The Shotgun Blog
Monday, February 04, 2008
Lock up climate dissenters, says Suzuki
David Suzuki, an Officer of the Order of Canada, a member of the Order of British Columbia, the holder of 22 honorary degrees, and the greatest living Canadian, according to the CBC, wants not only to silence climate-change dissenters, but also to throw them in jail. Or so he said in a speech last week in Montreal.
According to the McGill Daily, "He urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science."
What's the word I'm thinking of here...fanatic? lunatic? Yeah, something like that.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lock up climate dissenters, says Suzuki:
According to Jonah Goldberg, the best term to describe these guys is "Fascist"...
Posted by: winston | 2008-02-04 4:15:47 PM
Right. I thought it might have started with an 'f'.
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2008-02-04 4:21:13 PM
"David Suzuki ... the greatest living Canadian, according to the CBC...."
Not true. He is the greatest living Canadian according to the Canadian public. The CBC sponsored the poll, but they did not choose the winner. It was a result by popular selection. Like it or not, the result is what Canadians think.
"According to the McGill Daily...."
Excuse my skepticism, but the interpretive comments of a student newspaper mean squat. If they cannot provide a direct quote from him saying this, then it is probably more 'interpretation' than fact.
But as people here WANT to believe that it's true, carry on with the hate-fest. I see Winston has already got that ball rolling.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-04 4:23:27 PM
Suzuki has as much credibility as the "greatest living Canadian" as eugenics proponent Tommy Douglas had as "The Greatest Canadian of all time".
Posted by: bocanut | 2008-02-04 4:45:50 PM
"Like it or not, the result is what SOME Canadians think."
Fixed that for you, Fact Check.
I think Suzuki is a charlatan and a huckster but I would never suggest locking him up. Fascist is a good word to describe him.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2008-02-04 4:51:11 PM
"Saint Suzuki" and the "Reverend Al Gore" have certainly found their soap box. Yes we need to be more responsible...but these guys? Jeeez!
Posted by: JC | 2008-02-04 4:53:59 PM
BTW, here's a link to the apocalyptic warning, from 1992, that Suzuki refers to in his speech: http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm
Posted by: Terry O'Neill | 2008-02-04 5:00:22 PM
You know, I recall scientists and their similarly fiery advocacy of eugenics around, oh, 1930 or so...we all know how that ended, don't we?
Science is the dispassionate quest for information and knowledge. No man who displays this degree of bias or fanaticism is a man of science any more, no matter his previous achievements or how many initials he has after his name.
On the plus side, this extreme approach means he's running scared. The revolution he hoped for is slipping away and he knows it. So perhaps this is actually a good sign.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-04 5:04:53 PM
Let us pretend for a moment that global warming is true. Suzuki is STILL saying that it is a criminal not to believe and to follow scientific findings.
He is basically making it illegal not to believe in science as if science were some sort of state imposed form of religion and that all other beleifs are illegal.
Science before the individual. Science before the family. Science before democracy and Science before God.
That is Suzuki's bent and twisted religion. And he wants to impose it on us.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-02-04 6:08:00 PM
Well, someone is losing the debate fast.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-02-04 6:12:04 PM
Which will Suzuki lose first, his mind or his credibility? This assumes that he hasn't lost either already.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-02-04 6:28:37 PM
Isn't this, by the standard of the left, plainly hate speech?
You're wrong, as well, those of you who claim that this reflects deperation or that the left is losing the arguement. It's been clear to me for many years that people like Suzuki would like to have people who disagree with them jailed or otherwise punished, but they've been afraid to say so. That they feel free to throw this sort of stuff around (and he's hardly the first to do it) reflects their confidence.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-02-04 6:34:44 PM
...lock them up? Where'd I hear that before?
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-02-04 6:37:15 PM
I wonder if he knows that people are more attracted to confidence than desperation. This assumes that he cares one way or the other - he seems to hold science up as a religious icon.
I remember a time - 1692 - in a place - Salem, Massachusetts - where they persecuted people for holding divergent ideas. I think Suzuki has become one of the persecutors. Or at least he'd like to be :)
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-02-04 6:59:39 PM
Self appointed Messiah, and he who shall not listen, shall be cast to the cages. The thought of this man makes my skin crawl. I don't have a problem with saving the environment, but the way this guy comes across is down right scary.
