An inspirational kickoff from David Suzuki
A room, bursting with 250 Inconvenient Truth trainees gathered in Montreal Friday afternoon for the opening of the first Canadian (and the first bilingual) Al Gore Bootcamp.
And if they weren’t already excited by the prospect – and convinced of the necessity – of learning how to engage Canadians in a climate change conversation (and plainly there were), David Suzuki would have made all the difference.
Suzuki could fairly be characterized as the Al Gore of Canada, where climate change is concerned. His organization, the David Suzuki Foundation, has been actively engaged in lobbying for action for more than a decade. (Full disclosure: I was hired by Suzuki in 1996 to write the first public education package on the topic.) He’s also been captivating Canadians by talking about the Nature of Things for decades.
But as soon as the standing ovation died down when he was introduced, he set about crediting Al Gore as one of his big influences.
Suzuki said that he met ten-Senator Gore in Halifax in 1988 and, “he sent shivers up my back.”
“I had never met a politicians, nor have I since, who understood so clearly the issues of the environment, and who had a plan to do something about it.”
When Suzuki asked Gore what journalists could do to get other politicians to take the environment seriously, Gore said, “Don’t look to politicians like me. If you want to have an impact, you have to convince Canadians, show there is a problem and get THEM to push the politicians in the direction we need to go.”
That, Suzuki said, is now job one for every trainee in the room, to create in Canadians that sense of urgency, to create a national conviction that there is an urgent need for heroic action, at the level of commitment we need when we’re at war.
That would be a change of pace in Canada, where our political reaction to climate change is to create “committee after committee after committee,” Suzuki said.
And after decades of relative inaction, in the last two years, we have actually gone backwards. While the majority of Canadian Parliamentarians support strong action, the minority Conservative government has instead dismantled some of the few projects that the previous Liberal governments had put into place.
Yet Canada has as much to risk as any nation. As a northern country, our territory will warm more quickly than land closer to the Equator. And having the longest coastline of any country in the world puts us seriously at risk from sea level rise.
Suzuki listed some of the things that have happened already:
· Average temperatures in southwestern Quebec have risen one degree since 1960.
· Average temperatures in northern Quebec have gone up two degrees since 1993
· Ice cover in the Great Lakes breaks up one to two months sooner than it did 100 years ago.
· The mountain pine beetle has destroyed $65 billion worth of lodgepole pine, affecting an area covering 9.2 million hectares.
· From 1995 to 200 glacial ice in the Arctic shrank by five cubic kilometres.
· The Nortwest Passage was ice free for the first time in history last summer.
So, we have a situation in which Canada, one of the wealthiest nations on earth, won’t take action. We have a situation in which Alberta, the wealthiest province in Canada, is the most resistant to change.
Why, asked Suzuki, would we expect the people in China or India to take action when we, in this privileged country, refuse?
To paraphrase “the Doc”: We have, apparently, given up the single advantage that enabled the human species – the naked ape – to so dominate the world. As Suzuki said, looking at humans 150,000 years ago, you might not have bet much on our ability to outperform the huge, often well-armed competition.
But humans have memory, curiosity and creativity. We created the concept of a future that we could affect by what we do today. We learned to deliberately avoid the dangers and exploit the opportunities of that imagined future – to arm ourselves for battles, to clothe ourselves for winters, to grow and save food.
And now, we are particularly well-equipped to look ahead. We have the greatest scientific advantages of any time in history – and for the last 40 years, the leading scientists in the world have been telling us we’re heading down a dangerous path.
And yet we have stopped listening. We make excuses for why we shouldn’t act. We say we can’t afford it. It will cost too much. It will leave us globally uncompetitive. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has finally become convinced that climate change is an issue, still says that we can’t do anything about it that will “jeopardize the economy.”
But Suzuki questioned the Harper’s confusion about which “eco” should be held as most important. The root word, eco, refers to home. Ecology is the study of home – a consideration of the underlying principles and conditions that allow life to survive and thrive – and economics is the management of home. And yet, somehow, the government has elevated economics above ecology.
