayne Liston says:
    March 9, 2012 at 6:28 pm

    I am disappointed in the level of discussion about David Suzuki on this thread. He is a far more complicated individual than the caricatures pilloried here.

    No he’s not. He’s become the caricature. There is nothing complicated left about him. What you see is what you get. There was an eanest attempt to be somebody in the early days of his taking over The Nature of Things on the CBC long ago, but decades of association with that network has done to him what it has done to them all – sucked all the DNA out their neurons. He is fully and completely entropied.

  133. Walt says:

    And this was on the HuffPo, that bastion of free speech rights. You just can’t help but laugh.

  134. Theo Goodwin says:

    ;Great post, Anthony. Suzuki’s alarmism does not sell anywhere.

  135. B-737 says:

    “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
    – Winston Churchill.

  136. Richards in Vancouver says:

    No, Michael H. Anderson, you are incorrect. What’s worse, you are committing the very same fault of which we accuse so many CAGW-ers (with good reason, too). You are demonizing an opponent and mischaracterizing him. We should be above that here.

    In his early years, ink still wet on his PhD, Suzuki did a lot of useful and thoroughly scientific work on fruit-fly mating habits and genetic characteristics. That was back when he really was a scientist.

    My own theory of his subsequent career is that he got hooked on two drugs: microphone and camera lense. He started off on CBC radio, pioneering a weekly half-hour science programme. That was the gateway drug. Then came the hard stuff: weekly TV. He found that he couldn’t resist either of them.

    Couldn’t resist, that is, except for one situation: he could resist both microphone and camera lense if offered them for purposes of debate, especially on CAGW topics. Then: “The debate is over!” and “The science is settled!”.

    That’s when he stopped being a scientist. A pity, really.

  137. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Man, the comments on Suzuki and his article at the Huffington Post are amazing! They are totally reaming the guru of the north. My favorite so far is this one:

    Hey David,I’m still waiting for my $20 bucks. I was one of the first that was scammed by your “Santa is drowning” scam, I ordered before you changed the site to CYA. I’ve sent you two letters asking for a refund. You’ve ignored both.. The next letter is going to Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

    I will not be using my tax receipt, BTW, I expected the “gift” to be tacky and cheap but I was buying for a friend who WAS a big fan of yours. I didn’t expect to be ripped off by one of the “Greatest Canadians”. In hindsight,that was foolish of me, considering I’ve heard you speak before.

    Dang … what is it with these AGW supporters?

    w.

  138. Shoshin says:

    David Suzuki is pissed because he recently got trashed in an issue of the Georgia Straight, his Vancouver hometown’s left leanin’, gay lovin’, uber liberal weekly newspaper.

    Quite hilarious of a comeuppance. I guess even the left coast has had enough of his hypocritical anti-people rants.

  139. Reed Coray says:

    The AGW tenth level blackbelt maggot has spoken. All bow to the Sensei.

  140. Joseph Bastardi says:

    The most amazing thing is these people are oblivious to the data. I will again post this link, for not only are the temps turning around in response to the PDO, but the idea that CO2 CAN NOT POSSIBLY CAUSE WARMING looks to me to be based on sound scientific ground as per this:

    http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-‘-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/

    I used to always wonder how entire populations, such as Germany in ww2 could follow madness the way they did but this global warming situation and these people have opened my eyes as to how such things were done

  141. William Astley says:

    David Suzuki of course lives in Vancouver, where the Canadian winter is less extreme.

    The IPCC’s AR-3 estimate of the economic impacts of AGW includes less sunbird tourism. So far no worry of that. Canadians who can are taking winter vacations to get a break from winter.

    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=escaping_the_canadian_winter_200111

    I have to go away in January. I’ll never make it through the winter without going,” says one traveller we caught up with at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport. “I go to get away from any signs of snow and the 40 below weather,” said another anxious traveller ready to head south. January- March is a busy time for booking vacations to sunshine destinations
    January- March is a busy time for booking vacations to sunshine destinations

    Lisa Vincent, Manager of Travelpath in Burlington, Ontario says the agency definitely starts to see a spike in vacation sales in January.

    “Most people that call to book a vacation usually say, ‘I’m tired of the cold, I’m tired of the dreary weather’ and they’re usually over the hustle and bustle of Christmas,” notes Vincent.

    “Students in University and College have their reading weeks come up in February and then you’ve got March Break so a lot of families book their vacation in March as well.”

    Vincent adds that bookings to Caribbean destinations usually start to die down by mid March, when the spring season begins to move in and residents gear up for summer weekends at the cottage.

    According to the Canadian Tourism Commission, there will be about a 14 percent increase in Canadians travelling outbound in the next couple of years, with the majority of the destinations being to the Caribbean.

    I thought Suzuki was a biologist. Odd that he has not investigated CO2 and plants. No CO2 no plants. More CO2, plants are grow faster, make more efficient use of water, increased yield, and so, biosphere expands. Warmer planet, with most of the warming at higher latitudes, biosphere expands.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm

    Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world’s total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.

    The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertiliser.
    African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year). The African Tropical Rainforest Observation Network, Afritron brings together researchers active in African countries with tropical forest to standardise and pool data to better understand how African tropical forests are changing in a globally changing environment.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

    Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments

    The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.

    Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.

  142. Reed Coray says:

    Ron says: March 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    While viewing the video in Ron’s comment, for a minute I thought I was watching a documentary of the Manson Family. Did anyone else have a similar reaction?

  143. nc says:

    Max Hugoson I am not in defense of Suzuki or the removal of the Japanese from the coast to inland areas, it was the times and there were reasons. But here in Canada Japanese fishing boats and property were taken away from them and they were not compensated. Suzuki when he talks of those times it seems he is trying to rewrite history.

  144. icepilot says:

    It’s very encouraging that Suzuki”s HuffPost article is receiving the response it deserves. Watching the entire liberal/progressive/media/government structure (that own AGW) crash and burn this year will be highly entertaining.

  145. Al Gored says:

    Max Hugoson says:
    March 9, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Re you comment “SO, sorry…NO, can’t excuse D.S. for being a psycopath. That’s his own CHOICE,” re

    Al Gored says:
    March 9, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    “To fully appreciate Suzuki, one needs only look at his childhood…”

    No attempt at an “excuse,’ just an observation which DOES explain him. Your ‘happy’ anecdote is irrelevant to his experience. His suppressed anger is obvious whenever he is challenged and his nonstop potty mouth off camera says even more.

    And I suggested that he was a sociopath, not a psycopath, which is rather different.

    Either way, I’m guessing that we will be seeing some real wild rants from him now as the world fails to be suitably manipulated. Something absolutely spectacular would be nice.

  146. Andrew30 says:

    “Now, one sobering forecast is that the Arctic Ocean will be seasonally ice free by the summer of 2013.”
    David Suzuki
    http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2009/arcticmeltdown/

    David;
    If you though that you missed the CBC article about the Northwest Passage being open or Ice Free last summer, you didn’t, it wasn’t.

  147. Gary Mount says:

    The National Post newspaper was first published in Canada on October 27, 1998. This is a MSM conservative newspaper that has published many articles skeptical to global warming and climate change. It is where I first learned of such things as the way Wikipedia articles where manipulated by one individual as well as what the Climategate emails revealed, and it continues to publish articles informing the public of the true nature of todays climate science. So the Sun TV news isn’t the first conservative news to be produced in Canada, only the most recent. I have never seen a broadcast of Fox news or of the new Sun news, though I have seen a couple of videos on blogs.

  148. J. Felton says:

    Steven Mosher says

    “Gleick and SkS. Dig here.”

    * * *

    Mr. Mosher, I think you are quickly surpassing Sherlock Holmes in detective skills. Anyone wanna bet that SkS has some sort of connection to the Suzuki Foundation?

  149. Al Gored says:

    Willis is right. The comments on that Huffpo article are amazing, and a sure sign of the times. Last time I looked at Huffpo just over a year ago any ‘denier’ would have been lonely and pounced on by Believer hordes.

    And, of note, Tom Harris just answered:

    “2 hours ago ( 9:41 PM) Part 1:

    Dr. Suzuki is wrong, or misleading, when he writes:

    “the revelation that Ottawa’s Carleton University hired Tom Harris, a PR man for a number of “astroturf” groups with a mechanical engineering background, to teach a course on climate change.”

    First, it is old news that I have been teaching a general survey climate course at Carleton for the past three years. It is anything but a revelation. I describe how I taught the course and the mandate of ICSC here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj-bdL2yO8M

    Second, I am not a “PR man”, although, like Suzuki, I am engaged in public education. I have solid training and experience in scientific fields relevant to understanding the causes of climate change. The atmosphere and the oceans are, after all, large thermo-fluid systems, with massive heat transfer fluxes throughout. Could David Suzuki please tell us how his academic background equips him to comment on this immensely complex thermo-fluid system?

