SUZUKI ELDERS:-We’re doomed

————————————————————————————-

“SUZUKI ELDERS”

“Associated with the David Suzuki Foundation”

“We’re doomed”

Can anyone doubt the religious overtones of this site?

————————————————————————————–

I had the following conversation at http://suzukielders.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/were-doomed/

with another commenter name Eve.

Poor Eve, as you will read, she is experiencing considerable anxiety because of the things that AGW proponents and no doubt David Suzuki and his followers are telling her.

Eve thanks me for my words and direction to my site and feels relieved to find that at least not everyone supports David Suzuki and his followers.

However the owner of this particular site needed some prodding.  At first Stan allowed me to communicate with Eve and then required some prodding to allow further comments that he personally disagreed with, and now has removed all of my comment.

So according to my promise, here is the entire conversation, with all the other comments and all my comments, except the very first and last,  (addressed to Stan), intact.

—————————————————————————————–

Posted by Peggy Olive | 27 April, 2011, 6:21 am

Stan, I agree that I don’t see us getting back to 350 ppm, but watching this video (Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle, aired in the UK in 2007) might make you feel better, or maybe not. Apparently CO2 isn’t causing global warming. It’s sun activity, but there’s nothing we can do about that either.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=6KhjS9PZMJvu2ALEj6CjCA&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle#

I liked the occasional “elder” point of view in this video, but there was a lot of science to absorb. What worries me is how much politics (right and left) may drive our perceptions of the consensus on what’s causing climate change and whether we really can affect it. But even if the theory is wrong (not climate warming, but what’s causing it), it’s still right to develop clean, sustainable energy. It’s right to work to prevent oil spills and environmental contamination, and it’s right to preserve our forests, farmlands, and fresh water. And what is so terrible about having to “pay homage to the environment.” Environmentalists are called political activists in this video, denying cheap energy to the developing world, against economic growth, and attempting to use climate change to move their anti-capitalist philosophy forward. Alternatively, governments use climate change to create new wealth in investments and taxes. The video also quotes people who say that the idea of global warming is now “entrenched” and has gone beyond politics to become a new kind of morality. The story was meant to be reassuring, but I don’t feel reassured.

Peggy

 

Posted by opit | 27 April, 2011, 6:57 am

I’m a couple of years short of that 65 so perhaps my views are suspect. Yet I was just revising a file of climate change related articles I keep – which I had to play with as 2/3 of it vanished into the pixelverse -and agree with both previous commenters that pollution is the problem…and co2 isn’t it. Not that the likes of the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, multiple reactor meltdown in Japan, and mountaintop mining aren’t plenty depressing enough !
Nope. It’s a hoax that is getting a lot of flack online as people realize just how ridiculous it is to say one can predict the future by predicting the past.
Not that climate isn’t changing. It always has.
Have a look
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com
In the Topical Index find Climate in Contention. You could likely lose yourself in it for weeks sorting out the differences between those decrying ‘denying science’ and those saying ‘science would be a nice change!’

 

Posted by Eve Weimer | 28 April, 2011, 3:08 am

My stomach just sank…I have 4 grandchildren, 9-13 yrs old. Global Human Misery will be inflicted on them??? I shudder!! I have read alot of Doom & Gloom articles & books … this is the worst! What can be done to help them… HOW DOES ONE PREPARE THEM FOR THIS????

 

Posted by Roger (but later spammed)

Eve,

It is all a huge porky designed to take money from all of us and make a few wealthy.

Check out my blog. http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

The world has been hotter than this before including a number of times within history. There is no proof that we are to blame for this current warming and plenty of facts that disprove it.

Just help to make sure your grand children are well educated and able to think for themselves and they will be quite OK!

Cheers

Roger

 

Posted by Eve Weimer | 1 May, 2011, 10:49 pm  

Roger-from-NewZealand…I have checked out your blog..it is re-assuring and fun to read.

 

Posted by Eve Weimer | 1 May, 2011, 10:40 pm

Roger … Thanks for making me feel better. Yes my grandchildren will be well educated as they have great parents, (& a savy grandmother). They are very bright and the schools they are attending promote environmental causes. Since I have run the gamut of the doom & gloom authors, films, etc. I shall now look at the opposite views. Of course I will continue to do my part re pollution, etc. A family member just came back from Australia and he invested in an alternate fuel that they intend to market in the near future. According to him it does not pollute.

Posted by Roger (But later spammed)

Eve,

Glad you enjoyed my blog.

Yes I absolutely agree we all should be devoted to caring for our planet and I hope that comes through clearly in my blog.

However we must be careful what we classify as a pollutant.