Suzuki quoted a former Alberta Environment Minister who once told him, “We can’t afford to protect environment if we don’t have a strong economy.” Yet how can we have an economy at all without a healthy environment?
Looking back, we have had sufficient warning that action was overdue. We suffered through the 1973 oil crisis and the best brains of the day said that we should protect ourselves from future economic shocks by weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, by creating a conserving society and by developing renewable energy. Denmark and Germany acted on that advice and now lead the world in the use and production of windmills, for example.
But North American governments stuck their head in the sand. George H.W. Bush got elected in 1988 by promising that he would be “an environmental president,” Suzuki said, adding, “He was the worst environmental president in history – until his son was elected and then he became the second worst.”
In Canada in 1988, then Environment Minister Lucien Bouchard told Suzuki that global warming “threatens the survival of our species.” And yet in the next 20 years, Canada has resisted action at every stage.
Canadians fought against greenhouse gas limits in Kyoto in 1997 and then – when Al Gore brokered a deal that all parties agreed to sign – Canada immediately began to repudiate its own commitment. Alberta said we shouldn’t be “dictated to” by foreign governments, as if the Canadian government had not been front and centre in negotiating Kyoto limits.
The Chretien government finally signed the Kyoto Accord, even if it had done little to make reaching our goals possible, and then the Conservatives took over and have declared Canada’s commitment irrelevant.
We have lost the sense of caution that kept our ancestors alive. While the IPCC tells us that climate change is a 90 per cent certainty, our politicians cling to the 10 per cent doubt, even though they don’t hesitate to spend billions on defence in preparation for wars that may never happen or though Canadians individually spend a fortune on house and car insurance to indemnify against potential catastrophes that have a likelihood of occurring of less than five per cent.
Here, we are facing a certainty calculation of 90 per cent and we don’t seem to be doing a lot to defend the only home we’ve got.
The cost of action according to Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, would be one per cent of GDP – “which is a lot of money.”
If the U.S. GDP is $3 trillion, one per cent would be $30 billion a year.
But the alternative – the do-nothing scenario – could present the world with a bill that would be bigger than the expenses from WW1, WW2 and the Korean War combined.
Suzuki ended by talking fondly of the science race that began in 1957, with the Soviet launch of the satellite Sputnik. In response – in response to being beaten into space with a satellite, a dog, a human – a whole team of humans – the U.S. launched the biggest science push in history, a push that Suzuki said was a gift to him personally.
“In those days, all you had to say was ‘I like science,’ and they would throw money at you.”
The U.S. won the space race, and created an economic miracle at the same time, spinning off hundreds of spinoff technologies that enriched the economy and changed ouworld.
But now, facing another scientific challenge, the Bush administration is throwing up its hands – saying that doing anything about it would “hurt the economy.”
“That,” Suzuki said, “is un-American. The American way is to accept the challenge.”
Back on their feet for another standing ovation, the Al Gore acolytes in THIS room clearly agree.















Get ready for the forced conversions
"Back on their feet for another standing ovation, the Al Gore acolytes in THIS room clearly agree."
ac·o·lyte, n: one who assists a member of the clergy in a liturgical service by performing minor duties
Pilgrimages, disciples, and now acolytes. It's the perfect storm of religious idiocy.
And done entirely for you I
And done entirely for you I have no doubt of it. You should be so happy
Same trough, different slop
“In those days, all you had to say was ‘I like science,’ and they would throw money at you.”
Nowadays, all they have to say is 'I like Global Warming'.
Good Grief
250 more Gorical zombies.
And wow. The politician scamster introduced by the fruit fly scientist.
Impressive.
cool aid anyone?
Jsut wondering
Did they have to shovel several feet of Global warming out of the way to get into the hall?
That would have been a sight.
