Sagittarius
Suzuki gets away with this misinterpretation by fully exploiting the false authority of his claimed and cultivated position as a scientist and environmentalist. He does this despite the fact that he deliberately abandoned his university research position in the 1980s and has no more qualifications as an environmentalist than many of us.
Indeed, it is arrogant for people such as Suzuki to claim that they are environmentalists as if it were some sort of exclusive club, inferring they care and the rest of us don't. It is more likely he, and those who work with him, are pushing a political agenda to create the world they want. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century, said, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
Suzuki's image is being increasingly tarnished as evidence accumulates against his positions and statements. This was bound to happen with climate because he ignores the standard scientific method, which tries to disprove hypotheses. As Richard Lindzen said about the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would cause significant global warming; the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.
Despite personal attacks and a campaign of disinformation by alarmists, it is science that is destroying the human-caused climate change hypothesis. The disinformation of alarmists, Suzuki included, has gone through many phases - the now familiar 'consensus' argument, the ad hominem attacks ('climate deniers', 'climate criminals', 'international outlaws', etc.) to presenting misinformation to political leaders.
The latest position is that 'the science is settled'.
COMMENTS (2)
RATE THIS STORY
Nude photos of the MTV reality star surfaced on the...
I'm a semi-retired “stringer”—I shoot video on the fly to sell to news outlets....
Comments
I seriously doubt that David
By luyen, August 1, 2007 at 09:53I seriously doubt that David Suzuki, despite his popular appeal and legacy of informative TV shows, has put that much pressure on current environmental policy, judging by his reaction to the Tory green plan, when he encountered Minister John Baird at its uncovering.
The truth is despite a near consensus on global warming and some of its causes, the political process relies very much on the status quo and the promise of economic growth.
Look at U.S. environmental policy, where good science, after decades of data collecting has reached what are seemingly accurate conclusions. I haven't read or crunched the numbers, but that's the consensus of scientists said...us non-PHd folks take their word for it, but apparently politicians south of the border don't always.
So what happens when you're a reputable scientist and nobody listens? Science divorced from some inspiration is just numbers, just things on paper - convincing people or educating people requires inspiration, it requires a person relating to another...
That's what David Suzuki has done, and i can bet you that most Canadians will remember David Suzuki for his passion to make positive change...
I actually tried to think of
By Seth God of Chaos, September 24, 2007 at 19:46I actually tried to think of this as an objective-less critique of David's work when I first read it, then I heard a little more about Mr. Timothy Ball.
After reading his article on Global Warming, I can only come to one single conclusion. This man has an agenda of his own. Why else would one instigate a lawsuit to proclaim oneself "the first Canadian PhD of Climatology"?
When people begin to pursue science for personal accomplishments, the whole scientific community suffers.
If you're half the spurned victim that you claim to be, Mr. Ball, then you wouldn't give a single wit about your own personal accomplishments. As a scientist your calling should be higher; pursuing the fundamental Truth of the Earth's material existence.
The fact that you are still in conflict with as heavily documented and sourced an event as the increase in rate of planetary climate change is frightening. Dissent and the disproving of hypotheses are fundamental to the scientific process.
Blatant disregard of any data contrary to your own agenda is a total mockery of that scientific process. And you, sir, have a definite agenda.
Which begs me to wonder, what grandiose claim of enviro-hippy conspiracy will you try to discredit my telling remarks with?
When a scientist refutes all rational logic to pursue a direction of thought that is proven time and again to be untrue, what is left to question but his personal agenda and that of his associates?
Couple that with severely misleading and veiled inferences about your stance on climate change, and you have the makings of bad science.
Scientific method and writing is straightforward, I have been taught that from day one, having not even finished writing my Masters thesis yet. Re-reading your articles, they smack of the blatant ambiguousness and refutation of accepted theory as you are accusing Mr. Suzuki of.
Further seeing that you've published a total of five or six works over the period of 34 years is also highly suspect. Any credible researcher would have put out scads more volumes on any subject they claim to be knowledgable of.
Your citing of David having dropped out of research is amusing as well, he makes no claims of being the authority on an issue. Were he to do so, I would also expect him to have released a multitude of papers in a scientific format for harsh peer review and scrutiny.
You make that claim, and so I ask you, where is this body of brilliant and supported peer-reviewed work that earns you this title?
I make no pretense of being a good research scientist. I'm getting into Zoology as a keeper for precisely that reason. I do, however, know a line of tripe when I see it.
And this is very much tripe, sir. Tripe with an agenda.