Although all the factual evidence I can find shows that it is unlikely that CO2 is, can or will make our planet heat up, there has been some very clever marketing/propaganda that labels CO2/carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

I do have a problem with this, as do most scientists, because CO2 is like water, it is the basis of life on earth and without it we will die.
Yes like water we can drown in it, if we get too much we will also die, but without it, ALL, life on this planet will cease.

Here are some facts which may be of interest to you.

A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf
Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html
Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)”
Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.
http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf
http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf

Currently our atmosphere has about 380 ppmv in it.

Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm

So my advice to you is to use whatever form of energy and food which conforms most closely with the contents of your wallet although for instance diesel vehicles that leave smoke and carbon particulates in the air that one can smell and taste, are still polluters to my way of thinking.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Stan needed a little prodding to publish the above but to his credit he did for a while. Although I did not record my next message which was addressed  to him, I did appeal to his conviction, saying that if his beliefs were based on fact, any contrary views should not be a problem and his readers.

Then just to test him a little further and also test his knowledge about what he is supporting, I asked the question below.

 

Posted by Roger (But later spammed)

Stan,

Do you know the answer to this question?

The IPCC has stated that the Greenland Icecap, if it melts completely, will cause sea levels to rise as much as 7 metres.

Can you tell me the time frame in which the IPCC suggests this event may happen?

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

ps yes I do know the answer and I can quote you the literature. This is just to test your knowledge.

 

The above proved too much for Stan and he spammed all  of my comments after I prompted him to also publish the above.

I think it is natural that Eve is  afraid of what is being predicted.

There is no other way to describe what Stan and the Suzuki Foundation are doing, except to call it pure and unadaulterated alarmism.

So very similar to the treatment of hell fire and damnation of yester-year.

In Eve’s case, along with much of world, she feels that her children and grandchildren are threatened and she is partly to blame.

I think that is one step up from hell fire and damnation actually! At least hell fire and damnation is directed primarily at the individual, not at the loved ones.

Summary:

We have learned that once again, a site that could only be described as alarmist (in my opinion of the very worst kind), cannot stand a dissenting comment on his site. Neither is he able to find an answer for the question I gave him to test his knowledge and understanding of the IPCC conclusions. By spamming both of these comments, Stan has shown that he not only has no answer for facts that contradict what he believes and preaches, (and I agree there is no answer to verifiable facts anyway) but he cannot even look up the answer to a question tha,t at worst, would take a few minutes of googling IPCC documents.

Stan’s answer is to simply delete these from his blog and ignore the facts.

Hence once again I believe this shows that AGW IS becoming a religion.

To ignore facts, means that you must rely on “FAITH”. 

From my early religious training I know that the word faith means to believe something without supporting facts, or in the face of facts which contradict the belief.

I am tolerant for peoples “faith” to a point, but when this “faith” starts translating to political activism and influencing politicians to also follow the dictates of the faith, which in turn translates not only to irresponsible use of our tax money , but to almost certain cataclysmic economic depression, I draw a very firm line.

Faith will not decide if the world is in danger from Anthropogenic Global Warming, rather it is likely to be the CAUSE OF ANY DANGER WE FACE!

Politicians will simply do whatever brings them their vote. It is up to us , the normal people, to act rationally and instruct our politicians in the correct course of action.

Eve if you see this, please feel free to comment and ask any further questions you may have.

By the way, the answer to the question I posed Stan above, can be found at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html#table-spm-3

The IPCC, once one wades through the obscure language, says that it will take “millenia” for the Greenland ice cap to melt completely.

According to The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary millenia is the plural of millenium  and therefore refers to a time of MORE than 2,000 years.

In otherwords the IPCC simply are guessing. Maybe it will take 5,000 years?

I leave the reader to do the arithmetic.  

Either way it is difficult to take seriously that the IPCC really thinks that we are in any real danger from this source.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “SUZUKI ELDERS:-We’re doomed”

  1. servis laptop Says:

    servis laptop…

    […]SUZUKI ELDERS:-We’re doomed « Dare I Call These People Alarmists?[…]…

  2. computer support Says:

    computer support…

    […]SUZUKI ELDERS:-We’re doomed « Dare I Call These People Alarmists?[…]…

  3. Pete Ridley Says:

    I’ve just found this about Professor Stewart’s area of expertise “ .. His main research interests are in the broad areas of Earth hazards and natural disasters, with particular focus on studying ancient earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. The majority of his field research has been in the Mediterranean region .. ” (http://royalsociety.org/science-books/2008/general-prize-judges/). There’s no mention of climate or processes or drivers there.