    Whether he answers this or not, I promise to never call him “a PR man”, as he has me. That would simply be ad hominem–attacking the man–which the 1,500 students who took my course understand to be a logical fallacy unworthy of serious debate in such an important field.

    2 hours ago ( 9:43 PM) Part 2 concerning Dr. Suzuki’s misleading reference to me:

    The ONE (not, “a number of”) group I have led since early 2008 is the International Climate Science Coalition and this is anything but an “astroturf” group. In fact, contrary to the situation at the David Suzuki Foundation, ICSC has never been funded by corporations of any kind. For those who are interested in learning what ICSC is all about, please visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/.

    As a leader in our society, David Suzuki should be helping create an intellectual climate that opens up issues to constructive debate. I suggest he read “Policing the Climate Debate – Leaders must encourage constructive policy discussion” which may be seen at:

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/policing-the-climate-debate/?singlepage=true

    Attacks against groups and individuals on either side of the climate debate are not welcome. Could you rephrase your reference to me, please, David?

    Tom Harris
    International Climate Science Coalition
    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

    ————-

  150. Smokey says:

    J. Felton,

    SkS and Suzuki are both supported financially by George Soros. Don’t know about Gleick, but it would not surprise me.

  151. John Kettlewell says:

    I was stunned, STUNNED, to see the Honduras rank. I’m wondering how that could be explained.

  152. Pamela Gray says:

    Time flys like the wind. But fruit flies like bananas.

  153. Jabba the Cat says:

    @ Scott Covert says:

    “I think David Suzuki just split the CO2 atom.”

    Did he crush it between the cheeks of his ass between rants?

  154. Andrew Russell says:

    Geroge @March 9, 2012 at 4:42 pm:

    Re: your suggestion for “I’m a Denier” song? You must be new here – it was done a couple of years ago by the Minnesotans For Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk

    See all their music videos at http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/videos/
    Their “Hide The Decline” (to the tune of ‘Dragging the Line” is also great.

  155. Jean Parisot says:

    I would submit that Climate Science needs more Engineers, Mr Harris is a step forwards.

    A couple of years ago, I was able to sit in on a meeting with engineers from an “evil as an oil company” big defense contractor. Despite it being in their financial interest to help the DoD waste money on then politically popular projects, they savaged whole concept.

  156. AndyG55 says:

    @Sparkes “I think!! (or do I?)”

    Seems pretty certain that you haven’t reached that stage yet.!

  157. Gary Mount says:

    One day, sometime in the early 1980s probably, I watched Suzuki demonstrating how CO2 blocked infra red by using an infra red camera, his face and CO2 between him and the camera. As the CO2 increased, his face slowly disappeared from the screen. Thus was born the switch in my mind from believing in the coming ice age, turning a complete 180 compass degrees, and switching to believing in global warming instead.
    Now, up to that time, as a young man back then, I was considering my future and the future of my family, that is my children, and the coming ice age idea that had been drilled into me at that time had me contemplating emigrating south, which would be to the USA. The idea today that the ice age scare was only found in a few obscure publications just isn’t true. It permeated throughout the MSM publications, and I am living proof as I lived through and remember those times.
    I often wonder how Suzuki, Gore and others believed in global warming long before the increasing temperatures where yet to be recorded. I would suggest that they chose to use CO2 as a means of furthering their goals, and they would find a way to push the global warming / climate change idea, and thus they have.
    As the years progressed, from when I first believed in global warming, the constant news casts proclaiming such and such a weather event was caused by global warming, started to create doubts in my mind because of course these weather events have happened in the past, why are they now proof of global warming / climate change.
    As an example, I was astounded one day when the host of the CBC National news proclaimed on the day that my city and region start their annual lawn watering restrictions, that this was because of global warming / climate change. I have lived in this region since 1967 and the summer months of July and August have always been dry months, and as the population of this region has grown, with no infrastructure water capacity improvements, as well as putting off hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure spending just to improve water supply for a few weeks before the rainy season began again, lawn watering restrictions would be used to save money.
    There are so many more examples of weather events being used as proof of CAGW, and even today I see it being used in the US. Suzuki used the Vancouver North shore mountains having little snow in 2010 as proof of global warming, even though the year before and the year after there was plenty of snow. Note that the Whistler area had plenty of snow during the Olympics, and also, these mountains are part of the Coastal Mountain range, and not the Rocky Mountains as someone erroneously wrote recently.

  158. old44 says:

    “The worker’s flag is deepest red. It shrouded oft our martyred dead”
    We have a Gulag set aside for all deniers.

  159. Mike D. says:

    So Suzuki is a denier denier. And all of you who take issue with him are thus denier denier deniers. If I was to censure you all for that, I’d be a denier denier denier denier. And if that upset you to the point of censuring me, you’d be denier denier denier denier deniers. This could go on indefinitely…

  160. R. de Haan says:

    Study: climate alarmists represent 30% of OCD psychiatric patients
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/study-climate-alarmists-represent-30-of.html

  161. Anton says:

    Scottish Sceptic says:

    “You ask him politely to reframe from calling people “deniers” and he just carries on even worse.

    “We had a cockerel like him. Every time I heard him crow, I just felt sorry, because we couldn’t keep a noisy bird like that. I did try to train the cockerel to stop crowing … but I knew the dumb bird wouldn’t learn …

    “He tasted good.”

    _______
    I know you meant this to be funny, but it isn’t, at least not to me. I don’t find anything humorous about killing animals, whether the story is true or not. To me, the idea of eating an animal one has raised and interacted with is appalling. When I was very young, I knew a woman who raised goats, named them, played with them (effectively making them pets), then periodically slaughtered, cooked, and served them to her human family. I thought she, her spouse, and her human children were monsters. I still do.

  162. Charles.U.Farley says:

    Suzuki is espousing ideas that are typically found in the psychological makeup of rapists or other predators.

    He obviously feels he alone ( grandiose sense of self importance) has the right to decide whether or not a denial to his advances/ideals/morals should be allowed or not (non empathic-psychopathic tendencies).
    He is suggesting a course of action that could impose serious negative psychological and physical trauma on others if implemented, presumably with himself as grand overseer.
    Whys he not in a padded cell?
    The public needs protecting from dangerous care in the community cases like him, fbi please note.

  163. A Lovell says:

    “Reed Coray says:
    March 9, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Ron says: March 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    While viewing the video in Ron’s comment, for a minute I thought I was watching a documentary

    of the Manson Family. Did anyone else have a similar reaction?”

    Yes, I did! He was just basking in the attention wasn’t he? And spouting utter garbage. No change there….

    Gary Mount says:
    March 9, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    I also remember very well the coming ice age scare. My daughters were very young in the early 70s, and I was very concerned at the time. I have since learned not to believe anything until I have done my own research!

    I always put people on to http://www.green-agenda.com for a good explanation of the politics. You really don’t have to be any sort of scientist to understand the way the scam has been perpetrated.

  164. DirkH says:

    Suzuki doesn’t link to WUWT but he calls it “Anthony Watt’s blog” and that information is completely sufficient to make WUWT appear as #1 hit on google… If there are curious people reading his rant, they’ll find this; and will be able to compare Skeptical Science with WUWT.

    And they will notice that WUWT links to all realtime data sources whereas Skeptical Science doesn’t. That settles it for any person with a brain.

  165. DavidA says:

    Their moderators are allowing some terribly offensive stuff through. For example this one from poster “vicneo”,

    “3. you might want to go back to your old job- the karate instructor in “Karate kid”. more honest and might actually have more long term potential”

    Atrocious!

  166. Jimbo says:

    Anthony, the reaction from Suzuki tells you that you are right over the target. ;-)

    If ever there was a scare story that needed to fail, it is CAGW. All us former believers (Anthony, Jimbo et. al.), should do our best.

  167. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 12:14 am

    “I don’t find anything humorous about killing animals, whether the story is true or not. To me, the idea of eating an animal one has raised and interacted with is appalling. When I was very young, I knew a woman who raised goats, named them, played with them (effectively making them pets), then periodically slaughtered, cooked, and served them to her human family. I thought she, her spouse, and her human children were monsters. I still do.”

    I’m the same way. I don’t find anything humorous about killing vegetables, whether the story is true or not. To me, the idea of eating a vegetable one has raised and interacted with is appalling. When I was very young, I knew a woman who raised tomatoes, named them, cared for them as if they were her children, then periodically slaughtered, cooked, and served them to her human family. I thought she, her spouse, and her human children were monsters. I still do.

