David Suzuki: Climate change is here


mentalfloss
+1
#1



David Suzuki: Climate change is here

BECAUSE WE ENJOY relatively pure air, clean water, and healthy food systems, Canadians sometimes take the environment for granted. Many scarcely blink if oil from a pipeline spills into a river, a forest is cleared for tar sands operations or agricultural land is fracked for gas. If Arctic ice melts and part of the Antarctic ice sheet collapses, well…they're far away.

Some see climate change as a distant threat, if they see it as a threat at all. But the scientific evidence is overwhelming: climate change is here, and unless we curb behaviours that contribute to it, it will get worse, putting our food, air, water, and security at risk. A recent White House report confirms the findings of this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment report, and concludes global warming is a clear and present danger to the U.S.

"Climate change is not a distant threat, but is affecting the American people already," says White House science adviser John Holdren in a video about the report. "Summers are longer and hotter, with longer periods of extended heat. Wildfires start earlier in the spring and continue later into the fall. Rain comes down in heavier downpours. People are experiencing changes in the length and severity of allergies. And climate disruptions to water resources and agriculture have been increasing."

Recognizing the problem's severity is a start, but whether the U.S. will actually do anything is another question. Action to curb climate change is constantly stalled—thanks to the powerful fossil fuel industry, political and media denial, extensive fossil fuel-based infrastructure and citizen complacency.

But at least the U.S. and its president have unequivocally called for action. It's disturbing that political leaders in Canada—a northern country already feeling impacts, with a long coastline particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels—ignore the issue in their drive to make Canada a petro-power. Our government prefers to spend taxpayers' money to support the fossil fuel industry with advertising campaigns and billions of dollars in subsidies. A recent New York Times ad, worth US$207,000, touts oil sands and pipelines as "environmentally responsible." Despite opposition from communities throughout B.C. and the rest of Canada, including many First Nations, approval of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project is expected next month.

Perceived economic benefits (mostly short-term) trump the needs of all Canadians and their children and grandchildren for clean air and water, healthy food and a stable climate. Droughts, floods, water shortages, insect-plagued forests, extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and melting glaciers don't matter as much as getting the oil, gas and coal out of the ground and sold as quickly as possible.

B.C. once showed promise with climate policies such as a carbon tax. Now the government in my home province is also pinning its hopes on the fossil fuel market, fracking our way to "prosperity" at the expense of long-term human and economic health, farmland and climate.

How can we allow governments and industry to continue leading us down this destructive path?

Some people say we must choose between the human-created economy and the natural environment—an absurd argument on many levels, and a false dichotomy. Even within the current flawed economic paradigm, it's far more financially sound to invest in renewable energy and diversification than in a dying industry.

Others, often driven by fossil fuel industry propaganda, doubt the evidence and question the credentials of thousands of scientists worldwide studying the issue.

The IPCC report involved hundreds of scientists and experts worldwide who analyzed the latest peer-reviewed scientific literature and other relevant materials on climate change. The White House report was overseen by 13 government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, Department of the Interior, Department of Defense and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It was written by close to 300 scientists and experts and reviewed by numerous others, including the National Academy of Sciences. It was also vetted by groups ranging from oil companies to environmental organizations. As an article on Desmog Blog points out, "If anything, this report is conservative in its findings."

The IPCC and White House reports are clear: solutions are available. But the longer we delay the more difficult and expensive they will be to implement. We can't just sit by and do nothing.

David Suzuki: Climate change is here | Georgia Straight, Vancouver's News & Entertainment Weekly
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#2
Suzuki is still alive?

He's older than dirt.. And about as smart
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+1
#3
Scientists Disembowel Latest Green Drivel from Obama
May 20, 2014 • 9:44AM
A group of 15 scientists has issued a scathing attack on Obama's latest environmentalist hyperventilation, the 829-page National Climate Assessment (released May 6), and offer a defense of Promethean Man to boot. The opening paragraphs give a flavor of healthy sarcasm of the entire document:

"The National Climate Assessment-2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.
"As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of Climate Change, however scary, is not proof of anything...
"We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth's climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is not true."
(emphasis in the original)

What follows is an item-by-item rebuttal of five of the NCA's main points, including the claim of anthropogenic causes of warming; that recent years/decades have been warmer than past; and the error of relying on computer modelling, at one point concluding,
"Our climate is highly cyclical, driven by ocean and solar cycles, not carbon dioxide."
Among the signatories are: Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee; Joseph S. D'Aleo, a fellow with the American Meteorological Society; Dr. Neil Laverne Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center in Florida; and William M. "Bill" Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.