Posted by: Boggy | 2008-02-04 7:07:29 PM
"I remember a time - 1692 - in a place - Salem, Massachusetts - where they persecuted people for holding divergent ideas."
Well, they must have been either good ideas or bad ideas - witch was it?
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-02-04 7:09:03 PM
He sounds more and more like Jim Jones every day.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-02-04 7:10:10 PM
OH MY GAWD.
First we have the loony bin England has become, then we have David Sukuki (pun/typo intended), who would be a total joke if he wasn't so dangerous.
The guy's become a maniac. I couldn't help smile, though, when I thought who his audience was, cheering, applauding, and stroking his mammouth ego: a bunch of know-nothing, knee-jerk lefties who think they're smart because they go to university.
Ha! 'Just too bad for the rest of us that they'll soon be out of the McGill Loony Bin, doctoring, lawyering, playing the part of scientists, maybe even having children of their own.
Posted by: batb | 2008-02-04 7:21:57 PM
I'm not really sure what exactly distinguishes left-liberalism from "evil" at this point in history. In general, the left is so opposed to everything which is good and decent in the world - and so much in favour of everything that is amoral and alien - that it's hard to argue with them about anything. It's like trying to reason with the villan from a Spiderman comic.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-02-04 7:29:34 PM
Whether the world is warming up, there might be some credibility to that. However, there is absolutely no credible proof to what the major reason behind it is, man-made vs. natural. Therefore, nor is there any credible proof that any of the solutions that this clique of climate-change fascists will ever work. Whether a bunch of university students cheer, is irrelevant. Students are flocks of sheep anyways, mainly going in directions because their friends tell them to go there. And few of these students are actually studying climate sciences either.
Posted by: Yousuf | 2008-02-05 8:30:33 AM
The problem with you people is the incapability and blatant refusal to see beyond your own meaningless lives (in the grander scheme of things). Not only is this thinking reminiscent of fascism, but of despotism, as well. Refusing to acknowledge the negative and soon to be irreversible impact you people are having on OUR planet and ultimately on your grandchildren clearly shows your lack of caring and compassion for your subordinates. Shame on you all for treating our planet this way… and to deny your actions… that’s the greatest shame of all!
Posted by: PjStone | 2008-02-05 8:40:54 AM
Who are you addressing? The Suzuki crowd, that wants to destroy Canada's economy, or the oil companies that want to fry the planet?
You might not have noticed, but your post could be taken either way. Please clarify.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 8:48:42 AM
"The problem with you people is the incapability and blatant refusal to see beyond your own meaningless lives...Not only is this thinking reminiscent of fascism, but of despotism, as well."
Yeah, you're right.. that inability to see beyond one's ego and see the bigger picture is SO the hallmark of fascism. Just look at what this guy Hitler wrote:
"The self-sacrificing will to give one's personal labor and if necessary one's own life for others is most strongly developed in the Aryan. In him
the instinct of self-preservation has reached the noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to-the life of the community and, if the
hour demands, even sacrifices it."
I'll get beyond my own meaningless life immediately and start focusing on the good of the community, just like this guy
Hitler Suzuki says I ought to do.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-05 8:53:18 AM
Gore is all about wealth and power. His investments reflect this.
Suzuki is all about revenge. His bitterness is obviuous. Alberta is his main target because he and his family were interned here during the war. Why else would he target the province that supplies the raw materials rather than the provinces that turn them into so-called global warming emmissions?
Ontario should take more responsibility for reducing emmissions. The oil and gas we harvest is harmless until they get ahold of it. So should Arnie's bunch in California. We just supply it. They burn it.
They hate us because we're making a good living. Suzuki can't stand to see Alberta prosper. His motives, and Gore's, are totally transparent.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 9:10:26 AM
In order to get the current greenhouse gas emissions below the 1995 levels, or whatever year it is they talk about, they'll have to get both the automobile numbers, AND the population numbers, down to that level first.
Good luck on that!
I wonder if there was a group that complained about global colding before the last ice-age kicked in???
Posted by: Grizz | 2008-02-05 9:16:19 AM
My comments are not directed to those who do not see the bigger picture (I think that picture’s been shoved in our faces enough), but to those who miss the smaller, more personal one. By denying the inevitable (whether the destruction of the global economy or the frying of the planet), we are allowing ourselves, in our daily lives, to neglect our individual responsibilities as tenants of this earth. By leaving it to extreme figureheads like Al Gore and Suzuki, or to the global warming deniers, or even Hitler, we tend to ignore our own personal impact. I agree that my prior post was hotheaded, and getting into the left/right game is not the right way to go about it. But denying the cumulative and irreversible impact of over consumption won’t make the problem go away. And as long as I see people running their ACs and idling in their cars unnecessarily, I will hold this opinion.