    What are you, Anton, some kind of specist? You’re quite willing to kill things so that you can live, but you think that vegetables are beneath contempt, I guess. Makes sense, you’re an animal, but that kind of hatred for vegetables approaches the pathological … life eats life to live. Get used to it.

    Get a grip, Anton. This is not the place for your foodie rants. Nobody here cares why you eat what you eat, or how you justify wantonly killing vegetables to satisfy your un-natural gastronomic lusts … here, we’re discussing climate science.

    w.

    PS—I absolutely loved the part about “she, her spouse, and her human children” … as opposed, presumably, to her space alien children … dude, you’re losing the plot here.

  168. Richard S Courtney says:

    Sparks:

    I do not know your mother but I assumed she was “a good person” (see what I wrote) despite her having given birth to you.

    I repeat, learn how to behave as a growen-up before posting here. Like other immature gnats and midges, your childish attempts at being annoying are a diversion that everybody could do without.

    Richard

  169. Steve C says:

    It will come as no surprise to WUWT regulars that this little fellow pops up regularly on BBC ‘science’ programs, too. Birds of a feather, an’ all that.

  170. DirkH says:

    R. de Haan says:
    March 9, 2012 at 11:09 pm
    “Study: climate alarmists represent 30% of OCD psychiatric patients
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/study-climate-alarmists-represent-30-of.html

    Good. That helps in formulating a remedy. I’m thinking about setting up a website where they can register themselves in a list, and I’ll send them a petition a week that they can forward to some address which I’ll provide, of course combined with consumer information about things they can buy to reduce their carbon footprint.

  171. Jabba the Cat says:

    @ Willis Eschenbach says:

    “To me, the idea of eating a vegetable one has raised and interacted with is appalling.”

    Lol…priceless Willis!

  172. Stephen Richards says:

    Smokey says:

    March 9, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    J. Felton,

    SkS and Suzuki are both supported financially by George Soros. Don’t know about Gleick, but it would not surprise me.

    An ex-felon supporting a soon to be felon. Why not

  173. Eric (skeptic) says:

    pwl, thanks for the Suzuki video, somehow I managed to watch the whole thing. Suzuki hates Bush. Suzuki likes Katrina. My conclusion: Suzuki hates people.

  174. Sandy says:

    David Suzuki is an eminent scientist who explained something as follows…
    ‘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.’

  175. Matt G says:

    Pro CAGW like David Suzuki can’t demonstrate any science that backs up their alarmist nonsense, so in desperation their only defence is to try and stop true scientists from pointing out their failures. Hence, why blogs like this need to make the public aware of these failures. After many hundred millions of funding they are no closer than decades ago. In fact they are increasingly further away because the planet is against virtually every claim. The rants will only increase as this becomes increasingly apparent widely. (although over last few years this seems hardly possible)

  176. Frank K. says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    March 10, 2012 at 1:22 am

    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 12:14 am

    Willis – killing animals for food is exactly what animals do to each other, usually in a very cruel and cold manner. How do you think the lions of Africa eat? How about the sharks? Mother nature is not “kind” at all.

  177. Mingy says:

    Suzuki was an interesting guy once, but something happened to his head. The CBC worships him here, probably because he is a product of theirs. He has the series “The Nature of Things” which was good once, but now is mostly a bunch crazy econ-narratives with staged shots and shoddy science. Actually, you can’t call the science science because they conclude with comments like that octopus might evolve human intelligence in 100,000 years which shows such a complete lack of understanding of evolution you don’t even know where to begin.

    I heard this clown on the radio jabbering on about the Gaia Hypothesis. It just shows that a new-age looney can become a scientific expert, provided they are on the right side of things. Mind you Suzuki was a genetics prof, so his expertise in everything else should be as suspect as my own.

  178. Dan Martin says:

    This from a geneticist who wrote a book on ethics? We are to trust his views on climate over a “weatherman’s”?

  179. timheyes says:

    Anthony,
    Don’t worry about Suzuki not mentioning WUWT. A google of “Anthony Watts blog” (words he did use) comes out with WUWT at the top hit. I suspect anyone can figure out how to find WUWT even with extremely weak google-fu.

  180. Allan MacRae says:

    bk says: March 9, 2012 at 5:39 pm
    Suzuki is gradually realizing that the CAGW fight is lost as he is now moving on to advocating more control over energy for reasons other than AGW.
    ___________________

    The fact that almost all governments and major corporations in the developed world were fooled by (or simply acquiesced to) CAGW fraud, and squandered a trillion dollars trying to “fight global warming” , says much about the proper role of governments in society.

    To be fooled by an obvious fraud such as global warming is clear evidence that the collective intellect of governments is indeed that of a fruit fly.

    To knowingly acquiesce to such fraud is evidence that the collective ethics of governments are lower than those of a maggot.

    In either case, it is evident that the role of governments should be minimized, not expanded. Governments are clearly not intellectually or ethically competent to provide guidance on complex matters of serious importance to humanity.

    Similarly, our once-respected intellectual institutions have lost their credibility. The Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences and many others have embraced and promoted CAGW mania.

    As Lord Monckton indicated in his recent NY college speech, governments throughout history have embraced truly foolish ideas, with disastrous consequences.
    “ The Versailles consensus of 1918 imposed reparations on the defeated Germany, so that the conference that ended the First World War (15 million dead) sowed the seeds of the Second. The eugenics consensus of the 1920s that led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka (6 million dead). The appeasement consensus of the 1930s that provoked Hitler to start World War II (60 million dead). The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s that wrecked 20 successive harvests in the then Soviet Union (20 million dead). The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s that led to a fatal resurgence of malaria worldwide (40 million children dead and counting, 1.25 million of them last year alone).”

    The difference today is that we have the internet, a system of global communication that , in time, will perhaps mitigate the proliferation of popular delusions such as CAGW mania, and enable our society to make more rational decisions.

  181. Paul Coppin says:

    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 12:14 am
    [...]
    _______
    I know you meant this to be funny, but it isn’t, at least not to me. I don’t find anything humorous about killing animals, whether the story is true or not. To me, the idea of eating an animal one has raised and interacted with is appalling. When I was very young, I knew a woman who raised goats, named them, played with them (effectively making them pets), then periodically slaughtered, cooked, and served them to her human family. I thought she, her spouse, and her human children were monsters. I still do.

    Everything is food for something….get over it. PETA also means “people eating tasty animals”.. You’re an omnivore that thrives on efficient sources of protein. Who’d a thunk it! Farming is common throughout the biosphere, and you don’t even have to be a vertebrate to do it.

  182. Bob Diaz says:

    (1) Attempt to convince people that your side is correct.
    (2) Fails to do so.
    (3) Demand that anyone who disagrees must be silenced.

    Wow, let’s go back to the days when the “Scientific Consensus” said that the Sun went around the Earth and the World is flat. Anyone who disagrees must be silenced.

  183. Geez………………..poor little Doctor Fruit Fly must be facing a bit of a downturn in his “donations” so that he and his whacked out followers can live the “high life” on their little Islands in the sun!
    When “psychopaths” get a chance to influence any type of real dialogue that will expose them for what they really are get a bit “crazy”…………………….
    Note to “Dr.” Suzuki……….your day has come and gone………….go quietly into the night!!!!!!

  184. Jeff Norman says:

    Dr. Fruit Fly. That is LOL hilarious.

  185. Anton says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    March 10, 2012 at 1:22 am
    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 12:14 am

    Willis, I’ve enjoyed your articles and letters for a long time, but I don’t enjoy your put-downs. I was responding to someone’s bad attempt at humor, not addressing a social issue or global warming. I thought the bad attempt at humor was inappropriate for this site.

    I specified “human children” to differentiate between the human kids and the goats (kids). Get it? While everything is food for something else, eating PETS is hideous. The goats were PETS, if you’d bothered to read what I said. The man writing about the rooster was writing about a PET, and then said how tasty it was. Ha. Ha.

    Before attacking me and assuming I’m a radical of some sort, how about just reading the damn post first. People who raise animals and treat as pets and then kill and eat them are not normal, average, typical, or conventional.

  186. Billy Liar says:

    or industry-funded fake science organizations

    There he goes, talking about his own Foundation again!

  187. By advocating censorship and denying free speech, David Suzuki directly undermines the foundations of our western civilization and the Rule of Law. He advocates tyrannical control such as exercised by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

    Parents
    Rise up and object to Suzuki’s indoctrinating our children in bullying and tyranny.

  188. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 8:27 am
    Willis Eschenbach says:
    March 10, 2012 at 1:22 am

    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 12:14 am

    Willis, I’ve enjoyed your articles and letters for a long time, but I don’t enjoy your put-downs. I was responding to someone’s bad attempt at humor, not addressing a social issue or global warming. I thought the bad attempt at humor was inappropriate for this site.

