Archive for the ‘Elizabeth May’ Category

Elizabeth May to be Included in National Debate

September 10, 2008

So, Ms. May is on the Agenda now as she should be.

It’s time for the folks of Canada to take a closer look at their environmental sweetheart.

She claims to be a Christian but hangs out with and promotes the people who want a one world religion based on the pagan earth goddess Gaia.

They blame the Christians for hurting “mother earth” through industrialization.

I’m not picking on Ms. May, just attempting to educate Canadians before they get to the polling booth on Oct. 14th

I will be posting about the other candidates in the coming days.

I think the issue this election will be trying to find a candidate who is not a traitor to this country.

Take a little time and check out the links.

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant

Elizabeth May has radical environmental agenda

Cloak of Green – Get a copy of this book or read it online

Election 2008 Canada – Oh Canada – Who Stands on Guard For Thee?

September 7, 2008

Well it’s election time once again in Canada.

Who will you vote for and why?

My advice is quite simple.

If any party or candidate says they believe global warming or climate change is a real and present danger-stroke them off your list.

If they so much as mention the word “sustainability”, stroke them off your list. Find out the real meaning of “sustainability” by clicking the “Green Agenda” link at end of post.

If someone mentions the above, they have just proved they are too stupid to lead this country, or they are lying to you, or both.  Even worse-they believe you are stupid.

The political leaders in this  election are traitors to Canada.
Do a little research.
For decades, all major policy in this country has come from the UN via Maurice Strong and friends.

The influence of Maurice Strong and the UN runs deep through all the main parties in this country.

A fact that is truly unfortunate for the people who would like to believe their elected representatives serve them and their country. They do not.

They serve their masters.

A future, built on the fraud that is global warming, is what you are being asked to vote for.

In the end this election will boil down to – would you rather have cap and trade or a carbon tax.

Regardless of who we cast our vote for, we lose.

The main outcome of the election, cap and trade or a carbon tax, was cast a long time ago. Who wins the election is irrelevant.
The best we can hope for in this election, is that no party gets a majority.

If there is an independent running in your riding, vote for them.

Take a look at their platforms

The Plan to Disappear Canada

The History of the Global Warming Scare – Birth of the carbon tax scam

Global Warming – The Real Agenda How many billions of your tax dollars were diverted from programs like health and education to fund the global warming propaganda machine. Think before you vote!

Sustainable Development – A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Please, read the Green Agenda before you cast your vote.

Information about Political Parties
Liberal Party of Canada
Conservative Party of Canada
New Democratic Party
Bloc Québécois
Green Party of Canada

Our education system sucks – thank UNESCO

Our health care sucks – thank both the UN and the SPP

Our agriculture system sucks – thank the UN, Monsanto, and Big Agra

Our manufacturing base sucks – thank the UN and trade agreements.

Most of all thank this and previous governments.

As George Carlin (RIP) said “they don’t give a fuck about you” He was correct.

This election you will be given a choice between a carbon tax or cap and trade.

There’s a choice worth going to the polls for.

Sustainable Development – A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

March 13, 2008

 Editor
The Global Green Agenda site is probably the best place on the internet to easily understand what the Green Movement is about.

This is not fiction. Go to the site, spend time there, read and study what you read. This site will and should scare the hell out of you.

From now on every time you hear the word sustainability or a reference to it, the hair on the back of your neck will stand up.

Wind farms, large scale solar and biofuel are being used to trash economies not save the world from so called global warming.
I wonder if George Orwell had inside information before he wrote 1984.

Building an environmentally sustainable future
requires nothing short of a REVOLUTION…
restructuring the GLOBAL ECONOMY,
dramatically changing human reproductive
behaviour
and altering values and lifestyles.”
– Lester Brown,
President of the WorldWatch Institute

Sustainable Development – A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Sustainable Development, as outlined in Agenda 21 and the subsequent Earth Charter, is the driving force behind what Al Gore calls a “wrenching transformation” that society must endure to repair what he perceives as the damage of the 20th century’s Industrial Revolution. It is the same Industrial Revolution that gave us modern transportation, medicine, indoor plumbing, healthy drinking water, central heating, air conditioning, and electric light. Sustainable Development is not about environmental clean up of rivers, air and litter. It is an all-encompassing socialist scheme to combine social welfare programs with government control of private business, socialized medicine, national zoning controls of private property and restructuring of school curriculum which serves to indoctrinate children into politically correct group think.