Posted by: PjStone | 2008-02-05 9:17:37 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 9:21:18 AM
Suzuki makes a comment and everyone cries "Hitler" and "Leftist"? Seems like everyone is making this more political than he is. Attacking the person making the argument makes your own argument illogical and therefore pointless.
The ideals he bases his viewpoint on are scientific in nature - are yours? Try to support your response without using phony website links, political agendas, or ad hominem attacks.
Think before you respond, it helps.
Posted by: PostAp | 2008-02-05 9:35:49 AM
To think that we are ultimately to blame for the changing climate is pure arrogance. We are not helping things but a single volcanic eruption can put more pollutants into the atmosphere, than all the cars running for a year. The planet has natural cycles, but since this is the first time we've been around for a change to another part of the cycle, it must be our fault.
Posted by: JB82 | 2008-02-05 9:43:42 AM
You are absolutely right, PostAp. Rejecting the science behind the negative effects of Freon and carbon dioxide, amongst thousand other toxic polluters, is reminiscent of Dark Age logic. And if you believe that “a single volcanic eruption can put more pollutants into the atmosphere, than all the cars running for a year”, than you must be a driver living in denial looking for a way to justify your waste.
Posted by: PjStone | 2008-02-05 9:51:59 AM
pj and post
Both of you need to practise what you preach, namely thinking before you speak.
The Mount St. Helens eruption changed the climate of North America for 20 years. To call this statement a phony attempt to cloud the issue is in itself a non-scientific attempt to cloud the issue.
You haven't thought this thing through. How will we feed ourselves if we follow the Suzuki doctrine? You might be shocked to know the real answer. It's called population reduction. Sometimes referred to as genocide.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 10:13:16 AM
I don't normally post on these things, but some of the comments I read here spurned me to "action"
"Science is the dispassionate quest for information and knowledge. No man who displays this degree of bias or fanaticism is a man of science any more, no matter his previous achievements or how many initials he has after his name" Obviously, this person hasn't taken anything above a grade 8 science class that he thought was "dull"
"In general, the left is so opposed to everything which is good and decent in the world - and so much in favour of everything that is amoral and alien - that it's hard to argue with them about anything". Tell me what is so moral about the "right" in this perceived division of humanity you call "left" and "right"? With an argument like this from someone who insinuates they are on the "right", who appears to be "hard to argue with"?
"Science before the individual. Science before the family. Science before democracy and Science before God." Could it possibly be that God is a scientist? Could it be that He created the scientific laws that man is only just discovering? Could it be that science and God are indeed one if only we were humble enough to see that?
"The oil and gas we (Alberta) harvest is harmless until they get ahold of it." PLEASE do your research. Rivers around the oilsands are being drained dry and pollution is rampant. Alberta is the heaviest emmittor of green house gases. Please do your research before spewing your "right" opinion.
Thank you, PostAp and PJ, for making educated and logical arguments. You might not agree with Suzuki's approach, but at least it's based on more research than most of the posts here.
One of my favorite quotes "There will be NO economy without an environment", David Suzuki. Could it be he sees the long term and is actually fight FOR the economy?
There is NO such thing as the "left" or the "right". There really is just "educated" and "non-educated" opinions. Choose!!
Posted by: Etherdancer | 2008-02-05 10:22:52 AM
Is Alberta the "heaviest" greenhouse gas emmitor?
A big piece of the emmissions comes from harvesting techniques. I suppose we should quit fertilizing, and go back to using horses. Or we could just eliminate agriculture completely. Maybe switching from food production to ethanol productuion would solve all our problems. Of course third world countries won't be able to afford grain, but it's for the greater good.
If the Peace River dries up it will be downstream from Ft. MacMurray. If anything, this will help keep the ocean from rising, and flooding Victoria. I'd think you guys would be all for that. As for pollution around the oilsands, it can be dealt with.
Oil is not that harmful to plants or animals. Polar bears love to chew into drums and drink diesel fuel. I've seen the aftermath of several blowouts, and the plants that were sprinkled with crude seem to thrive. Any living thing will die if it's completely saturated with oil, but that's an extreme case.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 10:44:10 AM
I see a lot of "That darned Suzuki! How dare he try to tell us what to do! Make ignoring warnings illegal? We have free will dammit. Can't stand for that!"