I see the bullies are out in
I see the bullies are out in force on this thread. Nothing like Suzuki and Gore to get the ignorant rubes frothing at the mouth as they try to outdo each other.
"Yeah, that was good one Clem..."
This, folks, sums up the level of troll's and rob's understanding of meteorology and climate change. No need for science, just the same zippy one-liners used a 100,000 times before by every ignorant mouth-breather on the internet.
It also demonstrates that for troll and rob it has nothing what so ever to do with science. For them it's all about defending their world view and ideology.
What a brilliant and
What a brilliant and intellectual commentary EXUSIAN. I am overawed. With practice you'll be able to match wits with my 12 year old grandson.
Just assuming your grandson
Just assuming your grandson has been recieving a better education than you did, and the conversation will go well. Here is to hoping, he has some scientific literacy, but hey if he takes after his gramps, then there is a serious chance he's been sleeping in science classes and doesnt understand that greenhouse gases act like greenhouse gases.....
How about you tell everyone
How about you tell everyone what zog means.
Now there's an intellectual commentary.
A quote
"Repeat a lie often enough and they will believe it."
Adolf Hitler
And in anticipation of the reflection of the above quote back the other way, I'll make another observation: Modern day fascists deny the label, while hurling it back at anyone who opposes them (Glen Beck for example). This is very disorienting to anyone with a poor understanding of politics.
Zero to Hitler in 60 Seconds
"Repeat a lie often enough and they will believe it."
Adolf Hitler
"So, when communicating new information: repeat, repeat, repeat [...] Your "new" truth may also require many repetitions."
-- James Hoggan, Hoggan & Assoc. Inc.
http://www.hoggan.com/prtips.php?id=189
You're both wrong.
Try Joseph Goebbels:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Rob's right to call you on violating Godwin's Law, though.
Catch22 automatically looses.
Hmm ...
Interesting, how reverently glowtards seem to quote Goebbels and Hitler.
Ever notice that Desmogblog logo? Take a close look.
Just sayin' ...
Hey, I was just correcting
a matter of fact and history, Rob, plus pointing out that Godwin's Law holds that the first poster to reference Hitler or Nazis automatically loses the argument, but leave it to your warped mind to twist that into an act of reverence.
Thanks for the report,
Thanks for the report, Richard. It makes me wish I had been there. There is something about a good live presentation that no TV or movie theatre can give you.
I read the commentary on Canadian politicians with a heavy heart, nodding my head all the way. How did Canada get itself into such a sorry position, anyway?
And, could we have the links again, please?
DeSmog write David S speech
DeSmog write David S speech and then are impress by it?
Sorry Mr.Corcoran
I don't get to write Suzuki's speeches - which I regret. His delivery is great; it would be good for my reputation, fun and more influential that writing, say newspaper opinion pieces.
He is definitely good in the
He is definitely good in the delivery. When I was working on my undergrad I was able to see him speak in Winnipeg at the old Walker theatre. The topic at the time was endangered species, and he recieved no less than 2 standing ovations. I once heard about a talk he gave a botanical convention in Alberta, as a keynote speaker that was somewhat scathing of the event. Made me laugh when I heard it, he has courage to say the least. I respect him for that.
Agreed
I too am saddened to see how many canadian politicians have been duped by this absurd scam.
It would be nice to think that they at least would be well informed.
But I guess most of them are only concerned with popular fads that will get votes from the ignorant masses.
Sigh!!!
Ohh you have no idea how
Ohh you have no idea how truely ignorant the masses are
Typo
It's a good post; I'd like to hear both the speakers sometime. Another example of the country working together on a major project is of course during World War II. I'm sure there were carping negative ninnies like Rob and Troll then, too.
There's a typo halfway down that you might want to fix. "The root word, eco, refers to come." ;)
History re-writes itself (with help from "progressives")
"Another example of the country working together on a major project is of course during World War II."
Um, except for one major difference: Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo weren't imaginary.
"I'm sure there were carping negative ninnies like Rob and Troll then, too."