Immediately following the publication of Brundtland Commission report and the Earth summit many governments swiftly enacted draconian legislation to empower the Sustainable Development doctrine. This followed a common formula of establishing regional or federal authorities that were given sweeping powers to control activities on private property. In Europe nearly every imaginable activity, no matter how benign, now requires and environmental impact assessment to be submitted to a committee which then imposes its own controls on the proposed activity. The UN regularly audits member countries and reports on their progress in implementing Agenda 21.

The primary tools used by the UN to force governments to implement its Sustainable Development agenda have been The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank states that Sustainable Development is its “global strategic priority” and all government loans are tagged with the requirement to introduce approved environmental legislation and strict monitoring. Even if repayments are met these loans can be foreclosed if the environmental targets are not met within the required timeframe.

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore insists “We must all become partners in a bold effort to change the very foundation of our civilization. We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.” Sustainable Development advocates seek oppressive taxes to control and punish behavior of which they don’t approve and there is much these advocates disapprove, including air conditioning, fast foods, suburban housing and automobiles. Every aspect of our lives is affected by Sustainable Development policies. It is top-down control from an all-powerful central government, specifically the United Nations which seeks to assert such control.

The philosophy behind Sustainable Development is to foster a mentality of guilt in people over the use of natural resources. Every time one starts their car… every time one turns on the tap… remember, be sustainable! Don’t exceed your allotment of resources…. We all must learn to live the same, think the same and most importantly… be sustainable! We are encouraged to calculate our ‘ecological footprint’, or more recently, our ‘carbon footprint’. Using a humble incandescent light bulb is now considered a crime against the planet by some.

Global Green Agenda 

Green taxes put us in the red

February 21, 2008

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, February 21, 2008
Green taxes put us in the red
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

checkCookie();

Premier Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government in British Columbia has done a public service by introducing Canada’s first real carbon tax this week.

What it demonstrates is that when governments “go green” they are essentially launching a tax attack on the middle class, while letting big industrial greenhouse gas emitters off the hook.

That’s already happened in the European Union’s three-year-old carbon emissions trading market, where big energy companies are doing fine, while electricity rates for many consumers have skyrocketed.

It’s what has started happening in Quebec, where the public was told by the government a pseudo carbon tax would be paid for out of oil and gas industry profits, when in reality the province’s fossil fuel industry has simply passed along the new tax to its customers, and will now remit that money back to the Quebec government for its so-called green fund. Government spokesmen are now telling angry consumers that of course the new tax means they’ll pay more for gasoline and natural gas, because how could the government possibly control the market decisions of oil and gas companies?

That’s almost as disingenuous as the coal-fired electrical utility in Europe which, when asked why it was passing along the entire cost of buying carbon permits under Europe’s cap and trade emissions trading scheme to its customers, when the utility had received the initial permits for free, responded the whole purpose of cap and trade was to raise electricity rates.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

SURPRISE!

In reality, there’s no way governments can or will make “Big Business” pay more for disgorging carbon into the atmosphere and heating up our planet.

Obviously, they’ll just pass along the added costs to their captive customers — us.

And don’t worry about Big Oil. At $100 a barrel and rising, it’s going to come out of this global warming “crisis” just fine, while Big Government works hand in glove with Big Business to screw us.

That was the part Al Gore left out of An Inconvenient Truth.

It’s the part the charitable David Suzuki glosses over when he rants (non-partisanly, of course) about how we should throw politicians such as Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in jail, or out of office, for doing nothing about global warming for the past two years and … uh … what? … replace him with the Liberals who did nothing for 12?

Meanwhile, Suzuki-endorsed Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, whose “green” plan involves building more nuke plants (does Dr. Suzuki know?) while allowing pollution-spewing, coal-fired energy plants to choke the life out of Ontarians until 2014, after promising in 2003 to have them all closed by now (“Paging Dr. Suzuki! Paging Dr, Suzuki!”) — has no real “green” plan either. Unless you think paying boutique, solar energy plants outrageous sums of taxpayer money to subsidize the production of very little power qualifies as “green.”

NEUTRALITY

B.C. will bribe taxpayers with $100 of their own money, just before it introduces its escalating carbon tax July I, which it promises to keep “revenue neutral” via other tax cuts.

You can decide, gentle reader, on the likelihood of that promise being kept over the long term, but early skeptics (should we jail them for climate change denial?) include B.C.’s NDP and Green Party.

On the other hand, The Suzuki Foundation and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce both pronounced themselves pleased.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

February 12, 2008

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, February 11, 2008

David Suzuki's LegacySo David Suzuki’s next ‘Nature Challenge’ is apparently challenging students to determine if there isn’t some “legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing [about climate change] is a criminal act”, to quote the National Post (Feb  7, 2008).