I'm certain Suzuki wouldn't make harsh statements such as that unless he thought the consequences were fatal. Destroy the environment and we all die. Our biosphere has limits. If we break it, there may be no 'fixing' it.
Creating an unsafe environment is surely a criminal act -- the people, the state has an interest in keeping us all safe and healthy.
Is ignoring greenhouse emissions, toxic pollution, destruction of biodiversity, etc... a form of criminal negligence? I'd say yes.
I'd imagine any reasonable person would agree with me -- negligence in protecting the fundamental support system of life on this planet is a nono. However, now begins the matter of measure. How do you determine if someone is horribly negligent?
Consequential outcomes aren't sufficient. If we break the biosphere, who cares if you punish the politicians? We're all dead anyway.
The state needs some balance. We have a balanced legislature, judiciary, executive... We have the forth estate of a central bank, a fifth estate of a free press. Why not a sixth of environmental concerns?
Bah, all we can hope for is that when stuff starts to get bad, people will wake up see fools for fools and the wise for wise and choose accordingly. It'll probably be too late though.
Posted by: dissent | 2008-02-05 11:08:34 AM
I decided to "educate" myself as dancer suggested.
Environment Canada has designated transportation as the biggest source of "greenhouse" gas. Ontario is the biggest producer of all emissions, and Alberta is only number 2 of organic emissions which probably comes from all the cows. BC gets the prize for the highest increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Most of it coming from David Suzuki.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 11:10:46 AM
Than let's stop shipping from China everything and start producing here where we live, using environmental friendly ways.
This will boost our economy and be environmentally friendlier but I guess then local stores would only make "normal" profit. A cup made in Canada costs $3.5 to produce, 10 cents in china and 1.50 cents to ship sells for $20
Posted by: zygote | 2008-02-05 11:11:43 AM
The rivers are not drying up for heaven's sakes. This is pure nonsense. The Peace, North Saskatchewan and Athabasca Rivers have not been reduced to muddy little creeks. They are still mighty and immense rivers. You are buying into the shrill rhetoric.
Secondly, if you knew what science was you would know that it is all based on hypothesis. The objective of scientific inquiry is to prove a hypothesis is wrong. And while experimental evidence can demonstrate that a certain hypothesis is correct, it is completely unscientific to take anything that disproves a scientific theory and discount it or muzzle or incarcerate those that advocate it. This is what Suzuki is arguing and this is what you would seem to be supporting Ether.
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-02-05 11:14:21 AM
Well my fixed computer models tell me that the left is full of @#$%
Posted by: JMS | 2008-02-05 12:08:01 PM
Adam wrote: "That they feel free to throw this sort of stuff around (and he's hardly the first to do it) reflects their confidence."
Or their desperation. With their movement faltering, they badly needs more converts, and such hellfire-and-brimstone talk usually repels more people than it attracts. Oligarchies drag out the heresy card only when they feel threatened.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-05 12:10:15 PM
DP, not sure where you got your sources from, BUT:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2005_report/ta8_2_eng.cfm cleary shows "Stationary Combustion Sources" emitted 346 000 GHG Emissions (kt CO2 eq) in 2005 and Transportation distant second at 200 000 GHG Emissions (kt CO2 eq).
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2005_report/som-sum_eng.cfm#ts_2 cleary shows that the ENERGY sector is responsible for 81.5% of Canada's emissions, with Alberta being the primary source of those emissions in that Sector. (Saskatchewan at number 2). Agriculture comes in at 7.6%... a FAAAARRRR distant second and industrial processes (even shocking to me) comes in at 3rd being 7.1%
Zygote! Let's stop shipping everything in from China! Finally, a realistic and achievable solution :)
Epsilon, when was the last time you actually went up and saw the Athabasca river and the North Saskatchewan river with YOUR OWN EYES? It is COMMON knowledge that between two and 4.5 cubic metres of water are required to produce just one cubic metre of oil. Do your research, PLEASE. Where is that water coming from? And it's not like it can get recycled back into the stream.
Are you going to deny that the Athabasca's winter water levels are REALLY starting to effect the river's ecosystem and causing fish populations to decline? Not once have you heard anyone try to say "the rivers are now muddy little creeks" but I AM saying "if we don't do something now, they may very well become muddy little creeks".
Tell me, epsilon, who is spinning who? Who has more to gain with spin rhetoric? People who care for the planet with no financial motives or Suncor???
I am a science major, Epsi. Just like stats, you can do whatever you want with experimental evidence to spin whatever you want. The sun rises everyday, therefore I hypothesize it will rise tomorrow. Alberta's temperatures have risen 4 degrees celsious over the last 20 years, therefore I hypothesize that they will likely continue to rise UNLESS something happens to change that pattern. Does that mean this trend is part of a natural cycle or man made? I think both.... and if you can't see that, the word DENIAL comes to mind. You must honestly admit that man is certainly ushering things along quite nicely. Show me any experimental evidence to prove that wrong.
Posted by: Etherdancer | 2008-02-05 12:10:31 PM
Boggy wrote: "Self appointed Messiah, and he who shall not listen, shall be cast to the cages."
Unlike Suzuki, the real Messiah never spoke of putting people in cages. But then, the Son of Man is a tough act to follow.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-05 12:11:54 PM
David Suzuki has proven once more that he does not deserve his title of Doctor. A real scientist will look at all the data from all sides. A real scientist will study the science behind phenomenons. A real scientist will want to get to the real scientific Truth even if it goes against his or her beliefs. But at the end, real science will lead to the Truth.
Obviously, Suzuki has taken the road in order to gain power, money and the eco-fanatism.
Scientist are not saying that global warming did not or does not exists. By the way, global warming has stopped since about 6 years ago... we reached the maximum... try to explain that one Mr. Suzuki... how does that fit with the dooms day theory of yours? We are actually now starting to go down to the next ice age! Anyhow, to get back to the global warming effect... the real issue was if human activity has any impact on global warming. Every real scientist will agree that human activities does have an impact on the environment. But in truth, we only are responsible for a tiny fraction of the total effect. I would point people to this web site to really understand what is greenhouse effect and its importance for life on earth (www.junkscience.com/greenhouse). You will find that liquid and vapour water has a much more important greenhouse effect that carbon dioxide. Of course the source of that heat is from the sun... we don't even understand the complexity of the sun's cycles we are are told that this is not important.
Dear Mr. Suzuki, at the end, when the Truth will be known, you Sir will be the one thrown in jail along with your good friends Gore and Bono... don't drop your soap!
Posted by: RayB | 2008-02-05 12:17:20 PM
Talk about manipultion of statistics.
Stationary combustion sources comprises everything from agriculture to forestry. Fossil fuel production is still only 1/4 as high as transportation, and a big part of fossil fuel production IS transportation. Transportation is still the biggest single point source, even on your scale.
You should note that electricity is a real villian. Coal fired generators need to be upgraded sooner than later.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 12:20:54 PM
Etherdancer wrote: “Obviously, this person hasn't taken anything above a grade 8 science class that he thought was "dull".”
Three years of pre-med, smartass. What are your qualifications? Come to that, what’s YOUR definition of science and the scientific method?
Etherdancer wrote: “Tell me what is so moral about the "right" in this perceived division of humanity you call "left" and "right"? With an argument like this from someone who insinuates they are on the "right", who appears to be "hard to argue with"?”
In this context the “Right” are those who believe customs and practices should be retained and that any changes be given serious consideration prior to adoption. The “Left” are those who are impatient with the rate of progress and want to speed things up for the sake of speeding things up, regardless of whether such change results in actual progress or even whether there is a need for it in the first place.
Etherdancer wrote: “Could it possibly be that God is a scientist? Could it be that He created the scientific laws that man is only just discovering? Could it be that science and God are indeed one if only we were humble enough to see that?”
No, God is not a scientist. He knows everything already. Duh.
Etherdancer wrote: “PLEASE do your research. Rivers around the oilsands are being drained dry and pollution is rampant. Alberta is the heaviest emmittor of green house gases. Please do your research before spewing your "right" opinion.”
“The heaviest ‘emmittor’ of ‘green house’ gases,” eh? Maybe you should brush up on basic writing skills. And funny how pollution and greenhouse gases weren’t such a concern when Ontario’s manufacturing industries were the chief cause of them.
Etherdancer wrote: “One of my favorite quotes "There will be NO economy without an environment", David Suzuki. Could it be he sees the long term and is actually fight FOR the economy?”