So, were you in favour of defeating Saddam, or did you consider volunteering as a "human shield"? History clearly shows that traditionally, and during the time of Hitler's rise, socialist groups were among the most ardent pacifists. What do you think Pierre Trudeau did at that time? If you guessed riding around on a motorcycle, wearing a Prussian military uniform, you guessed right. The most brutal dictators and totlalitarian states have always found an ally in North American and European "progressives", to lend moral, if not material, support.
Mealy-mouthed people like you are pretty good at dodging bullets (mainly by dodging the draft), and only support completely imaginary and inane causes which pose no personal risk or cost to yourselves.
I wonder if Suzuki rode his rock-star diesel bus to Montreal, or whether he hitched a ride in Gore's Challenger executive jet and got a ride in his Lincoln Town Car?
rob: "Hitler, Mussolini,
and Tojo weren't imaginary"
Neither is anthropogenic climate change, no matter how many times you fervently and ignorantly assert that it is.
"History clearly shows that traditionally, and during the time of Hitler's rise, socialist groups were among the most ardent pacifists."
I see you know as much about pre-war German history, and pre-war American history for that matter, as you do about climate science.
Zilch.
And as for defeating Saddam, how's that excellent adventure working out?
You are one sick and deluded puppy.
Speaking of "deluded" ...
"Neither is anthropogenic climate change, no matter how many times you fervently and ignorantly assert that it is."
Uh-huh. Be sure to get back to us when anthropogenic climate change annexes Austria, invades Poland, attacks Pearl Harbour, and starts rounding-up Jews.
"I see you know as much about pre-war German history, and pre-war American history for that matter, as you do about climate science. Zilch."
Good to see you backed up that assertion with a solid counter argument. Oh, wait. You didn't. Never mind.
"And as for defeating Saddam, how's that excellent adventure working out?"
Well, let's see. Iraq is sovereign nation with a constitution, arrived at by referendum, and they now have a democratically elected government, represented by some 12 different political parties. Their last election had a 58% voter turnout. Last anyone saw of Saddam, he was swinging from the end of a rope.
Thanks for asking.
I know how much information like that angers and fills people like you with despair. The rest of us will just have to learn to live with your disappointment.
"Home," shirley!
Thx. Tired writers always benefit from an edit.
Global warming solution
To bring about a cessation of this constant pro and con between the opposing sides on the global wrming issue I propose the following:
All the people who are so-hell bent on changing society to conform to their viewpoint should enroll in a pilot project to test the idea of life without the encumberances of modern society. This would include the global warming indoctrinates, the back-to-the-earth folks and the make-the-whole-country-a-national-park-so-we-don't-disrupt-nature crowd. The ground rules would be simple: live without access to any of the modern day amenities.
No clothing made from synthetics or weather protected using synthetics would be permitted. Animal skins would, of course, not be permitted. Clothing would be made from natural fibres only. These clothes could not be imported unless by horse, mule, camel or other pack animal since transportation burns petroleum and causes pollution. Clothing could not be purchased in any establishment heated by oil or gas nor lighted from power plants that burn these products. Nuclear generated power would be a definite no-no.
Food would be grown locally or brought in by pack animal and all meat products would be banned.
Heating for homes would be provided by burning wood or field grasses but only to the extent that it did not endanger the furry womat or the side-hill gouger. Lighting would be a problem since animal fat could not be used to make candles. If power were to be generated using wind or water it must be remembered that all lubricants for the equipment must not be made from animal products or petroleum. Transmission cables would also pose some difficulty as they are coated with plastic insulation.
Any minerals could only be mined manually with no environmental damage and smelting would have to be done using solar power and a large magnifying glass.
After 5 years those people still left alive and sane enough to function in human society could show us the way to an enlightened Utopia so that we could all come out of the dark ages and save our planet from the curses of global warming, reliance on technology and the reduction of living space for other creatures that obviously have a better claim to the land than do humans.
I, for one, can't wait. Let's start signing them up today.