It appears that a religious fervor for protecting nature has transformed Canada’s leading environmentalist into an emotional bully intolerant of anyone, including other scientists, who don’t see things his way.

Over the years, I’ve heard and read statements by David Suzuki that are too often misleading or incorrect, especially about climate. He, and many like him, claim natural events are unnatural thus guaranteeing that they appear right. What he conveniently overlooks, and may have learned had he remained a scientist rather than becoming an activist, is that nature and climate frequently change dramatically and in very short time periods.
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’.

In February of last year, Suzuki stormed out of an AM640 Toronto radio interview when interviewer, John Oakley, made the accurate observation that global warming science is not a “totally settled issue.” Besides Suzuki’s aggressive behavior, his promotion of certainty in a field scientists understand to be immature, is counterproductive to climate research. If the science is settled then why is there literally a deluge of scientific papers coming out on the topic? If the science is settled, then this all must be an enormous waste of money.

Suzuki raised the spin to a professional level when he teamed up with James Hoggan of Hoggan and Associates, one of Canada’s largest public relations firms. According to Hoggan’s Web site, “Hoggan has provided strategic communications services to the DSF [David Suzuki Foundation] for more than 15 years, providing communications advice on salmon farming, climate change, forest preservation and international conservation projects.

Hoggan continues to provide ongoing support to the DSF Nature Challenge and its Capital Contribution campaign. Hoggan also recently prepared a report for the DSF Board based on extensive national research on how to guide the evolution of the DSF’s communications strategy to help become more effective in building broad-based support among decision makers, opinion leaders and other influential Canadians.”

It would be hard to imagine a closer relationship between supposedly distinct entities that that which exists between Hoggan and Suzuki. Hoggan and Associates list the David Suzuki Foundation as one of their “Research Sponsors” and Hoggan himself has served on the Board of the DSF for the past 11 years, now even replacing Suzuki as Chair of the Foundation.

According to the DSF 2006 annual report, Hoggan and Associates is a large financial donor to the Suzuki Foundation and Hoggan has personally arranged “a future gift” to the society.

Not surprisingly, Suzuki regularly boosts Hoggan’s global warming projects in the media and Hoggan is quick to use his project to attack those of us who dare disagree with Suzuki. That Hoggan’s project has been funded by an Alberta-based lawyer who has pleaded guilty to multi-million dollar money laundering charges seems to bother no one.

Complete article at CFP (Canadian Free Press) 

Definitions for the global warming fanatics who can't tolerate disagreement with their views

February 11, 2008

Lorrie Goldstein

Sun, February 10, 2008
Finding the right words

Definitions for the global warming fanatics who can’t tolerate disagreement with their views

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Despite repeated appeals to reason, decency and common sense, global warming fanatics continue to disparagingly refer to people who disagree with them as “global warming deniers” or as part of the “global warming denial industry.”

Their absurd, disgusting and juvenile attempts to suggest anyone who doesn’t bow down before their half-baked ideas, self-righteous prattle and mindless propaganda is comparable to a Holocaust denier, have gone on unchallenged for too long.

Enough is enough. It’s time those of us who do not believe New York is going to be wiped out by a 20-foot rise in sea levels caused by global warming either next Tuesday, or 50 years, or 1,000 years from now — they’ll get back to us on that — struck back with some mocking terminology of our own.

Ready? Here we go.

Feel free to borrow as many as you like and come up with your own. Fun for the whole family!

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

STEPHANE DION DISEASE

Definition: A medical condition in which you can’t decide whether to pull Canadian soldiers out of Afghanistan by February 2009, but are confident you can predict the climate of the planet 100 years from now, based on computer models.

JACK LAYTON SYNDROME

Definition: Obsessive concern about the negative impacts of global warming on Taliban prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

GILLES DUCEPPE DISORDER

Definition: The belief that global warming will stop when Quebec separates from Canada.

ELIZABETH MAY FEVER

Definition: A chronic condition in which the subject spends large amounts of time and energy explaining that the last time she said something really dumb and incendiary about global warming, or anything else, it wasn’t actually as dumb and incendiary as it sounded. Either that, or it was all Stephen Harper’s fault. Take your pick.

AL GOREITIS

Definition: The mental state of anyone who piously lectures everyone else about reducing the size of their carbon footprint on the Earth, while personally living a luxurious, high-consumption, high-flying lifestyle that they condemn for anyone but themselves. Also known as “celebrityitis” and “Hollywooditis”.