    He was appointed Professor of Geosciences Communication around Spring 2009 and was reported by the Spring 2009 Ireland edition of the Earth Science 2k magazine, in its article “Man on a Mission” to have said “ .. Excite children firstly with the big stories – like volcanoes, earthquakes and climate change .. I say the debate is over. The climate is changing. The question is how quickly the change will take place and there have been times in the distant past when it has been very rapid. We all know how precious our planet is. We also know that it is very robust but that our relationship with it is fragile. We are in danger of messing up that relationship long-term!”

    All of this leaves little room for doubt about Professor (then Dr.) Iain Stewart’s motives for making those claims for his contrived CO2 demonstration.

    It was also stated in that Earth Science 2K magazine that “ .. It is a treat to have someone presenting Earth science who knows what he is talking about .. ” but does he (or any of the scientists) know much about the processes and drivers of global climates?

    Not according to Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University, who in April 2009 said when criticising the book “Heaven & Earth” by his fellow Adelaide University Professor Ian Plimer “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem. .. ” (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

    The most significant part of that statement is in the first sentence, which is fact. The third sentence is in my opinion simply speculation, similar to that used by the IPCC when attempting to quantify such uncertainty, but please read the whole article for the full context. You may also find the comments of interest, especially Barry Brook, on 23 June 2009 at 5:02 AM and the moderator’s comment in response to mine of 24 June 2009 at 6:12 AM. That’s another blog run by disciples/supporters of the CACC doctrine that dislike hearing the voices of sceptics.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  4. Pete Ridley Says:

    Well done again Roger. You certainly can sniff out the CACC disciples and their propaganda. “The Suzuki Elders are voluntary association of self-identified elders working with and through the David Suzuki Foundation. We bring our voices, experiences and memories to mentor, motivate and support other elders and younger generations in dialogue and action on environmental issues. Suzuki Elders listen, learn, share and act through educating, communicating connecting and advocacy” (http://suzukielders.wordpress.com/about-2/). Note that “ .. to mentor, motivate and support .. younger generations .. through educating .. ”. I’d like to focus on that extract, which I believe more accurately should replace “educating” with “indoctrinating”. I’m come back to this issue of indoctrination shortly.

    I started out in 2007 as a very concerned grandparent after reading the propaganda booklet “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” by staunch environmentalist Mark Lynas (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209045). Look at that scary picture on the front cover – pure science fiction. The book itself is much cleverer than that, merging fact with fiction so cleverly that even Dr. Joseph Goebells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) would have been proud of it.

    Some might believe that the mainstream media, politicians, politically motivated organisations (like the UN), environmentalists and religious leaders are to be trusted on this issue. Others might place more trust in used car salesmen. On Roger’s “Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?)” thread I talked about The Naked Scientists and Professor Iain Stewart. Both appear to be extremely biased in their attitude towards the CACC issue and both are closely associated with one of the larger global media organisations, the BBC. As I said on that thread, the BBC was accused of bias on this issue back in 2008, as reported in the Daily Mail’s article “BBC investigated .. ” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063110/BBC-investigated-peer-says-climate-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html). This reported Lord Monckton’s complaint about distortion by (then) Dr. Iain Stewart’s cherry-picked report of his 90 minute interview with Monckton.

    There are numerous sites that decry the biased manner in which the BBC favours the CACC claims and one of the best that I’ve come across is (David Bellamy’s?) wn.com (http://wn.com/BBC%27s_biased_reporting_of_Global_Warming__the_consequences) which offers A/Vs demonstrating this. Interestingly, that blog offers commentary by several well-known CACC sceptics including Professors John Christy, Pat Michaels and Fred Singer who all are named in the Daily Mail report of September 2008. The BBC broadcasts programs by Professor Iain Stewart and by The Naked Scientist so it is worthwhile looking to see if there is evidence of bias in favour of CACC with those parties.

    Professor Stewart (or Dr as he was then) presented a series “Earth: Climate Wars” for the BBC, initially shown on BBC2, then BBC1. Part 1 “The Battle Begins” was on 7th Sep 2008, Part 2 “Fightback” was on 14th Sep and Part 3 “Fight for the Future” was on 21st Sep. These are not available on the BBC site now so if anyone can pont me to other sources then I’d appreciate links. There is a good analysis of Part 2 “Fightback” on the “Biased Broadcasting Climate” thread of the Climate Resistance blog on September 17th 2008.

    I understand that Part 1 “The Battle Begins” included a demonstration by Professor Stewart purporting to “ .. show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate .. ”. This is the misleading demonstration that I started discussing on The Naked Scientists forum, because in my opinion the demonstration doesn’t show how CO2 affects the different global climates, as claimed, but worse, it was deliberately set up to grossly exaggerate how much heat CO2 absorbs.