Rather than offer additional quotes, readers are encouraged to view the entire document, a total of 8 pages, with colorful graphic documentation. It can be viewed or downloaded (after creating a free account) here.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#4
Hmmmm.... I wonder how this publication that also lists the persons that support these conclusions impacts the 97% consensus?
 
petros
+3
#5
Quote:

if

Oh so many ifs...

Quote:

B.C. once showed promise with climate policies such as a carbon tax. Now the government in my home province is also pinning its hopes on the fossil fuel market, fracking our way to "prosperity" at the expense of long-term human and economic health, farmland and climate

unicorn herding isn't putting food on the table?
 
BornRuff
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Scientists Disembowel Latest Green Drivel from Obama
May 20, 2014 • 9:44AM
A group of 15 scientists has issued a scathing attack on Obama's latest environmentalist hyperventilation, the 829-page National Climate Assessment (released May 6), and offer a defense of Promethean Man to boot. The opening paragraphs give a flavor of healthy sarcasm of the entire document:
"The National Climate Assessment-2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.
"As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of Climate Change, however scary, is not proof of anything...
"We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth's climate by burning fossil fuels. The problem with their theory is very simple: It is not true."
(emphasis in the original)
What follows is an item-by-item rebuttal of five of the NCA's main points, including the claim of anthropogenic causes of warming; that recent years/decades have been warmer than past; and the error of relying on computer modelling, at one point concluding,

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
The lead author on that also signed the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

It states in part: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

So that gives you a bit of background on where he is coming from.
 
Nuggler
+1 / -1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Oh so many ifs...

unicorn herding isn't putting food on the table?


"
"B.C. once showed promise with climate policies such as a carbon tax. Now the government in my home province is also pinning its hopes on the fossil fuel market, fracking our way to "prosperity" at the expense of long-term human and economic health, farmland and climate."

You don't care about economic health, farmland, and climate ?

For a farmer or whatever you call yourself, you are quick to denigrate those that do.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

The lead author on that also signed the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

It states in part: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

So that gives you a bit of background on where he is coming from.

Yeah so what, he's entirely correct, Gods agent in these parts is the Sun, that sun is irradiating intellect to this solar system, that intellect assembles birds fish and trees from matter by natural design carried in light. I suppose you believe humming birds were designed by Boeing. If you are an anti religious person what are you doing supporting the CO2 religion? He's coming from a place very close to my place, light is God, light is life. It is every persons duty and pleasure to cultivate his own religion, indeed the word religion means personal philosophy. Have you compiled one for yourself yet? Of course I'm not meaning the big box store religions I'm refering to reality. energy and matter.smiley
 
BornRuff
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Yeah so what, he's entirely correct, Gods agent in these parts is the Sun, that sun is irradiating intellect to this solar system, that intellect assembles birds fish and trees from matter by natural design carried in light. I suppose you believe humming birds were designed by Boeing. If you are an anti religious person what are you doing supporting the CO2 religion? He's coming from a place very close to my place, light is God, light is life. It is every persons duty and pleasure to cultivate his own religion, indeed the word religion means personal philosophy. Have you compiled one for yourself yet? Of course I'm not meaning the big box store religions I'm refering to reality. energy and matter.smiley

CO2 isn't a religion, it is a chemical compound. There is a very large body of scientific evidence regarding how it affects our planet.

You are free to make up your own religion if you want, but it has not relevance to a scientific debate.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#10
It's the carbon part of the CO2 that you greenies have your panties all in a bunch over.

Just in case you didn't get the memo... Most (if not all) life on this planet is carbon based.
 
Walter
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

CO2 isn't a religion, it is a chemical compound. There is a very large body of scientific evidence regarding how it affects our planet.

You are free to make up your own religion if you want, but it has not relevance to a scientific debate.

More CO2 = more food
 
mentalfloss
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's the carbon part of the CO2 that you greenies have your panties all in a bunch over.

Just in case you didn't get the memo... Most (if not all) life on this planet is carbon based.

Therefore hydrogen bombs are good for us because H20.

 
BornRuff
-1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

More CO2 = more food for the fishies

expanded on the point for you.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Therefore hydrogen bombs are good for us because H20.


You're finally getting it..
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

The lead author on that also signed the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".

It states in part: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

So that gives you a bit of background on where he is coming from.

Yeah the other giveaway was blaming the whole thing on Obama. Thanks Obama!

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's the carbon part of the CO2 that you greenies have your panties all in a bunch over.

Just in case you didn't get the memo... Most (if not all) life on this planet is carbon based.

Really? Puh-leeze write a letter right now to the IPCC to alert them of this critical fact. I'm sure they've just overlloked it. Once they realize that organic chemictsry is carbon-based, they will be able to issue a retraction.

 
Walter
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

expanded on the point for you.