DAVID SUZUKIITIS

Definition: The belief that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about global warming … as long as it agrees with yours and that if not, they should be jailed.

WEATHER CHANNEL PSYCHOSIS

Definition: Anyone who simultaneously holds the beliefs that last year’s mild winter and this year’s harsh one are both evidence of global warming. Possible symptoms include having your head explode because of all the BS you’ve jammed into your brain. More generally speaking, a term used to describe any self-proclaimed expert on global warming who doesn’t understand the difference between “weather” and “climate.”

KYOTO ACCORD SYNDROME

Definition: Delusional belief that the same political geniuses who keep promising to “fix” medical wait times can “fix” the climate.

SCHOOL BOARD SICKNESS

Definition: The belief that global warming can be solved by opening up a black-focused school in Toronto, which, come to think of it, seems to be the Toronto District School Board’s “solution” for solving pretty much every crisis it faces these days.

GREEN RIGHTS FEVER

Definition: A relatively new disease among Canadian human rights commissions, causing them to believe any journalist who writes about global warming is likely to expose minority groups to hatred or contempt. They just haven’t figured out how … Yet.

MEDIA MADNESS DISEASE

Definition: An affliction common among journalists who pontificate ad nauseam about what Canada’s policy on global warming should be, without ever having read a book on climate change or even knowing the difference between the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Possible cures include reading a Grade 8 science textbook.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

February 10, 2008

Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems

By Tom Deweese 

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead America away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.” The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.

Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.

In fact, a recent study reported that elected city councils and commissioners have lost approximately 10% of their legislative power during the past 10 years, while, through the consensus process, the power of private groups called Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has increased by as much as 300%. It is a wrenching transformation, indeed.

The Three Es

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.

The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.

The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).

Social Equity

Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called “social justice.” It should be noted that the first person to coin the phrase “social justice” was Karl Marx. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.” How does this differ from Communism?

This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”

Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker/person will be a direct capital owner.” Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community.”

Economic Prosperity

Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.

In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses – particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vice versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.

Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.

As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.

Ecological Integrity

“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”

from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.

This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man reacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. In fact, the report from the 1976 UN Habitat I conference said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.”

Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: “A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”

The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.

Source CFP 

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail.

February 7, 2008

By any means necessary

David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?

Terry O’neill, National Post Published: Thursday, February 07, 2008

(See hardcopy for Photo Description)Brent Foster, National Post(See hardcopy for Photo Description)

No one knows how many forests have been felled to print all the stories that have been published about David Suzuki, Canada’s much-honoured but continuously controversial environmental crusader. The dead trees probably number in the many thousands, a (supposedly) global-warming-causing harvest so plenteous as to lead one to assume that preacher Suzuki might have begun moderating his apocalyptic sermonizing, lest he trigger yet another round of clear-cutting.But no. Instead, Suzuki has lately pumped up his rhetoric with even more frantic language, apparently as part of an all-out, last-ditch attempt to persuade Canadians that the world is fast approaching an environmental meltdown. It’s not clear whether he’s changing any minds with his new bellicosity, but he has at least been doing his bit to keep the country’s loggers busy.

So what exactly has Suzuki, who is on the university-lecture circuit these days, been saying? For starters, he told a University of Toronto audience last month that the next federal election ought to be about the environment. No problem there. However, as reported by a student newspaper, he then opined that government leaders who aren’t acting quickly enough to save the environment “should go to jail for what they’re not doing right now … What our government is not doing is a criminal act.”

His allegation of law-breaking was apparently no mere slip of the tongue. Speaking a few weeks later at McGill University, Suzuki again equated governments’ alleged inaction on the environment with a criminal act; in fact, he is reported to have said students ought to find a legal way to throw politicians in jail for ignoring climate-change science.

The geneticist-turned-broadcaster had particularly harsh words for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Premier Ed Stelmach of Alberta because of their alleged favouring of economic growth over environmental protection. “It is an intergenerational crime” — there’s that concept again — “that, in the face of the work of scientists over the last 20 years, they keep dithering as they are,” Suzuki declared.

Suzuki’s alarmism is nothing new, and more-prudent scientists have long ago answered his hyperbole and exposed his faulty logic. And it’s also long been abundantly clear from his speeches and books that his position is driven by both a quasi-religious zeal and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of humanity’s relationship with the natural world.