I am also constantly overwhelmed by the selections from Bartlett's Quotation used to justify one's position. Why quote all those people of intellect...stick to good old P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute."
POWELL LUCAS FOR PRIME
POWELL LUCAS FOR PRIME MINISTER !
An Excellent Plan
Powell,
Your point is well taken. The loudest proponents of wearing the eco-hair shirt never have any intention of wearing it themselves. Witness the lifestyles of such Lear Jet liberals like Gore or Suzuki.
But really, your experiment has already been tried on a wide scale, several times. There was Chairman Mao's "Great Leap Forward" -- a raging success at 43 million pairs of carbon footprints permanently eliminated. Nowadays we still have Dear Leader's Democratic People's Republic of Korea, were every hour is Earth Hour(tm)!
http://tinyurl.com/5k2hkw
The suckers are those who
The suckers are those who get duped by the pseudoscience being spread by the "deniers" of which little of their utterances make any sense.
Well you have to give full
Well you have to give full credit to the denial machine they got folks convinced that greenhouse gases dont act like greenhouse gases...thats pretty impressive. But then 80% of the general pop isnt scientifically literate so maybe it isnt so impressive. It would explain the trolls of course.
Here's an alternative:
Instead of saying environmentalists should be isolated and have no impact on the non-human ecosystem before you'll pay attention to them, you could listen to their actual arguments now and respond to those rather than setting up strawmen. Would you try that? Then you might find that reasonable people are advocating for LESS pollution. And then you might find out that lots of people who know lots of stuff think this wouldn't be too hard to do. What do you think?
TD Bank: http://tinyurl.com/2uw2m7
Former US Fed Reserve Chairman: http://tinyurl.com/2s246u
Bank of Montreal (among others): http://tinyurl.com/2wfahj
Global Warming Arguments
Steve L.:
I have read plenty about the global warming issue. In fact I have a 3" binder full of articles and papers on the subject. So far what I have read has convinced me that the rise in global temperatures is a natural phenomenon that has operated in cycles for thousands of years. In fact, the earth has been recovering from a long cool spell. In addition, ice core records clearly show that temperature rise precedes CO2 increases not the reverse. There is also a strong corelation between sunspot activity and increases in global temperatures. All of this information I have in graphical presentations, something I have yet to see from those that propose global warming as a man made occurence. Most of the data offered up by the the people who argue for warming as a human causality is 20, or at best, 50 years old. This sort of time span is miniscule when compared to the natural cycles on the earth and only catch our attention because there are so many of us around to be affected by these changes.
Does this mean I am against all efforts to reduce pollution? Not at all. I just don't see suggestions that we shut down the oil sands or send huge sums of money offshore to buy credits so we can pollute even more as reasonable. It is easy to see the results of our despoiling of the environment by looking at the asthma causing green haze that hangs over our cities or the sludge in the Cayahoga River (I didn't check the spelling on this one) that caught fire spontaneously. I've seen them both. I've seen Mexico City from the air as a yellow smog from a hundred miles away and Chicago when you couldn't see the Sears Tower from 5 miles away. I've lived along the Great Lakes where I've seen places you couldn't swim because of the raw sewage being pumped into it. I've held contaminated mercury in the palm of my hand that I scooped out of a five foot wide pool as a child wandering through an industrial dump site that didn't even have a locked gate.I want it all cleaned up. But to think that we can remedy a couple hundred years of desecration in a few short years by shutting down the whole economy and spending a fortune on ill conceived schemes is a fool's dream. And all these self serving organizations that say they can turn the earth green with existing technology and at vitually no cost are handing out a line of BS. Where are the hard numbers on how they can attain this goal. They claim, like Stephane Dion, that it is simple and we can make a profit on it. Well, like the line from the commercial: "Where's the beef?" I don't want to see theoretical proposals...I want hard data. I can show you a dozens false claims by Mr. Gore in his highly touted documentary and when people start telling me deliberate lies to back up their arguments that invalidates their whole concept as far as I am concerned.
