A Polite Discourse with Professional Climate Alarmist David Suzuki
Guest post by Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute
Back in March, The Heartland Institute sent professional Canadian climate alarmist David Suzuki – formerly on the board of Canada’s notoriously left-wing David Suzuki Foundation – a copy of Rael Isaac’s excellent book, Roosters of the Apocalypse. Today, while rummaging through my over-filled inbox, I saw an envelope from this “esteemed scientist” that arrived two weeks ago. Even in the address he put down for Heartland’s world headquarters, Suzuki exposed his childish contempt for those who disagree with his faith-based climate views.
(See the envelope below)
Then there is the note Suzuki wrote on our cover letter for the book.
In case you couldn’t make that out, let me type it for you:
I am a scientist and I take great umbrage at being sent such a load of crap from a bullshit shill organization for the oil industry. You are the most anti-science group I can imagine.
David Suzuki.
Quite an imagination, considering. But Suzuki left off the Xs and Os. I’m crushed. At least I set him back $3.70 Canadian.
I guess David didn’t get the memo that we should tone down the rhetoric and try to get along. Of course he’s wrong about us, but defaming people who disagree is the only trick aging alarmists like him have left.
==============================================
WUWT Readers might recall this research effort by the same esteemed Canadian scientist:
More here.
Suzuki’s creates a apocalyptic future to justify government forced conversion to environmental nirvana which is that we live as cavemen in his fairy tale best of all environmental worlds.
http://heartlandstore.org/Roosters-of-the-Apocalypse-How-the/M/1934791377.htm
Suzuki is most definitely a “Rooster of the Apocalypse”. The following is the Rooster’s not so hidden agenda.
Maurice Strong, senior advisor to Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary-General who chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “U.N. Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 , who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse…isn’t it our job to bring that about”
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention…and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or…one invented for the purpose.” Quote by the Club of Rome.
Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace”
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, First chairman of the IPCC
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
In retrospect, I suppose I do owe Dr. Fruitfly something as it was a talk he gave at the University of Ottawa in 1973 or 1974 that started me on my path away from eco-lunacy. Prior to his talk, I was a rabid environmentalist but had disputes with my fellow environmentalists over nuclear power which I viewed as the cleanest form of energy available.
At one point during Suzuki’s talk, I turned to the person sitting next to me and told them “this guy is an idiot”. At the time he was warning of the dangers of global cooling. The “danger” he’s been ranting about has changed, but his message that human technology is unspeakably evil and that it’s probably too late to save the earth hasn’t.
After close to 40 years I primarily retain the emotional memories of that evening and I couldn’t believe how someone who was supposedly a scientist could be so anti-scientific and anti-technologic. It was one of the most profoundly negative talks I’ve been to and an hour of my life that I can’t get back. I didn’t get many positive comments at the next science council meeting when I pointed out how many cases of wine we could have bought with the money that we had paid this charlatan. (I was doing my best then to get the compulsory student council fees we had to pay back then returned to us in some form – preferably as tasty 2 carbon fragments).
Suzuki was way past his prime even then and I’ve found it mystifying why he has such a positive image in Canada. That’s probably because 99.999% of Canadians haven’t personally met him and he is an egotistical hypocritical arrogant Cassandra with total amnesia for the disasters he predicted that it was “too late” for the world to deal with 40 years ago. He also seems to have quite a loathing for the human race and talking to graduate students seemed quite beneath him at the few scientific conferences where I made the error of approaching him.
What I would love to see is the Suzuki foundation charged with tax evasion as the foundation appears to be a way to launder money from foreign sources such as the Tides foundation which is illegally interfering in Canadian politics by attempting to block a pipeline to carry oil sands oil from Alberta to the Pacific via BC.
Unfortunately Suzuki’s kind aren’t rare in Vancouver which is the moonbat capital of Canada. At one time I thought it the best place in Canada to live which it would be – if it weren’t for the watermelons who seem irresistibly attracted to the place.