    Let me get this straight. You thought someone else’s comment was inappropriate. So you went into a long vegetarian rant, roundly abusing people who don’t believe what you believe, telling everyone how you are so much more morally superior to someone who treats their goats nicely, and trying to act like some demented Miss Manners of the open range.

    And then, after sticking your vegebabble in the middle of a discussion of climate, you don’t like my response? Well, that’s kinda the point, Anton. I don’t suffer arrogant, holier-than-thou fools gladly, and I make that known as clearly as I can.

    I specified “human children” to differentiate between the human kids and the goats (kids). Get it?

    No, I didn’t get it, and I’m sorry I didn’t, it’s so witty and incisive.

    While everything is food for something else, eating PETS is hideous. The goats were PETS, if you’d bothered to read what I said. The man writing about the rooster was writing about a PET, and then said how tasty it was. Ha. Ha.

    Clearly, you did not grow up on a ranch … or perhaps you did and the animals were mean to you. Ranchers raise all kinds of animals and eat them. And yes, while the animals are growing, sometimes they or their kids play with the animal, and talk to them and the like, treat them kindly like we do our pets. It’s lonely being a rancher, all of the animals are your friends, you talk to them, you give some of them names … I used to sit in the barn next to the cows because they were so warm, and yes, I’d talk to them and pet them sometimes … so sue me.

    It sounds like you would prefer that humans never ever be nice to the animals that they eat … how does that work? Are we to assume that if the people in your story didn’t treat the goats nicely, if they didn’t play with the goats, if they treated the goats all cold and distant, never gave them any human interaction, that that would be better? Goats like humans, especially baby goats. So are you going to put on your personal armor and never interact with them?

    How does that work, that people shouldn’t be nice or kind to their animals if they are going to eat them? You advocate being cruel to our food animals, you say we should not treat them kindly like we treat our pets, your plan is to deprive them of human companionship … that’s your high moral ground??

    When I was a kid there was another rancher who had a couple of calves. His kids kind of adopted them and played with them. So he named them. He named them “T-Bone” and “Roast Beef”, to remind the kids of the animals certain fate. And like every other cow on the place, they ended up on someone’s plate.

    You’ll have to explain to me how the kids playing with the calves was such a bad thing, and how they shouldn’t have been kind to the calves and petted them and fed them.

    Before attacking me and assuming I’m a radical of some sort, how about just reading the damn post first. People who raise animals and treat as pets and then kill and eat them are not normal, average, typical, or conventional.

    I read the “damn post” first, my friend, I quoted the whole thing back to you to show you how stupid it was. People like you who go on vegetarian rants in the middle of a thread about David Suzuki are not normal, average, typical, or conventional. You need to get out more, Anton, it sounds like you think the “open range” is the back section of the health food store.

    w.

  189. Myrrh says:

    We eat vegetables and in the end the vegetables eat us.

  190. Myrrh says:

    Plants register danger when their leaves are cut – recently shown how danger is communicated to other plants by the one being attacked. Remember that when you pluck a lettuce leaf, it’s screaming …

  191. Diane Scaiff says:

    I started to read the comments with interest but was dismayed to find that so many were either an a personal attack on Suzuki or the CBC (which is an arms length corporation and only the radio is fully funded by the government). I saw very few comments which actually used facts and logic. Big disappointment as I am always interested in hearing both (or more) sides of an issue. Do we have to be an expert/liberal/conservative/socialist/communist (there is a BIG difference, gentle neighbours to the south)/fascist/republican/concerned amateur to learn and think about issues and then express carefully reasoned opinions. Let’s leave jeering to children who haven’t learned better and set a good example.

  192. Snotrocket says:

    “Who is David Suzuki?” He’s the ‘Manphibian Candidate’, of course. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manphibian)

  193. DirkH says:

    Diane Scaiff says:
    March 10, 2012 at 11:08 am
    “socialist/communist (there is a BIG difference, gentle neighbours to the south)”

    What, between socialist and communist? Yeah, both believe that the means of production should be expropriated. The difference being that the socialists are willing to pay people according to their deeds, not their needs. And that’s the entire difference. Go prove me wrong. I’ve read their drivel.

  194. Paul Coppin says:

    Diane Scaiff says:
    March 10, 2012 at 11:08 am

    I started to read the comments with interest but was dismayed to find that so many were either an a personal attack on Suzuki or the CBC (which is an arms length corporation and only the radio is fully funded by the government). I saw very few comments which actually used facts and logic. Big disappointment as I am always interested in hearing both (or more) sides of an issue. Do we have to be an expert/liberal/conservative/socialist/communist (there is a BIG difference, gentle neighbours to the south)/fascist/republican/concerned amateur to learn and think about issues and then express carefully reasoned opinions. Let’s leave jeering to children who haven’t learned better and set a good example.

    Oh, puhleeze… where have you been for the last 20 years? a) You will not hear ANY rational side of the debate from David Suzuki. b) You need to look deeper into how the CBC is financed and regulated. c) Bing (can’t support Google anymore) is your friend – you have a mountain of research to do, but ALL is out there. Stop sitting on your hands and get reading. Enlightment will be your salvation.

  195. Richard S Courtney says:

    Dirk H:

    There is a very big difference between socialists and communists. Indeed, they are bitter opponents.

    If you want to spout ignorant and offensive nonsense based on your political prejudices then find an appropriate blog. WUWT is not it.

    Richard

  196. Diane Scaiff says:

    Socialism is much less rigid than Communism. Its intent is to allow sufficient distribution of a nation’s goods to ensure the health and welfare of the citizens. Beyond that is up to citizens to earn. Socialism is not incompatible with democracies or republics or capitalism. Combining it with capitalism does require some flexibility of thought but most employers are happy to know their employees are healthy and well-educated. To see healthy children being well educated, to know that they and their parents have access to medical care without illness being exacerbated by worries about money, is worth the name calling. A healthy, well-educated population can decide for themselves what system of government they want. Calling something drivel does not make it so.

  197. JoeThePimpernel says:

    How Grand Inquisitor of him.

  198. Diane Scaiff says:

    Paul Coppin,
    In the past forty years I have lived in Canada, California and France and spent considerable time in the United Kingdom. I am actually not a huge fan of Suzuki because I am not a fan of documentaries in general as I can read faster than they can give me information. I am a fan of CBC radio which does an excellent job of allowing different viewpoints to be heard. I also check in with the BBC news service and read the Globe and Mail every day and occasionally read Le Monde and China Daily. Aljazeera is another infrequent source for me as is the BBC’s world service broadcasts. I used to teach my students to be suspicious of anything on the Internet until they had checked out its provenance and satisfied themselves that it wasn’t unduly biased. Of course I do the same. I find the news sources above when read with some regularity give me a fair picture of issues.
    Ten years ago I did a masters in education at a university that encouraged admission of students from all over the world. We were all encouraged to give presentations on those many cultures and the school systems; believe me, it gave us an understanding of how people in those cultures look at everything from politics to women to ownership to food.
    In addition to reading the news, I am also currently reading books on the brain, early civilisations, bilingualism, effective visual displays of data and an introduction to quantum physics. In line are two books on sick fish in the sea and some stuff on power and education. I also write a blog on education.
    I forgot about the books on Buddhism – and enlightenment. Got some laundry and knitting to do. Any more advice?

  199. Jeremy says:

    This 13 year old child claims she was afraid to go outside because of the hole in the ozone. This is an example of what David Suzuki wants people to believe. Those who would tell this child it is ok to go outside and play are the DENIERS which David wants to censor.

    This poor mentally abused child is actually David Suzuki’s daughter.

  200. DirkH says:

    Richard S Courtney says:
    March 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    “There is a very big difference between socialists and communists. Indeed, they are bitter opponents.”

    I didn’t say anything else.

    “If you want to spout ignorant and offensive nonsense based on your political prejudices then find an appropriate blog. WUWT is not it.”

    Do you want me to find the source for my statement? Allright, here we go.
    http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

  201. Anton says:

    Willis says . . .

    “I read the “damn post” first, my friend, I quoted the whole thing back to you to show you how stupid it was. People like you who go on vegetarian rants in the middle of a thread about David Suzuki are not normal, average, typical, or conventional. You need to get out more, Anton, it sounds like you think the “open range” is the back section of the health food store.”