Uh-huh. Death and doom, the prophet speaks, the day of YHWH is at hand. I have not seen ANYTHING to make me believe that the environment is in danger of immediate and irremediable damage. It’s a wonder they’ve even been able to get to the global warming seminars this year for all the snow that’s falling.
Etherdancer wrote: “There is NO such thing as the "left" or the "right". There really is just "educated" and "non-educated" opinions. Choose!!”
Educated people are usually smart enough to know that splattering their posts with exclamation marks makes them look very UNeducated. Good day.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-05 12:23:15 PM
Help me out here.
Anyone know what percentage of Ontario's fossil fuel supply comes from Alberta?
Since dancer's graph shows Ontario at the top of the list of emittors, and domestic fossil fuel production at a fraction of this, I'm curious.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 12:33:10 PM
Etherdancer wrote: “I'm certain Suzuki wouldn't make harsh statements such as that unless he thought the consequences were fatal. Destroy the environment and we all die. Our biosphere has limits. If we break it, there may be no 'fixing' it.”
We do not care what you are “certain” of, nor what David Suzuki thinks, unless he can back up his apocalyptic talk with more than weather statistics that fail to take into account that the average world temperature has exceeded today’s values several times in the last 2,000 years without the destruction of humanity. The environment is in no danger of destruction. Every atom of carbon that we liberate from the ground was once in our atmosphere.
Etherdancer wrote: “Creating an unsafe environment is surely a criminal act -- the people, the state has an interest in keeping us all safe and healthy.”
“Surely” a criminal act? Got news for you, ether-brain—if you have to say you’re “sure” of something, it means you’re not. If such a law exists, please quote the appropriate section of the Criminal Code.
Etherdancer wrote: “Is ignoring greenhouse emissions, toxic pollution, destruction of biodiversity, etc... a form of criminal negligence? I'd say yes.”
I’d say you’re an idiot. Wow! This my-word-translates-automatically-to-reality-and-official-policy game is fun!
Etherdancer wrote: “I'd imagine any reasonable person would agree with me -- negligence in protecting the fundamental support system of life on this planet is a nono. However, now begins the matter of measure. How do you determine if someone is horribly negligent?”
Get over yourself, gas-brain. We really don’t give a tinker’s cuss what you imagine. And you don’t have veto power over who gets to be called reasonable and who doesn’t. All you’re showing is the attitude of an intolerant and elitist bigot.
Etherdancer wrote: “Consequential outcomes aren't sufficient. If we break the biosphere, who cares if you punish the politicians? We're all dead anyway.”
The biosphere has survived asteroid strikes.
Etherdancer wrote: “The state needs some balance. We have a balanced legislature, judiciary, executive... We have the forth estate of a central bank, a fifth estate of a free press. Why not a sixth of environmental concerns?”
Because people like you believe that this “sixth estate” supersedes the other five. Because people like you do not have any realistic concept of balance. All you understand is your own moral outrage.
Etherdancer wrote: “Bah, all we can hope for is that when stuff starts to get bad, people will wake up see fools for fools and the wise for wise and choose accordingly. It'll probably be too late though.”
You could set a good example by selling all your worldly possessions and living in a tree. Unfortunately for you, your strident and petulant whining about the environment, to whose spoliation you contribute as much as anyone else, does not expiate your sins. It just makes you a self-hater. Well, not too many Leftists fit that description, do they?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-05 12:35:06 PM
Sorry, that last one was for Dissent. Of course, they write so similarly, they just might be the same person. Man, I hate posers.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-05 12:37:25 PM
Desecrate the Koran in Iran, Deny Global Warming in Canada... hmmm...
Posted by: Tom | 2008-02-05 12:43:15 PM
David Suzuki is obviously suffering from the onset of age related dementia so I'll refrain from being too hard on him since it won't be long until the giant fundraising machine that makes money off his orophecies of doom can no longer hide his deteriorating mental condition from the public at large.
Posted by: Nominalis | 2008-02-05 12:45:46 PM
I had a closer look at the tables from environment Canada, and realized I'd missed something. "Oil and Gas extraction" is a separate category and only accounts for 2% of the greenhouse gas emissions from stationary combustion sources. Dancer, you've hanged yourself with your own statistics.
By the way, I have seen all those rivers with my own eyes. Forestry and pulp mills do more damage to rivers than oil and gas extraction. The biggest hazard to the fishing industry is from organic mercury. The second worst is from pulpmills, which could be fixed with the right incentives.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-05 12:53:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.