Do I believe the big oil companies and the utility providers. Not on the best day they ever had. They lie and distort facts even more so than Gore and Suzuki. Their motives are purely profit. We need more stringent regulations on these firms, but not applied so quickly or of such onerus consequence as to throw the whole economy into a tailspin. Goofy plans like the Kyoto protocol are just schemes to transfer wealth. During the entire span of the original protocol, China and India will have brought 800 new coal fired generating stations on line. These 800 units will produce more CO2 emmissions than Kyoto was designed to reduce.
In short, I don't buy into the present man-made global warming hysteria. This is a natural cycle and our best solutions lie in learning to cope with the consequences, not trying to reverse something that is way beyond our capabilities. Our best long term hope can be found in reducing our personal waste, our corporate indifference and cutting down our unsustainable population growth.
Thanks for the detailed response
but did you look at the links I posted? What's this about shutting down the economy? What does TDBank have to gain by doing that? In the recent past I've posted other links to economists discussing the value of instituting a carbon tax for reasons other than AGW (from the pages of the Wall Street Journal, no less). I'll post them again if you like. These are people who know something about money. You say your 3" binder shows that the scientists are wrong. As a scientist myself I'm skeptical of that claim, but that's irrelevant here. Do you also have a 3" binder with respect to the economy? Where's the beef with regard to your "sky-will-fall" claim regarding the economy?
Oh, dear, where to start...
"I have read plenty about the global warming issue. In fact I have a 3" binder full of articles and papers on the subject."
Would these be 'papers' as in newspaper and magazine articles and opinion / editorial pieces, or would these be 'papers' as in actual peer-reviewed published scientific papers?
Any misinformed person, or even a totally ignorant fool, can write the former, and even get them published. You actually have to do some science and know something about what you're writing about to get the latter published, though.
"So far what I have read has convinced me that the rise in global temperatures is a natural phenomenon that has operated in cycles for thousands of years."
Name this natural cyclical phenomenon. Explain how it works, and how it is responsible for the warming of the past 100 years. Since you're convinced, this ought to be a cinch for you.
"In fact, the earth has been recovering from a long cool spell."
Oh, oh, better not be the Little Ice Age again, Earth's climate fully recovered from that little episode over a 150 years ago, and in any case, there's some dispute that it was a global event.
"In addition, ice core records clearly show that temperature rise precedes CO2 increases not the reverse."
Correction: ice core records clearly show that temperature rise precedes CO2 increases at the end of an ice age.
News Flash: We're not at the end of an ice age. We're 10,000 to 12,000 years past the end of an ice age.
False Premise No.1: Since CO2 follows temperature in the ice core record, it therefore can not cause warming.
Fact No.1: We know that CO2 can and does cause warming by absorbing and emitting infrared energy. This has been known and proven by laboratory experiment for almost 150 years. Satellite photos of Earth in the infrared bands absorbed by CO2 are opaque--the Earth's surface can not be seen in them. This is a done deal. Get over it.
At the end of an ice age, CO2 is emitted by a warming ocean as a natural feedback to the natural warming initiated by increased solar insolation due to cyclical changes in Earth's orbit and tilt of its axis. (The Milankovetch cycles.) But we know that these orbital changes alone are not enough to end an ice age since their maximum warming effect can easily be calculated. Since we also know that CO2 causes warming, we know that as the CO2 from the warming ocean accumulates in the atmosphere it adds still more warming, hence the word 'feedback,' and hence the lag of CO2 behind temperature in the ice core record.
False Premise No.2: CO2 can only act as a feedback.
Fact No.2: Since we know that CO2 does add warming, we know that when CO2 is added to the atmosphere directly, rather than as a natural feedback to some other cause of warming, it will still add warming, this time acting as a direct forcing.
We know that we, meaning us, meaning humans, are adding CO2 directly to the atmosphere faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it. We've been measuring it since 1958. We've measured the drop in Carbon 13 in atmospheric CO2 from historic natural levels, which means we know that the increase is from burning fossil carbon fuels, which are naturally low in carbon 13. In other words, we are assuming the role of the naturally warming ocean. The result will be the same: the accumulating CO2 will add warming.
"There is also a strong corelation between sunspot activity and increases in global temperatures. All of this information I have in graphical presentations"
You mean the graphical presentations that stop at 1980, just when the graph of sunspot activity peaks and then flattens, while the graph of temperature continues its steep ascent for the next 20 years? Aren't you the least bit curious why someone would cut off the graph at 1980? Where is the missing 28 years of data?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
But don't take my word for it. You can look all this up for yourself to see if my 'facts' are indeed facts, and if the 'false premises' are really false.
That's it for tonight, time for bed, but I will add that if you haven't seen graphical presentations from those that propose global warming as a man made occurrence then you haven't lifted a finger to look. Here's one handy-dandy source for you: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
And here's a good site to learn more about the science of greenhouse gases and climate change.
Oops, lost the last link.
Oops, lost the last link. Here's that good site to learn more about the science of greenhouse gases and climate change.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Brilliant
Thank you for taking the time to draft that post. Clear, concise, articulate -- definitely a keeper.
But don't be disappointed if the trolls pay no attention and continue to insist that nothing is proved. Think: brick wall.
Fern Mackenzie
Thanks Fern,
glad you liked it. Feel free to steal, adapt, modify at will in whole or in part should it prove useful.
But I don't write long, careful posts like that for deniers, I write them for the lurkers reading through trying to understand the global warming/climate change 'debate,' a misnomer if ever there was one since we all know you can't debate with a rock-hard willfully ignorant brick wall, or more like steel reinforced concrete.
Enjoy this lovely spring day. - exusian
Thank you Richard for the
Thank you Richard for the write up. I am also attending the training and was pleased to hear from Dr. Suzuki again in such a short time span. I was invited by the Commonwealth Society to talk at a round table with Dr. Suzuki in London, England last month. Which was one Dr. Suzuki's stops on his most recent trip to Europe.
I hope that you enjoyed your
I hope that you enjoyed your jumket. So, Adam, do you have a useful occupation (ie. a job), are you retired OR are you another passenger a la Suzuki on the great global warming gravy train?
All Aboard The Gravy Train!
Does he have a useful occupation? You be the judge:
http://tinyurl.com/5rdop2
"Adam MacIsaac is a young new media artist that works with film. He is strongly involved with the youth music industy on Prince Edward Island[?!] and is also a member of the Island Media Arts Coop"
Click on "member profile" at the link, for a more detailed CV. It seems to contain a lot of "comittees", "fair trade", "youth empowerment", and the usual references to organic farming.
No evidence of a useful occupation to be found, shockingly.
And your "useful occupation"
And your "useful occupation" would be . . .? Who are you, Rob, to determine whether someone is making a useful contribution to society? From my point of view, you are a waste of space. Enlighten me. Fill me in. What do YOU do to make this world a better place?
Fern Mackenzie
"Useless foodtube"
works well, too, Fern
Any cretin will do, eh, Fern Mackenzie?
"Enlighten me. Fill me in."
What kind of fool seeks enlightenment from someone whom they've declared a "cretin"?
Oh, wait. That would be you.
Don't worry
My expectations in this case are off the bottom of the scale.
Fern Mackenzie
Hey Femack
Add satire to the list of things that the unenlightened and unenlightening Rob doesn't "get."
Let's recap, shall we?
On that list we have:
consensus
credibility
irony
satire
science
subtlety
truth
understatement
weather vs climate
when he's beat
wit
I could go on, but I have work to do.
BTW, Richard, I am green with envy of the DeSmog team that went to Montreal (not least because you got to ride the train across)! Your posts have been good reading.
Fern Mackenzie
Climate Change
Nice piece on D Suzuki Ric.