    You still missed the point. The guy was making a joke about Suzuki being like his pet rooster. He couldn’t get the rooster to shut up, so he ate it. That’s the supposed joke that I found annoying because it reminded of someone I knew who ate her pet goats. It isn’t funny, though you might find it hilarious. It’s also old. Countless variants of it have appeared on the Web in recent years. They pop up frequently on conservative political sites, commonly written by fundamentalist Christians ridiculing and trashing animal-rights activists. After all, what could be less compatible with bloody Yahweh than kindness to animals or caring about their welfare?

    My comment was not a vegetarian rant. Is that how you categorize everything pro-animal? Was the original joke, then, an anti-vegetarian rant corrupting a thread about Suzuki?

    I believe farm and ranch food-animals should be treated wonderfully, but I don’t think they should made into pets if one intends to eat them. How is that going to be processed by the animals facing their own deaths?

    If this is stupid to you, then I wonder about your articles published on this site. Are they objective, which they appear to be, or do you go after certain AGW writers because of some imagined ideological differences you have have with them having nothing to do with the subjects involved? You certainly jumped to a false conclusion about me, using inductive reasoning (i.e., vegetarians oppose killing animals; Anton opposes killing pets; Anton, therefore, is a vegetarian). Is this how you approach science too?

  202. Allan MacRae says:

    Diane Scaiff says: March 10, 2012 at 11:08 am
    I started to read the comments with interest but was dismayed to find that so many were either an a personal attack on Suzuki or the CBC (which is an arms length corporation and only the radio is fully funded by the government). I saw very few comments which actually used facts and logic.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    OK Diane – here goes:

    My Summary – The “Mainstream” Catastrophic Humanmade Global Warming Debate:

    Conventional climate theory, assuming zero feedback, suggests that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in ~1 degree C of global warming.

    Warming alarmists say there are positive feedbacks to increasing CO2 (and build this assumption aggressively into their climate models), whereas climate skeptics say there are negative feedbacks.

    The skeptics easily win this mainstream debate, because there is no evidence of net positive feedbacks to increased CO2 in the climate system, and ample evidence of negative feedbacks.

    Also, despite increased atmospheric CO2, there has been no net global warming in about a decade.

    The probability therefore is that “climate sensitivity” to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is less that 1 degree C.

    Furthermore, I suspect that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is unlikely to happen due to human activity – so we can expect much less than 1 degree C of global warming.

    The above ASSUMES that one accepts the premises of the mainstream debate.

    ___________________________________________________________

    BUT there is perhaps a bigger problem with the mainstream debate:

    Atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales, from hundreds of years on a long cycle, to 9 months on a short cycle;
    SO
    the hypothesis that CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, core to the mainstream debate, apparently assumes that the future is causing the past.

    The popular counterarguments are:
    a) The lag of CO2 after temperature is a “feedback effect”,
    OR
    b) It is clear evidence that time machines really do exist.
    Both counterarguments a) and b) are supported by equal amounts of compelling evidence. :-)

    This thorny point may not be resolved in my lifetime, but I’ll just remind you of some of the assumptions that are near and dear to the hearts and “logic” of the global warming alarmists:
    1. They apparently assume that the Uniformitarian Principle has been especially exempted for their particular brand of “science”.
    2. The also assume that Occam’s Razor can similarly be ignored, apparently again, just for them.

    The increasing desperation of the warming alarmists is evidenced by their evermore Byzantine explanations of the observed flat or cooling global temperatures in this century. What is it this week – aerosols, dust, volcanoes. the appalling scarcity of buffalo farts… the list of farfetched apologia is endless and increasingly pathetic.

    Earlier, there was Mann-made global warming, the “Divergence Problem” and “Hide the Decline”. The list of global warmist chicanery is increasingly long and unprincipled.

    It is notable that not one of the very-scary global warming predictions of the IPCC has materialized. The IPCC has demonstrated negative predictive skill. All its scary predictions have proven false.

  203. Michael H Anderson says:

    To Tom Harris and Diane Scaiff: while your notion that the rules of debate require us not to attack *Suzuki the man* is commendable on purely esthetic grounds, I think it’s important for everyone here to understand that this is not Debate Club. This is the real world, and in the real world, people’s actions have real effects. David Suzuki has made a career of crafting grotesque distortions of reality in the cause of expanding his own wealth, he is a damnable hypocrite of the most hideously glaring sort, and his activities on this earth have real, negative consequences for *real people*. So your opinion regarding how the discourse ought to be conducted needs to be taken in the appropriate light, which is that it is MERELY YOUR OPINION. Personally, I regard Suzuki as dangerous Fascist scum (and frankly I have found in life that the alleged differences between Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are merely linguistic and have no real significance outside Debate Club) and in any sense I can conceive, a traitor to the human species. I am not *jeering* as you put it; I am in a righteously indignant RAGE.

    As to the notion that the books Diane reads or Anton’s dietary choices might be germane to the issue under discussion – please give us all a bloody break! Go take your puerile non-tactics back to Debate Club where they belong.

  204. Pamela Gray says:

    4H kids everywhere are spitting their pop onto their ipads as they read Anton’s rediculous beliefs re pet ranch animals. In order to show the animals u spend “pet time” with them so they can show them off at their best. This tends to increase the auction price. I would venture to guess these kids and their animals are not the pool in which killers are made.

  205. Michael H Anderson says:

    I of course include you, Anton. Back on topic or GTFO.

  206. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 1:36 pm (Edit)

    You still missed the point. The guy was making a joke about Suzuki being like his pet rooster. He couldn’t get the rooster to shut up, so he ate it. That’s the supposed joke that I found annoying because it reminded of someone I knew who ate her pet goats.

    So as a result, you went on a long discussion (on a climate blog) about how heartless you think someone was, a person that none of us know.

    It isn’t funny, though you might find it hilarious.

    Actually, I saw the whole post as a brutal truth rather than a joke. We had a dog on the ranch, a greatly loved pet. At some point it discovered the joys of killing chickens. We couldn’t stop it, so we killed it.

    I don’t see that as a joke. I do see both as cautionary tales about what happens when animals lose the plot.

    It’s also old. Countless variants of it have appeared on the Web in recent years. They pop up frequently on conservative political sites, commonly written by fundamentalist Christians ridiculing and trashing animal-rights activists. After all, what could be less compatible with bloody Yahweh than kindness to animals or caring about their welfare?

    I’ve never heard the damn thing in my life. Perhaps it is because I don’t spend even an instant on “conservative political sites, commonly written by fundamentalist Christians ridiculing and trashing animal-rights activists”. I leave that to folks like you.

    But Anton, none of that belongs here. This is not a conservative political site. It is not a fundamentalist Christian site. We pay almost no attention to that stuff here … so why are you going on about it?

    My comment was not a vegetarian rant.

    My apologies. I applied the old “walks like a duck” rule, but yes, it’s not always right.

    Is that how you categorize everything pro-animal? Was the original joke, then, an anti-vegetarian rant corrupting a thread about Suzuki?

    Get a grip. None of that is true, and you know it.

    I believe farm and ranch food-animals should be treated wonderfully, but I don’t think they should made into pets if one intends to eat them. How is that going to be processed by the animals facing their own deaths?

    “Processed by the animals facing their own deaths”?? My friend, you’ve truly lost the plot. Any humane rancher sets things up that the animals death is unexpected and instantaneous. And in any case, cows are magnificent creatures, but they’re absolutely hopeless at “processing”, including “facing their own death”.

    Facing their own death? What, are the goats thinking “Damn, I wish little Jimmy had treated me mean, then I wouldn’t be all conflicted now that he’s told me I’m going to be killed next week”?

    If this is stupid to you, then I wonder about your articles published on this site. Are they objective, which they appear to be, or do you go after certain AGW writers because of some imagined ideological differences you have have with them having nothing to do with the subjects involved? You certainly jumped to a false conclusion about me, using inductive reasoning (i.e., vegetarians oppose killing animals; Anton opposes killing pets; Anton, therefore, is a vegetarian). Is this how you approach science too?

    You are 100% right. I had incorrectly mis-categorized you as a vegetarian instead of a follower of Duns Scotus. My bad.

    Finally, my articles stand or fall on their own. Either they are right or they are not, and it doesn’t depend in any sense on whether I mistakenly thought you were a vegetarian. Your ad hominem argument is without merit, it’s not about me.

    w.

  207. Richard S Courtney says:

    DirkH:

    I repeat:
    WUWT is a science blog where people of all political, religious and philosophical views discuss science. WUWT is NOT an appropriate site for you to promulgate your political prejudices. Take them elsewhere.

    And I am a left-wing socialist of the old-fashioned British kind. I know what I believe and I do not intend to visit smear sites which you commend because – you say – they provide distortions of my political views. Go away.

    Richard

  208. DirkH says:

    Richard S Courtney says:
    March 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm
    “I know what I believe and I do not intend to visit smear sites which you commend because – you say – they provide distortions of my political views. Go away.”