I stupidly thought the address must be Suzuki’s own as he resigned from the Foundation’s board in April–I should have checked before posting. I suppose “active volunteers” (his current role) might be entitled to use the official address stamp. He stepped down, his letter states, so that his unvarnished statements would not “harm the organization of which [he is] so proud.” And then he puts the official stamp on this?
Maybe he’s just jealous of Michio Kaku, who somehow gets his head into every documentary, sucking the life from science. Kaku knows his physics, from what I’ve seen many times. However, he also continues the Cagwist meme, which is obvious fraud. They deserve each other and should be ridiculed in the annals of history..
Ummm David is a zoologist and geneticist. That qualifies him to understand climate science how?
Forecast Earth In Depth: David Suzuki, Part 2
At link above Dr Fruit Fly correctly identifies himself as a journalist, and relates asking his scientific mentor, none other than Al Gore ( /sarc), what he can do to help advance the cause.
Suzuki’s other “scientific mentor” (/sarc) was none other than Lucien Bouchard:
“I interviewed Lucien Bouchard two months after he was appointed, and I said, Mr. Minister, what is the most important issue we face? Right away, he said global warming. In 1988! I said, how serious is it? And he said it threatens the survival of our species.”
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canadians-ready-for-a-carbon-tax-david-suzuki-1.238317
Environment hurt by Quebec separatism: Suzuki
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2007/02/08/qc-suzuki20070208.html
Notice the dynamic, the supposed scientist, Dr Fruit Fly, accepts the opinion of Al Gore, and Lucien Bouchard as to CAGW way back in 1988. Neither Al Gore, nor Bouchard has any known scientific background.
The CAGW agenda was always a political agenda in search of a (pseudo) scientific justification.
all the best
brent
P.S. on a positive note Suzuki in first link does explain exactly what the process has been. Politically contrived from the get go, with tame (supposed) scientists having the role of scaring the public until they demand action from the pols.
Although 97% of climate scientists may not be convinced of global warming, a fair number of them are. They can’t all be totally focused on obtaining grant money. Some of them must be convinced by the arguments. Setting aside the question of supporting empirical evidence, what is the theory underlying their conclusion? Put another way: can anyone objectively state the arguments in such a way that those who subscribe to the notion of AGW would agree that they succinctly and irrefutably define the theory?
Hey Jim,
I think you have a couple of mistakes there in the translation from gibberish to English, I think he was trying to write with his crayon and misspelled socialist and carp, I’m still trying to figure out why you sent him a load of carp, WTF is UWT
john lemon~ The current phase of global warming is a FACT.
It is the ‘man-made’ part- what little there is of it- that some of those scientists are convinced of.
Instead of conflating NATURAL climate change with a theory, why don’t you try to prove the theory to us?
Regarding Suzuki and social responsibility;
http://drtimball.com/2012/david-suzuki-and-scientific-and-social-responsibility/
Otter: FACT means it agrees with your pre-existing belief, right? Otherwise, I believe there is a large volume of data indicating it is not a fact at present. Feel free to enlighten me how only the scientists you declare to have godlike understanding of the phenomena know anything about climate change and how it WILL get hotter, just wait and see. However, none of this FACT in the scientific sense of the word.
Reality check says:
November 11, 2012 at 9:54 am
You forget that these guys are able to “forecast the facts”. 8^D
Otter~ Please note that I used the acronym AGW. I am not conflating natural variability with supposed human causation. My question is simply, what are the arguments, the expression of which would be approved by proponents of AGW, that convince some scientists that AGW is a problem? Some sort of scientific principle must be involved.
My modest understanding is that Suzuki and wife live on a nice property on one of the Gulf Islands between Vancouver Island and the mainland of B.C.
I think he’s losing it – media suggest he is despondent over his lack of success getting his way, he or his ghostwriters are trying various hooks to promote his views (especially economic ones).
He has a record of removing claims from his website when publicly challenged.
Looks like David Suzuki is to climate science as Zahi Hawas is to Egyptology. They’re both arrogant, tend to shout a lot and 100% assured they are correct and anyone who doesn’t agree with them is 100% wrong.