More food for all, dimwit.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

CO2 isn't a religion, it is a chemical compound. There is a very large body of scientific evidence regarding how it affects our planet.

You are free to make up your own religion if you want, but it has not relevance to a scientific debate.

No there isn't a large body of scientific evidence to support CO2 as the culprit in climate change, there is a large body of faux science barflegab foisted on unsuspecting innocents like yourself who gobble it up without a dime worth of applied critical thinking. You've been sucked in by bankers and their slave science mouthpieces who will say anything to keep their grants and salaries. Send me a post card from Dupeville will ya, I collect them. You are obviously not free enough to assemble your own philosophy or maybe you're just too damn lazy to do your own thinking and reading. insert smiley
 
petros
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

You don't care about economic health, farmland, and climate ?

For a farmer or whatever you call yourself, you are quick to denigrate those that do.

What is happening to farms? We produce too much?
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's the carbon part of the CO2 that you greenies have your panties all in a bunch over.

Just in case you didn't get the memo... Most (if not all) life on this planet is carbon based.

There's carbon in beer too, and carbon in the ashes from the joint I'm smoking and the humming bird on the feeder is mostly carbon, these whackos hate carbon they hate little birds they're terrible horrible party poopers. They should shove their foorprints up their elimination orifices where it blongs with their heads.
 
BornRuff
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

More food for all, dimwit.

I'm just saying that those who live in the water will probably benefit the most from new hunting grounds opening up.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+4
#21  Top Rated Post
BornRuff, send me a link to your precious science and I'll critique it for you, free as an introductory offer.
We'll trade links.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What is happening to farms? We produce too much?

It's your fossil fuel gobbling tractors Petros, why can't you use carbon free horses,you know the breed that don't fart.
 
BornRuff
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

No there isn't a large body of scientific evidence to support CO2 as the culprit in climate change, there is a large body of faux science barflegab foisted on unsuspecting innocents like yourself who gobble it up without a dime worth of applied critical thinking. You've been sucked in by bankers and their slave science mouthpieces who will say anything to keep their grants and salaries. Send me a post card from Dupeville will ya, I collect them. You are obviously not free enough to assemble your own philosophy or maybe you're just too damn lazy to do your own thinking and reading. insert smiley

I do lots of reading and thinking. I just tend to believe things that are actually backed up by facts and research.

If you think money is the main factor motivating this, why on earth would you think that global warming deniers would be a financial disadvantage? Fossil fuel energy companies are many of the richest companies in the world.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by bornruffView Post

i do lots of reading and thinking. I just tend to believe things that are actually backed up by facts and research.

If you think money is the main factor motivating this, why on earth would you think that global warming deniers would be a financial disadvantage? Fossil fuel energy companies are many of the richest companies in the world.

links
 
BornRuff
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

links

Lol, you really think that you and I are going to trade links and put this whole climate change issue to bed?

If you want something to read though, here are a few.

Expert credibility in climate change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2011 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post


Really? Puh-leeze write a letter right now to the IPCC to alert them of this critical fact. I'm sure they've just overlloked it. Once they realize that organic chemictsry is carbon-based, they will be able to issue a retraction.

Just trying to help you truthers connect the dots on this... Mind you, it is tons of chuckles watching all of the bobbing and weaving by you folks when confronted by the obvious

Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Fossil fuel energy companies are many of the richest companies in the world.

... And?
 
BornRuff
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

... And?

They have a strong incentive to finance research that downplays climate change, no?
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#27
How is natural cyclical climate change a human caused problem, if it is indeed a problem, and who in their right mind would downplay a natural occuring fact of solar physics.
 
BornRuff
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

How is natural cyclical climate change a human caused problem, if it is indeed a problem, and who in their right mind would downplay a natural occuring fact of solar physics.

Haha, you couldn't even hold up your end of the deal on that link demand?

And no, nobody is complaining about "natural cyclical climate change", they are talking about climate change caused by humans.
 
petros
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Lol, you really think that you and I are going to trade links and put this whole climate change issue to bed?

If you want something to read though, here are a few.

Expert credibility in climate change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Doran - 2011 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

The 97% of 32% consensus?
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

They have a strong incentive to finance research that downplays climate change, no?

No! Oil companies would NEVER lie for financial gain! Only scientists do that, and only scientists who conclude AGW is real at that!

How DARE you slander oil companies like that! Oil companies are as honest and true as. . . as. . . Catholic priests!

No, wait. . .
 

Similar Threads

23
Ezra Levant confronts David Suzuki
by Locutus | Oct 11th, 2013
70
Global Warming And David Suzuki's Lies
by CDNBear | Mar 1st, 2007
12
David Suzuki getting wiser?
by quinton | Feb 26th, 2006
no new posts