    It is a pity that you, as one who is in the know, will not contribute to clarify the meaning of socialism to me, who, as an outsider to the whole affair, must try to find my information from the sources I encounter. I didn’t know that http://www.marxmail.org/ is a smear site intending to distort your views. It says about itself
    “The Marxism list is a worldwide moderated forum for activists and scholars in the Marxist tradition who favor a non-sectarian and non-dogmatic approach.”
    which sounded good enough for me. Let me apologize to you and any other socialist reading this. I shall try to keep any further interpretations of what socialism is to myself.

  209. Anton says:

    Willis said . . .

    “Finally, my articles stand or fall on their own. Either they are right or they are not, and it doesn’t depend in any sense on whether I mistakenly thought you were a vegetarian. Your ad hominem argument is without merit, it’s not about me.”
    ————
    Whether your science is about you, I don’t know, but of course your attack on me is about you. You derided me for expressing an opinion concerning a bad joke. And repeatedly did so in various forms. If I were resorting to ad hominem, I would have attempted to discredit you on some specific issue or point because of some personal flaw on your part. I never did anything like that. I did ask if you used inductive reasoning in your arguments.

    I’m sorry about your dog. That’s a very sad story. But, why did your family kill the dog instead of finding a new home for it?

    My father is a scientist, and has no qualms about putting “research” animals down, but I’ve opposed him on this since I was six years old.

    I know about the Christian postings on conservative sites because people send then to me every day of my life. It’s one of things I most dislike about email. Honestly, I would prefer not to know. Cruelty to animals is one of the historically defining characteristics of Christianity, and the reason I abandoned Christianity as a teenager.

    Forgive me if I hurt your feelings. I’ve already told you that I enjoy your articles and letters. I was taken aback by your snide remarks about my minor comments on a joke I didn’t find funny. Why would you even notice them? Normally, nobody does. You may think I’m stupid, but I’m not so stupid as to believe for an instant that my comments could ever sway opinion. I’m only a drop in an infinite bucket.

  210. Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 12:14 am
    “…To me, the idea of eating an animal one has raised and interacted with is appalling. When I was very young, I knew a woman who raised goats, named them, played with them (effectively making them pets), then periodically slaughtered, cooked, and served them to her human family. I thought she, her spouse, and her human children were monsters. I still do.”

    Anton, as a kid I spent time in the countryside during the summers where everyone either kept livestock, hunted, or did both. Those who honoured the individuality and value of their critters by naming them tended to treat them well, with kindness, just like we do with pets. Keeping in mind that pets for the sake of companionship only are a fairly new and still comparatively rare luxury. Those who didn’t bother to name their livestock often treated them like commodities and animated objects, mistreating them, keeping them under-nourished until shortly before they were to be slaughtered, when they would over-feed them to bring up their weight. It’s simples, really: Anonimity breeds calousness and contempt.

    Neither the woman you refer to, nor my or anyone else’s family and neighbours deserve to be called “monsters” for feeding their families and for treating their animals humanely at the same time. Your need to specify “human family,” on the other hand, implying that animals can be seriously and genuinely counted as family members actually classifies you as a monster, or at least a suspicious screw-up in all the world’s societies and cultures. The kind that might favour the well-being or life of a family pet over a stranger. You’re entitled to your cooky urbanite views, but when you choose to insult people just because they are not neurotic nitwits and spoiled ninnies, expect a bit of a pushback.

  211. Anton said, “….why did your family kill the dog instead of finding a new home for it?”

    For a self-proclaimed animal lover, you don’t really know much about animals, do you? A dog that goes around killing chickens will not only kill chickens in a new home as well, but it’s inability to take a cue could lead it to kill pets or a child.

  212. Anton says:

    Peter, I wasn’t writing to you, but since you jumped in with more insults, here goes.

    I didn’t say farmers and ranchers should ignore their animals or treat them like commodities. I said people should not eat their pets. The woman I wrote about was not a farmer or rancher. She did not raise goats for money or sustenance. She wasn’t poor or starving. She raised goats AS PETS, but when she tired of them, she ate them. Her religion told her she could do this. She was very religious.

    In my family, our pets WERE family members, despite my father’s attitude toward laboratory animals. Our dog was my brother, not some dumb animal we kept around for amusement.

    Pets for the sake of companionship are not a new phenomenon. The ancient Egyptians had animal companions, and formally mourned the deaths of pet cats. The fact that you grew up in a culture that treated animals an inferiors doesn’t reflect badly upon me. Neurotic nitwit, ninny, kooky urbanite? No. How about somebody who actually doesn’t judge other life-forms based upon some vicious religious scripture composed by ignorant old coots?

    Would I favor the well-being or life of a pet over that of a human stranger? Of course, I would. My pets depend on me to protect and care for them. I owe them. They’re my responsibility. This may seem monstrous to you, but doing otherwise would be monstrous for me and to them.

    Most Americans with pets consider their pets family members. So how many more names can you call us, or me, at least? I also have central heating and air-conditioning, and all my own teeth. Lord have mercy! I must be really spoiled, doncha know?

  213. dbstealey says:

    Anton,

    For some perspective, farm kids in 4-H programs raise their animals, pamper them, give them names, show them at fairs… then auction them off for slaughter. It’s a cruel world. But those animals would not even exist but for the 4-H programs for which they are bred. As it is, the animals have really good lives while they are around. And the proceeds go to the farmers, who can then help make life better for other animals.

  214. Anton says:

    Peter Kovachev says:
    March 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm
    Anton said, “….why did your family kill the dog instead of finding a new home for it?”

    “For a self-proclaimed animal lover, you don’t really know much about animals, do you? A dog that goes around killing chickens will not only kill chickens in a new home as well, but it’s inability to take a cue could lead it to kill pets or a child.”

    How ridiculous. Dogs kill chickens. Cats kill birds. That doesn’t mean they’re going to kill each other, or Little Baby Peter. I’ve raised over a hundred dogs, cats, chickens, and other critters, all in the middle of a city in a nice neighborhood. And I’ve never had a problem with one of them going rogue and attacking the others. I did have a dog who killed a chicken on a farm, but I took him home, and he was fine.

    So, I think I do know a lot about animals, and I’m not a self-proclaimed animal lover, but a real one. I practice what I preach, and it costs me a fortune every year (at least ten thousand dollars in vet bills). Many of my animals over the years have been mistreated and abandoned by humans, and I’ve been their last resort. You better believe I place their lives above those of human strangers, especially humans who mistreat animals.

    Truthfully, I couldn’t care less what you think of me. Who are you?

  215. Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 7:59 pm
    ———————————-
    Anton, your problem is

    “Peter, I wasn’t writing to you, but since you jumped in with more insults, here goes.”
    Apart from insulting a regular poster here whose stuff I like, your rant insulted me personally, so I let you know why.

    “The woman I wrote about was not a farmer or rancher. She did not raise goats for money or sustenance. She wasn’t poor or starving. She raised goats AS PETS, but when she tired of them, she ate them. Her religion told her she could do this. She was very religious.” You are not making sense, Anton. A woman who raises goats as pets, tires of them and eats them because she is very religious. Are you sure you are capable of understanding what a pet is, or that you are a good judge of people’s intentions?

    “In my family, our pets WERE family members, despite my father’s attitude toward laboratory animals. Our dog was my brother, not some dumb animal we kept around for amusement.” Did your “brother” bring home female friends of the canine persuasion and did you date them? I can picture the intros at your high school dance: “Yo, dudes, meet my new bitch, Fifi.”

    “Pets for the sake of companionship are not a new phenomenon. The ancient Egyptians had animal companions, and formally mourned the deaths of pet cats.” Pets for companionship alone and for no other reason was and still is rare. Only wealthy societies can afford this. All cats in Egypt, btw, were working animals as well as companions. You know, grannaries, mice, snakes creeping into houses?

    “The fact that you grew up in a culture that treated animals an inferiors doesn’t reflect badly upon me. Neurotic nitwit, ninny, kooky urbanite? No. How about somebody who actually doesn’t judge other life-forms based upon some vicious religious scripture composed by ignorant old coots? Ok, sure, whatever. Clash of opinions.

    Would I favor the well-being or life of a pet over that of a human stranger? Of course, I would….” Right, of course you would; what was I thinking? Okey-dokey, Anton. Well, that should about wrap it up here for me. I can handle quite a range of views, but psychopathology is above my paygrade and moral depravity grosses me out.

  216. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Willis said . . .

    “Finally, my articles stand or fall on their own. Either they are right or they are not, and it doesn’t depend in any sense on whether I mistakenly thought you were a vegetarian. Your ad hominem argument is without merit, it’s not about me.”

    ————
    Whether your science is about you, I don’t know, but of course your attack on me is about you.

    Anton, you accused me of the following:

    If this is stupid to you, then I wonder about your articles published on this site. Are they objective, which they appear to be, or do you go after certain AGW writers because of some imagined ideological differences you have have with them having nothing to do with the subjects involved? You certainly jumped to a false conclusion about me, using inductive reasoning (i.e., vegetarians oppose killing animals; Anton opposes killing pets; Anton, therefore, is a vegetarian). Is this how you approach science too?

    That is an ad hominem attack, Anton. Now you want to pretend you said nothing but a bad joke … and that is a very bad joke after you make an ad hominem attack like the one quoted above. You get your own opinions. You don’t get your own facts. That is an ad hominem attack.

    You derided me for expressing an opinion concerning a bad joke. And repeatedly did so in various forms. If I were resorting to ad hominem, I would have attempted to discredit you on some specific issue or point because of some personal flaw on your part. I never did anything like that. I did ask if you used inductive reasoning in your arguments.

    No ad hom? What do you call saying to me “do you go after certain AGW writers because of some imagined ideological differences you have have with them having nothing to do with the subjects involved” if not an ad hominem argument?

    I’m sorry about your dog. That’s a very sad story. But, why did your family kill the dog instead of finding a new home for it?

    Because there’s not a rancher on the planet who will take a dog that is a chicken killer, and where we were there was nothing but ranchers. As I have said a couple times, you should get out more. Then you wouldn’t ask dumb questions like that.

    My father is a scientist, and has no qualms about putting “research” animals down, but I’ve opposed him on this since I was six years old.

    Get it straight. I don’t care. I don’t care any more about your opinion of your father’s actions than I do about the your opinions about the unknown lady with the goats. That’s your business, and it has nothing to do with this thread. Take your disagreements with your father up with your therapist, nobody here is interested in your sad tales.

    I know about the Christian postings on conservative sites because people send then to me every day of my life. It’s one of things I most dislike about email. Honestly, I would prefer not to know. Cruelty to animals is one of the historically defining characteristics of Christianity, and the reason I abandoned Christianity as a teenager.

    And why do you think they bother you about that stuff and not me?

    Could it be because you are a clueless person who, in a discussion about David Suzuki, wants to abuse some lady that nobody knows based on how you allege she treats her freakin’ goats … heck, if I had bad Christian animal propaganda and knew your email address I’d seriously consider sending you some myself. WE DON’T CARE ABOUT THE LADY AND HER PET GOATS!!! Take it to some “please don’t eat your pets” thread, it doesn’t belong here.

    Your whole story would make perfect sense on a thread where a bunch of quiche-eaters are sitting around discussing how little they know about ranches and chicken-killing dogs and how people who treat their animals really, really nicely and then kill them are “monsters” …

    But here, your claims are unpleasant, they deal with people none of us know, they are wildly off-topic, and in general are nothing but a verbal spewing of your ideas on how to treat animals, topped off by your abuse of that family as “monsters” … do you truly think anyone cares if you think some family none of us knows are “monsters”? And do you think that calling them “monsters” does anything but lose you traction on a scientific site?

    Frankly, if there was one human on the planet I’d say was totally unqualified to talk about how to treat animals, it’s you. I say that based that on a simple thing You think that people shouldn’t treat their animals real nice and be close with them, that people shouldn’t talk to them kindly and gently, and pet them, that people shouldn’t take as good care of them as if they were a pet, if the people are going to kill the animal

    So according to your plan, not only do the animals get killed, but you also want to deprive them of human affection and kindness and companionship while they are alive … someone is a “monster” here, Anton, and it’s not the lady who is nice to her goats and then eats them, it’s not the lady you think shouldn’t be nice to her goats.

    w.

  217. Anton says:

    Peter Kovachev says:
    March 10, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    “Apart from insulting a regular poster here whose stuff I like, your rant insulted me personally, so I let you know why. ”

    Excuse me. What regular poster did I insult? Some guy told a rooster joke, and I griped about it. What does that have to do with you? There was no insult and there was no rant. Willis responded with an insult to me for no apparent reason; I didn’t insult him, either. You’ve taken offense at something that was not offensive or intended to be offensive or in any way connected to you, except in your imagination. You’re being a bootlicking drama queen.

    “Well, that should about wrap it up here for me. I can handle quite a range of views, but psychopathology is above my paygrade and moral depravity grosses me out.”

    Moral depravity? Really? That’s MELOdrama queen stuff. Let’s see: I’ve been called a heretic, a satanist, a child of Satan, a Buddhist, a pagan, a heathen, a PETA activist, a gay rights activist, a liberal, a conservative, a OWS supporter, a Tea-Party supporter, a Catholic, a Protestant, a militant, a pacifist, a hippie, a yuppie, a society snob, trailer trash, a sensualist, a moralist, a prude, a drug addict, a vegetarian, a vegan, a health food fanatic, a libertine, an AGW denier, a communist, a socialist, a Republican, a Democrat. And now I’m one of the morally depraved suffering from a psychopathology above your pay grade and grossing you out. Good. If you don’t love your pets more than some unknown human stranger, you’ve grossed ME out. Good riddance, girlfriend. Snap, snap.

    . _____
    dbstealey says:
    March 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm
    “Anton,

    “For some perspective, farm kids in 4-H programs raise their animals, pamper them, give them names, show them at fairs… then auction them off for slaughter. It’s a cruel world. But those animals would not even exist but for the 4-H programs for which they are bred. As it is, the animals have really good lives while they are around. And the proceeds go to the farmers, who can then help make life better for other animals.”

    Thanks dbstealey for your input. I know about 4-H, and I agree with some of your sentiments, but the lady in question was not doing anything like this. I can assure Peter (above) that her intentions were well known to everyone.

  218. Anton says:

    Willis, who is ranting now?

    “So according to your plan, not only do the animals get killed, but you also want to deprive them of human affection and kindness and companionship while they are alive … someone is a “monster” here, Anton, and it’s not the lady who is nice to her goats and then eats them, it’s not the lady you think shouldn’t be nice to her goats.”

    I not only never said such a thing, I refuted a similar charge from Peter. But, I guess great minds fantasize alike, huh?

    My little original comment on a rooster joke was not intended to turn into a ten page controversy. You could have ignored it if you didn’t like it, as you, apparently, think I should have ignored the rooster joke I found so offensive. Maybe you should be attacking the joker for introducing an irrelevant topic to the thread since, apparently, YOU decide what belongs and what does not.

    You DID leap to conclusions about me, and you were wrong. Therefore, I questioned whether you’ve done the same thing with others. How is that an insult? How is that an ad hominem attack?

    “That is an ad hominem attack, Anton. Now you want to pretend you said nothing but a bad joke … and that is a very bad joke after you make an ad hominem attack like the one quoted above. You get your own opinions. You don’t get your own facts. That is an ad hominem attack.”

    I do not now “want to pretend” I “said nothing but a bad joke.” Where did you come up with this? What you misconstrue as an ad hominem attack is a valid question, and I have not retracted it or said it was a joke. It’s a perfectly legitimate question. More so now. You need to look up the meaning of ad hominem; either you’ve forgotten it, or never known it.

    Funny, the nicer I am to you, the nastier and more belligerent you are with me. I won’t apologize again for offending you, since you might blow me up. Have a great Sunday.

    Anton

  219. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Anton says:
    March 10, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    Willis …

    … [bunch of words snipped] …
    Funny, the nicer I am to you, the nastier and more belligerent you are with me. I won’t apologize again for offending you, since you might blow me up. Have a great Sunday.

    Anton

    The nicer you are? You won’t apologize again?

    Good thing my coffee was still in the microwave, or I’d be out a keyboard. That is truly hilarious, Anton.

    In any case, thanks for the Sunday wishes, much appreciated and reciprocated.

    w.

    PS—Please consider what your entry into this thread looks like from this side. You showed up here. In your first substantive response, you solemnly tell us you didn’t like a joke somebody told. A freaking joke. My rule is, the web is a huge place, so no matter what the joke is, somebody is bound to be so foolish as to take offense. This time, it’s you. Whoopee.

    In response to whatever you didn’t like about the joke, you abused the person who told the joke, and then called some people none of us know, a woman and her entire family, “monsters”.

    That’s how you enter a thread?

    You come here, and your schtick is to be outraged by something or other, and then try to convince us that some family of your acquaintance are all “monsters”. We don’t know that family, or what they’ve done or not done.

    ??!?

    And you were upset by a joke? Some fool always is outraged, I tell you, outraged, by any given joke. This time it’s you in the starring role, but … why should we care?

    And why should we care if some random internet popup thinks that some unknown, anonymous family he knows are “monsters”? Do you understand what bothering us with your unpleasant judgements about unknown people makes you look like? An irritating, judgmental pest, that’s what. I can only sympathize with whoever is sending you annoying tracts.

    That’s what I objected to, and still do.

  220. Anton says:

    Willis, I’ve been posting to this site for years. I’m not a random Internet pop-up.

    The woman in question upset me when I was four years old–four decades ago! I mentioned her because the joker was talking about eating his pet rooster. She ate her pet goats. I was annoyed by his comment, but not “outraged.” You were, however, by MY comment. You went a hundred times farther because, evidently, I struck some horrible chord from your childhood. You’re still ranting, and trying to justify your extraordinary reaction. My original short letter was minor, a passing observation. Your book-length Shock and Awe response was, is, and doubtless, will continue to be, gobsmacking.

    Read your letters to me then mine to you. Count the insults in your letters to me and mine to you. I didn’t insult you once. You, on the other hand…

    “What are you, Anton, some kind of specist?” –Willis
    “[Anton] I don’t suffer arrogant, holier-than-thou fools gladly” –Willis
    “People like you who go on vegetarian rants” –Willis
    “You need to get out more, Anton, it sounds like you think the “open range” is the back section of the health food store.” –Willis
    “Perhaps it is because I don’t spend even an instant on “conservative political sites, commonly written by fundamentalist Christians ridiculing and trashing animal-rights activists”. I leave that to folks like you.” –Willis
    “You are 100% right. I had incorrectly mis-categorized you as a vegetarian instead of a follower of Duns Scotus. My bad.” –Willis
    “As I have said a couple times, you should get out more. Then you wouldn’t ask dumb questions like that.” –Willis
    “Take your disagreements with your father up with your therapist” –Willis
    “Could it be because you are a clueless person who…” –Willis
    “Your whole story would make perfect sense on a thread where a bunch of quiche-eaters are sitting around discussing how little they know about ranches and chicken-killing dogs” –Willis
    “[S]omeone is a “monster” here, Anton, and it’s not the lady who is nice to her goats and then eats them” –Willis
    “My rule is, the web is a huge place, so no matter what the joke is, somebody is bound to be so foolish as to take offense. This time, it’s you. Whoopee.” –Willis
    “Some fool always is outraged, I tell you, outraged, by any given joke. This time it’s you in the starring role, but … why should we care?” –Willis
    “And why should we care if some random internet popup thinks that some unknown, anonymous family he knows are “monsters”? Do you understand what bothering us with your unpleasant judgements about unknown people makes you look like? An irritating, judgmental pest, that’s what. I can only sympathize with whoever is sending you annoying tracts.” –Willis

    I realize you think you’re the height of wit, but insults and sarcasm only work when one actually hits ones mark. None of your assumptions or presumptions is correct.

    BTW, I’ve raised many great dogs, including a so called chicken-killer. He ended up becoming best friends with one of my pet chickens. So much for that know-it-all grizzled rancher theory of yours, too. We stupid city slickers sure are wet blankets, huh? Maybe you could show us how to pan for gold when you’re not too busy laying telegraph cable and shooting up cattle rustlers? I can’t wait.

    Meanwhile, if this is partly your Web site, as you imply, could you, please, provide a list of your secret Ponderosa rules and regulations that aren’t included in the posted one? Thanks.

    Anton

  221. Allan MacRae says:

    It seems to me that whatever his intention, Anton has hijacked the theme of this thread. This is not a good use of WUWT space, imo.

    For those who are interested, please consider http://www.peta.org/
    “PETA’s animal rights campaigns include ending fur and leather use, meat and dairy consumption, fishing, hunting, trapping, factory farming, circuses, bull fighting …”

    To maintain “journalistic balance”, here is a video for all you meatatarians out there:

  222. Anton,

    No point addressing parting shots at me, I’m actually quite good at skimming over or ignoring jejune efforts. (“Girlfriend,” “snip, snip,” ? Powerful stuff, that.)

    Willis, on the other hand, won’t let go and will outlast anyone, so get some canned food and bottled water for your duel with him. Willis, I remember reading somewhere here, has some counselling background and since you seem to have been psychically scarred by events when your were four and six, he’s the man for your troubles. My guess is that he’ll have to dust off his Freudian models and therapies. I’ll make sure he doesn’t charge you too much; the fuzzy-critter-killing (castrating?) dad and the deceptive goat-slaughtering (“kids”?) mother figure are classic first-year psych textbook stuff.

  223. Anton says:

    I didn’t hijack the thread; Willis did, but then, he runs this site, and can do anything he wants.

    Peter, your psychological comments (below) are corny attempts at humor. You’re obviously not a comedian. I’m not the one suffering from egomania (or is it megalomania?). My original letter was quite harmless, but it took two blowhards, you and Willis, to read it and go bonkers, hurling insults, making outlandish assumptions, and spinning on your heads spitting green pea soup, misinterpreting my every word, assuming facts not in evidence, and finding devils under my bed.

    Trying to cozy up to the alpha (or is he the beta?) dog is pitiful, but good luck. I’m sure he relishes your support, and may make you his new best friend. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Maybe you could carry his book bag.

    I have no intention of dueling with him. He can have the final word (he controls the site, remember) with my blessings; he can win the pointless argument HE invented out of whole cloth. With you as his cheerleader, he can accomplish anything.

    [Reply: Willis does not run or control this site. Anthony does. Willis is as free to post as you are. ~dbs, mod.]

  224. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Anton says:
    March 11, 2012 at 5:17 am

    Willis, I’ve been posting to this site for years. I’m not a random Internet pop-up.

    The woman in question upset me when I was four years old–four decades ago!

    Thanks, Anton, I feel much better now … but I still don’t care about how your childhood was indelibly scarred by some random woman and her pets when you were four years old. You can get professional help for that, but it still doesn’t have anything to do with this thread.

    Clearly, you want to go on and on about something that happened when you were four. And clearly, not one person here cares in the slightest. No one has jumped up to defend you calling some unknown family “monsters”.

    Instead of people rushing to your support, you’ve been asked repeatedly to take it elsewhere and you have refused to do so.

    You have the manners of one of the animals you profess to love … actually, that’s likely an insult to the animals. You have the manners of a spoiled four-year-old. What part of “nobody cares, everyone wants you to take your unpleasant four-year-old’s issues on some more appropriate thread” is escaping your notice?

    w.

    PS—A guy who publishes under a screen name is and will always be a random internet pop-up. Don’t like it? Post under your real name.

  225. Richard S Courtney says:

    DirkH:

    “Sticks and stones…” etc.

    Richard

  226. Anton says:

    [SNIP: Anton, this conversation is over. Do not attempt to continue it. -REP]

  227. Jeff Alberts says:

    Cris says:
    March 9, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Unlike certain professions, weathermen need to be reasonably correct a large portion of the time.

    Too bad they aren’t.

  228. Rick says:

    On the farm where I grew up, we didn’t eat ALL our pets; that damned brother dog was always given a free pass.

  229. Brian H says:

    It seems that even the “fruit fly” science he once did was far, far, in the past. The instant his doctoral thesis was accepted, he hied his hiney to the world of entertainment and broadcasting, etc., never to be perched on a hard, hard lab stool again. So he became an ex-scientist as fast as he could manage.

  230. A lot of squawking from a lot of scared people, none with any scientific credentials. Tell me: when an Oncologist tells you you have cancer, do you say “hey, I don’t feel sick and I can’t see any cancer so you must be lying to me”? Global warming is happening. You folks all getting together and reinforcing your own misconceptions doesn’t change that.

    And your blog inserted that email address. I never noticed. Apologies.

    REPLY: Actually, my blog did nothing of the sorts – it is a carryover from your browser and your use of forms. – Anthony

  231. Wahtever, all I did was sign up via twitter and that address, that I have never typed in any form, was inserted. Again, no attempt to “disguise” myself :)

  232. Richard S Courtney says:

    Grant Bowen (@bow_en_arrow):

    At March 12, 2012 at 8:47 am you say;

    “A lot of squawking from a lot of scared people, none with any scientific credentials”

    I assume you are talking about the IPCC Reports. So, whilst your comment is generally true, it is a slight exaggeration because a few of (especially the more lowly) IPCC participants do have scientific qualifications although most of those qualifications are not pertinent to climatology.

    It is good to see a new contributor make a valid point, but any point is spoiled by exaggeration (even of it is trivial as in your post I quote). So, I offer the friendly advice that you do not make similar exaggeration in future posts.

    Richard

Comments are closed.