    Only one day before The Naked Scientists forum moderator JP locked the “What does Iain Stewart’s “CO2 experiment” Demonstrate” thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.0) an interesting question was raised saying “I really don’t know what motivated Stewart to screen the demonstration, nor do I think anyone else does. We could speculate of course, but that won’t help us answer Pete’s question” said (see the comment by Geezer on 4th May @ 06:35:57). I believe that any sceptic would consider that question worth discussing and there was no obvious reason why it could not have taken place on the “What does Iain Stewart’s “CO2 experiment” Demonstrate” thread. The moderator vetoed it and locked the thread but I was motivated to look into it further. I found some interesting facts relating to what is being discussed here and also introduces another important issue, the indoctrination of our gullible school children. This is something that Al Gore has been pursuing for several years through his organisation “An Inconvenient Youth” (http://www.inconvenientyouth.org/).

    On 3rd March 2008, several months before that demonstration, the organisation “Green It Like You Mean It” was launched in the UK by its founder Duncan Stewart. One of the presentations at that launch was by “Dr. Iain Stewart – The Problem” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrPjddK2t-I&feature=player_embedded#at=256). If you are interested we can take a closer look at what he tells us there about his motivations, which might explain his obvious bias during the Climate Wars series (and there’s lots of good criticism of that series. e.g in the 17th September 2008 Climate Resistance blog article “Biased Broadcasting Climate” – http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/09/biased-broadcasting-climate.html).

    Meanwhile, here’s a short extract from what Professor Stewart says of The Problem (from 3.50 mins to 5:20mins)” .. I’m going to go and campaign about this .. I believed it was happening .. we are putting out stuff that we don’t have to deal with because we’ll be dead, but our kids and their kids will have to deal with it .. what we are doing this for is that we value the way that our society works and we want that to continue for our children and not for them to have an impaired future “.

    , it might appear that there was a deliberate intention to mislead the general public.

    If Roger is OK with it I’d like to also talk later about the other presentations given at that Green It Like You Mean It launch. I can just about tolerate what the adult presenters said their, even though I reject what they say as nonsense in the context that they said it. It was the “Help Us Help The World” reading by schoolboy James Quinn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAclgITjnpU) that made me cringe and reminded me of Al Gore “An Inconvenient Youth” indoctrination machine.

    You may be interested in visiting the two threads of mine that The Naked Scientist administrators have taken a dislike to and locked. After my “Hot Topic” thread “What does Iain Stewart’s CO2 Experiment Demonstrate” was locked and the founder Dr. Chris Smith warned that if I didn’t leave quietly then I’ll be locked out myself I modified my “profile”. I described what The Naked Scientists administrators/moderators had done and said and linked to Roger’s “Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?)” thread. The news is that I have today been locked out of that site for anything other than viewing (oops, I spoke too soon – I’ve just checked back to see the viewing figures for my two threads and my main computer is not allowed onto the forum. Never mind, my laptop can still get through and those viewing figures continue rising. Also, they haven’t taken down my profile yet, which still links to this blog (I spoke too soon again as the latest check shows that to have been removed too). Both threads continue to attract significant viewers so I wonder how long it will be before they take down the threads altogether and eradicate all traces of me from the site.

    The message that I receive when I use my main computer to try to log on or view is “Sorry Guest, you are banned from using this forum! Evangelising”. It is noticeable that yor_on, the moderator who locked my “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread, persistently evangelises the CACC doctrine with impunity, which might suggest that The Naked Scientists have picked up the CACC bias virus from other infected parties. Perhaps an antibiotics is needed and the best one that I can think of is the withdrawal of funds by its sponsors. I’m hoping that the withdrawal by our coalition Government of some BBC funding will have an impact on the BBC, but I doubt it because of the significant pension monies that they have invested in renewable energy funds. The withdrawal of funds from The Naked Scientists would be quite a different matter. The withdrawal symptoms would be hard on the group but if it resulted in the removal of the biased elements of its organisation then it would be worth it. After all, displaying such bias reflects not only upon The Naked Scientists but upon its sponsors who provide funds or assistance.

    Some blog administrators and moderators, particularly disciples and followers of the Church of CACC, just hate to hear anything that challenge their own beliefs and would like to see all sceptical blogs and bloggers locked out of the Internet.

    BTW, I think that it is worth pointing out that although Professor Stewart has a PhD in Geology he is not a professor of geology but is Professor of Geosciences Communication, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth. I could find no mention of his having done any research into the process and drivers of the different global climates so if anyone can tell me of any then I’d appreciate it.

    I did recently E-mail him and the set-up designer Dr. Jonathan Hare about the CO2 demonstration but only Dr. Hare has responded. If anyone is interested in knowing what he has to say then I’ll ask him if he has any objections to me passing it on.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: