Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
The cover story of the November 25, 2013 Canadian weekly magazine Macleans pictures self-appointed Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki.
The caption reads, “Environmentalism Has Failed”“David Suzuki loses faith in the cause of his lifetime.”
Suzuki doesn’t realize he‘s the cause of the failure as a major player in the group who exploited environmentalism and climate for a political agenda. Initially most listened and tried to accommodate, but gradually the lies, deceptions and propaganda were exposed. The age of eco-bullying is ending. Typically Suzuki blamed others for the damage to the environment and climate but now he blames them for not listening to him. He forgets that when you point a finger at someone three are pointing back at you.
Environmentalism was what academics call a paradigm shift, which Thomas Kuhn defines as “a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.” It was a necessary new paradigm. Everybody accepts the general notion it is foolish to soil your own nest and most were prepared to participate. Most were not sure what it entailed or how far it should go. Extremists grab all new paradigms for their agenda but then define the limits for the majority by pushing beyond the limits of the idea. Environmentalism and the subset climate are at that stage pushed there by extremists like Suzuki. Instead of admitting the science is wrong they double down and make increasingly extreme statements, just like the IPCC. It underscores the political rather than the scientific agenda. For example, Suzuki, apparently frustrated that politicians were not listening to his demands for action on climate change said they should be jailed.
Environmental groups grabbed environmentalism and quickly took the moral high ground preaching that only they cared about the Earth. Suzuki set up the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) with tax benefits that required it to be non-political, but after active involvement in an Ontario election he was forced to resign. His major theme in the election was to push the climate change and alternate energies put in place in that Province when Maurice Strong was in charge of Ontario Hydro, the state controlled energy agency. Ontario is the perfect example of how and why climate energy policies promoted by Strong as Founder of UNEP are a disaster.
The Foundation campaigned on environmental issues most presented in deceptive or incomplete ways. An example was the attack on salmon farming and corrupted research on PCBs and sea lice. This was the focus of an interview of researcher Vivian Krause by Ezra Levant. Another was Suzuki’s parade across Canada pushing extinction theories and claims of DSF Board member E.O Wilson that 3 species go extinct every hour. He never named one. He never listed the plethora of new species found. He refused to discuss the issue and in his visit to schools pre-arranged and wrote a question for a selected student to ask. He promoted threats of global warming, but refused to debate the issue or answer questions. When asked questions on a radio interview in Toronto, he swore and stormed out of the studio.
He hired former Federal politician NDP (socialist party) David Fulton as Director of DSF. James Hoggan has been Chairman of the Board for many years. His PR Company has major alternate energy companies as clients. Hoggan is the proud creator of DeSmogblog a web site that claims it is “Clearing the PR Pollution that clouds climate science” but mostly involves personal attacks on people asking questions. The objective was to denigrate people by creating “favorable interpretations” to the following questions. “Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?” This doesn’t answer skeptics questions about the science.
Their real agenda was disclosed in a Climatic Research Unit (CRU) leaked email dated December 2007 from senior writer Richard Littlemore to Michael Mann.
Hi Michael [Mann],
I’m a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (sic) (I got your email from Kevin Grandia)* and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.
It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger’s intervention in Science. (emphasis added)
(* Grandia was a former writer for DeSmogBlog who moved there after serving as a research assistant for a Liberal Minister in Ottawa.)
Do as I say, not as I do is the hallmark of extreme environmentalists behaviour. Al Gore is the poster boy for this hypocrisy. It appears Suzuki is only different in scale. They were enumerated in programs by SUN TV Reporter Ezra Levant. They include the familiar list of funding and financial activities and personal wealth accumulated, especially in properties.
A major part of Suzuki’s attacks relate to global warming. His refusal to debate or even answer questions is legendary. He ignores his lack of qualifications on climate, but uses that challenge when it comes to his supposed expertise in genetics and genetically modified food. A possible explanation for his “environmentalism is a failure” claim is a PR move to divert from the exposure of his climate ignorance in an Australian interview. He could not answer questions about information fundamental to any understanding.
Suzuki abandoned his academic career in genetics decades ago explaining why in a 1999 Seattle speech. His concerns related to the internment of his Japanese Canadian family during WWII. Here are his words:
In the exuberance of the excitement over the discovery of new principles of heredity — that seemed to apply across the plant and animal kingdoms — geneticists began to make wonderful, wild statements about the implications of their discoveries. I’m sure most of you know that it ultimately led to what was considered a legitimate area of science called Eugenics.
Some of our most eminent geneticists taught courses in eugenics, wrote textbooks in eugenics, published articles in eugenics journals. Eugenics being the attempt to apply the new-found knowledge of heredity to improve the genetic quality or makeup of human society.
It seems more logical to maintain standing as a geneticist and work to prevent such drifts occurring. Instead he quit and became a tele-evangelist using state television (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) to push his environmental/political agenda.
His television series became his undoing as a classic example of how extremism is its own undoing. It’s why Suzuki’s exploitation of environmentalism, as he defines it, caused failure. Most programs in the series were unjustified, misleading condemnations of different components of society. I identified some of the misinformation in a presentation to farmers in Saskatchewan a few years ago. Afterward a woman told me that a month earlier she would have disagreed with my comments. Now she understood because Suzuki did a program on farming and as a farmer’s wife she knew how wrong and biased it was. Each new program exposed another segment of society to the deception. This created a populace open to and not surprised by the exposure of his hypocrisies. The same is happening to climate alarmism as more and more segments of society are negatively affected. His actions and climate driven energy policies close industries, decimate communities, cause job losses and force business closures, virtually all unnecessarily.
As Suzuki’s campaign to use environmentalism for a political agenda fails he lashes out, blaming others for the failure. It parallels what is happening in the climate alarmist community. The comments and claims become more extreme, but achieve the opposite of their goal. It is necessary to consider the further negative effects of their exploitation and deceptions. What is the damage to the credibility of science? Can we pursue environmentalism with rational, science based, prioritized policies?
Related articles
- CNN mocks Greenpeace’s “Save Santa’s Home” video (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Climate change: Fear based messages don’t work (psychbot.wordpress.com)
- The nature of David Suzuki (macleans.ca)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The likes of David Suzuki and Al Gore remind me of a situation we have in the UK with a guy named Jimmy Savile (now deceased). He was a VERY high profile ‘celebrity’ DJ – ostensibly doing amazing things for charity and the National Health Service in the 70’s and 80’s. However – there were concerns about his activities with young girls, who were of course in awe of him. When someone dared to question him, his immediate reaction was ‘I’ll sue you for every penny you’ve got’ and so no-one did..
Now it transpires that not only was he a serial paedophile, but used several hospitals to ‘entertain’ young girls – and even a secure psychiatric unit. He had keys to private rooms in several hospitals.
My point is that his defence was ALWAYS to attack – in the same way that these warmist fanatics will accept no criticism or use of facts.
Slowly – slowly – chickens are coming home to roost…
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
The truth comes out, even hon people try to deny it.
“Environmentalism is opposed by anti-environmentalism, which takes a skeptical stance against many environmentalist perspectives.”
Interesting (tho not surprising) that Wikipedia includes this little jab at the end of the definition, I’m not aware of anyone running on an ‘anti-environmental’ platform. I do recall a few of my more ‘progressive’ friends lecturing me about how Republicans, because some oppose environmental efforts, are ‘pro-pollution’. I guess that means that Democrats are opposed by anti-Democrats?
I first saw Dr Suzuki on a series of science programs on “the cell”. (I think) He seemed a plausible scientist with a populist touch. Then I read the article on WUWT about a question and answer program which showed him to be an AGW believer and total charlatan. This is the problem isn’t it, the media gravitate to people like Suzuki, and Suzuki gravitates to the media. These people are quite persuasive to unsuspecting people in the middle ground. It takes us time to realise they are used car salesmen.
We have a new one doing the rounds in the BBC – Dr Brian Cox – who is everywhere. He seems like a regular scientist, “a professor”, but when it comes to AGW he is completely off his rocker. Most people simply believe him to be a top scientific mind, in fact he is a PR guru who speaks about science and fools us all that he has insights into the world of science that we can trust
Democrats versus anti-democrats, and environmentalists versus anti’s, are examples of the dialectic’s failure to admit the excluded middle. The dialectic formally considers only the concept-thesis, creating the antithesis concept, as premises to the syllogistic dialectic – and that’s how we got progressived to these dire straits.
Alfred Deakin of the Commonwealth of Australia says:
December 7, 2013 at 12:12 am
If we criticise his views in any way, isn’t that racism?
============
racism is when you criticize someone BECAUSE of their race.
fair comment is when you criticize someone WITH AN BLIND EYE to their race.
racism is when someone claims immunity to criticism BECAUSE of their race.
fair comments is when someone must answer criticism WITH A BLIND EYE to their race.
For those not familiar with Canada, allow me to throw a few definitions in.
MacLeans is about as far-left as a publication can get, on the scale of Mother Jones. It wraps itself in a cloak of respectability, with glossy covers and an artsy look. I used to have a free subscription, and I eventually had to demand they stop sending it.
Most Canadians in my age range basically grew up watching Suzuki’s “The Nature Of Things”. For many of us it was our first exposure to Science. I remember it as fascinating and educational, possibly the only gem in CBC’s otherwise boring and “eastern” (Canada) oriented political crap.
As my political awareness grew through the 80s and 90s I realized that MacLeans had nothing to offer but glossy garbage, and was actually disappointed at the realization that Suzuki was about the same. I realized that he was subtly, or maybe not so subtly, programming his viewers, not educating them.
Ezra Levant, while very intelligent and mostly representing my own view on many things, is a Canadian equivalent to Ann Coulter – extremely polarizing and completely ignored by their opponents. He could spread his message a lot farther if he’d learn to engage the enemy in a way that makes the enemy look like foolish instead of a full out frontal assault.
We often see Suzuki’s outside his multi-million dollar waterfront house in the Kitts beach area of Vancouver. Strange that he would buy property in such a place, given concerns over sea level rise. Isn’t he worried that his property will be worthless in a couple of years?
Peter Miller says: December 7, 2013 at 1:29 am
“Far too many of these originally worthy organisations have been hijacked by activists with agendas at total odds to those of the founders.”
This insidious strategy extends to charities too, corrupting good hearted intentions and their supporting organizations. It appears to be understood by the socialist organizations as a political means to an end that is unjustified on the grounds of freedom and standard of living (less burdensome life). Climate science is just one of the many casualties. Without a clear sighted understanding of this organization grab for unjustified politics, this sad and mean spirited saga will continue to taint warm hearted, kind, and charitable intentions of people.
This article is a ‘keeper’. Thanks.
ferdberple says:
December 7, 2013 at 6:05 am
We often see Suzuki’s outside his multi-million dollar waterfront house in the Kitts beach area of Vancouver.
interesting, that reminds me of other CAGW activist. They seem to have a faible for waterfront properties and be very sure that the sea level rise is not coming.
“The caption reads, “Environmentalism Has Failed”“David Suzuki loses faith in the cause of his lifetime.””
I would see it the way – activists have extorted all the juice, there is nothing more to take out of it for them, moving now to new grounds, maybe they can leave now environmentalism to the people who care…
There is no room in environmentalism for high priests and hatred in it.
They have damaged it enough, like they did to science, to education and to free speech on the altar of their “higher grounds”.
“Can anyone think of any movement in history that has received so much scientific, political and media backing, as CAGW has, and failed so miserably?”
The witch trials.
ref: Jimbo, Dec 7 @ur momisugly 4:33:
“Can anyone think of a movement in history that has received so much scientific, political and media backing, as CAGW has, and failed so miserably.”
I think the War on Poverty might be a close competitor.
Jimbo says:December 7, 2013 at 4:33 am “Can anyone think of any movement in history that has received so much scientific, political and media backing, as CAGW has, and failed so miserably?” Movements, socialism, communism, fascism, progressives all. Causes, alternative energy, cold fusion, Luddism, renewable energy, perpetual motion, homeopathy, … ad nauseam.
I think Environmentalism has ‘failed’ (is failing) because it has become hijacked by political entities, like Greenpeace, et al. It fails because politics where people are not involved directly (by democratic principles) in decision making is not a stable platform. You could replace ‘Environmentalism has failed’ with Communism has failed, State Capitalism has failed, nationalism, socialism, eventually everything where people are not involved either through choice or oppression in determining their own future will fail.
Game over for Enviro
Taleb calls it doxastic commitment, skin-in-the-game. Never trust anyone not affected by his own prophesy/forecast/errors.
“In 1987, the Cold War was starting to warm up, but so was the Earth. The Berlin Wall was starting to come down, but nascent political and ideological threats were emerging. Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems. The concept of sustainability was just being introduced, but there was a growing appreciation that problems of the environment, economy, and society were intricately linked.
This idea drove us to create the Pacific Institute. We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing. “
What ‘nascent political and ideological threats’ Mr Gleick? Most of us were overjoyed with Perestroika and the pulling down of that stinking wall that symbolised the rottenness of totalitarian socialism.
‘Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems.’ Balderdash! A bunch of leftists suckolds to totalitarianism in the form of communism had their whole ethos smashed and were clutching for any straw of credibility and turned to the same old totalitarianism under the banner of saving mankind and the planet. The problem as always is top down edicts from a bunch of self selected ‘omniscient’ elites always ends in disaster and human impoverishment and that’s exactly what your hubris has wrought. Billions wasted on your Groupthink ideological drivel and now the rats are scurrying to dissociate themselves from the fallout and there’s no rat like a leftist rat is there Mr Suzuki?
Julian in Wales says:
December 7, 2013 at 5:46 am
“We have a new one doing the rounds in the BBC – Dr Brian Cox – who is everywhere. He seems like a regular scientist, “a professor”, but when it comes to AGW he is completely off his rocker. ”
Now expand that to the usual cosmological drivel these TV scientist stand-ins utter.
Does Trenberth’s Missing Heat not have a surprising similarity to Dark Matter?
We need to move away from “Environmentalism”, which is driven by fanaticism and leftist politics, and move back to the concept of “Conservation”, which historically has had a broader appeal to those on the left and right because it is based in stewardship, and balance, and consideration to multiple factors including the needs and quality of life for real people.
Those of you that lament that the term environmentalist has been tainted just call yourselves what you truly are…Conservationists. Let the fear mongers have the environmentalist term. Own Conservationist and separate yourselves.
Back in the 90’s Mo Strong when heading what was Ontario Hydro (it would later become Hydro One thus becoming the only corporation on earth to spend a billion dollars to change it’s logo from OH to HO…. but I digress) bought thousands of acres of Costa Rican jungle as carbon offsets for our coal plants. Wonder if we still own that? I need a vacation.
Suzuki and the CBC are like a host and a parasite. Don’t know which is which yet. When Saint Suzuki starts feeling the heat he goes on George Snuffalufagus’s show. George just happens to be a DSF board member. Also when Suzuki has any promotion he makes the CBC pay for most of it and they always comply.
Is there a link to the article?
Crying wolf is the wrong analogy, that suggests that in the the end the alarmists are correct (the sheep were eaten when nobody came to help, the last time the boy went to the village). Better call it chicken little behavior: exaggerating a small event to global threat.
Pamela Gray says:
December 7, 2013 at 7:35 am
Is there a link to the article?
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/05/the-fundamental-failure-of-environmentalism/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/18/the-nature-of-david-suzuki/
Careful Pamela. Once you get into the mire it is hard to wash off lol.
I lost all respect for Suzuki when he jumped on to the AGW bandwagon.
IF CO2 IS the “Cause” for global warming, then Why (except for minor exceptions) do NONE of the AGW believers support the replacement of all electrical power sources with CLEAN, ZERO CO2 NUCLEAR POWER? Why is it OK to spray half gasoline/water on a burning house? All of their “green” fixes only slightly reduce the amount of CO2 generated in the production of electricity. With ZERO CO2 Nuclear Power the transportation, commercial manufacturing, and home electrical power needs including heating (a heat pump will heat your house cheaper and consuming less energy than Oil or gas) CO2 emissions would be DRASTICALLY reduced.
This is the MAIN reason I am a skeptic. If there is global warming, and it is caused by the production of CO2 then quit producing CO2. NONE of the AGW crowd recommendations PREVENT the production of CO2. They only reduce it SLIGHTLY. IF and when they push Nuclear power as hard as they push Wind, Solar and biomass (which is dirtier than coal), then I will reconsider Global Warming.