On this latter matter, he told the McGill crowd there is actually no difference between human beings and the environment in which they live. “We are the environment. There is no distinction,” he declared, thereby equating, for example, a newborn baby with a mud puddle. How heartening.

But this is old ground. What we haven’t seen from him until now is such an incendiary call to arms. Taking to the streets to protest climatechange inaction is one thing. Calling for the jailing of politicians is quite another — especially considering the fact that, the last time I checked anyway, there is nothing in the Criminal Code of Canada to prevent the Prime Minister from attempting to enhance both the country’s economy and its environment. It’s called balance.

We shouldn’t really be surprised at Suzuki’s latest tactic. Eco-pirate Paul Watson, formerly of the Sea Shepherd Society, has long argued that he answers not to the law of man, but to the law of nature. And we’re not talking here about his need to take bathroom breaks while chasing down whaling ships on the high seas. Suzuki now seems to be adopting a similar philosophy: that human-written law should be subordinate to that of Mother Nature (except, of course, when it comes to incarceration; human-constructed jails are so much more reliable than caves or thickets). And, of course, it’s only Watson and Suzuki’s special hot-line to Gaia that allows them to interpret nature’s law; the rest of us unenlightened ones need not apply.We should also not be surprised at the intolerance that permeates Suzuki’s “lock ’em up” rhetoric. After all, despite the multicultural mantra that we “celebrate our differences,” there’s a disturbingly illiberal tendency these days (as shown in the recent “human-rights” prosecutions of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, for example) to censor those with whom one doesn’t agree. It’s only a very small step to try to throw such disagreeable persons into prison, too. Perhaps U.S. author Jonah Goldberg ought to be thinking of adding a chapter to his high-profile new book, Liberal Fascism, to explore this subject further.

Actually, Czech President Vaclav Klaus (who, coincidentally, is up for reelection tomorrow) has already done a lot of thinking in this area and has concluded that environmental zealotry poses as great a threat to human freedom as did communism. Klaus, whose book Our Planet is Blue not Green will soon be translated into English, believes that climate-change alarmists persuade governments to launch costly and unnecessary programs that have the ultimate effect of impoverishing people, thereby making them less free.

“When we look at it in a proper historical perspective, the issue is — once again — freedom and its enemies,” Klaus wrote last year. “Those of us who feel very strongly about it can never accept the irrationality with which the current world has embraced climate change (or global warming) as a real danger to the future of mankind, as well as the irrationality of [anti-globalwarming] measures because they will fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity.”

Suzuki is actually supporting a more direct attack on freedom than that which worries Klaus. Suzuki’s plan would lead to a loss of freedom, not though punitive economic measures, but through the incarceration of politicians with whom he disagrees. I have a better idea: Let the court of public opinion decide this at the polls. And if Suzuki doesn’t like the democratic outcome, he can always show his displeasure by giving us back his Order of Canada medal.

oneills@telus.net – Terry O’Neill is a Vancouver editor and writer.

Source National Post

Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki

February 4, 2008

Editor:

Dear David Suzuki:Have you lost your mind?
Elaine DeWar wrote “Cloak Of Green” which took four years to research. I suggest students pick up a copy and understand once and for all what the “Green Movement” is really about. Once read they may be looking to have you jailed Mr. Suzuki.
Suzuki Says “Sorry, intelligence was never my strong suit.”

 You are worried about Global Warming. Maybe you should start worrying about other things, like the reality that these people envision for you. Enjoy the quotes
Green Agrenda Quotes

 Jail politicians who ignore science: Suzuki

Environmentalist denounces economists’ obsession with GDP

By Sarah Babbage
The McGill Daily

David Suzuki delivered a scathing and powerful speech to a packed house at McGill Thursday night, calling on young people and business leaders to reverse the demise of ecology at the hand of shortsighted economic theory.

Suzuki, an award-winning Canadian scientist, environmentalist, and broadcaster, kicked off the McGill Business Conference on Sustainability by addressing the conference’s theme of “looking backward and moving forward.”

“The only guide for our future is our past, and we don’t look back,” he said.

Suzuki underlined the importance of looking backward by explaining that, because the past 50 years have seen a boom in technology and population expansion, ideas of economic growth have been skewed.

“That means you have lived your entire lives in a completely unsustainable period,” Suzuki said to the young audience. “You all think [economic] growth and change is normal. It’s not.”

He said we need to do more to look forward, as well. He cited a brochure from 1992 entitled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”, signed by over 600 of the world’s top scientists, that expressed the seriousness of modern threats to the environment.

“No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished,” he read from the brochure.

He noted that no major news outlets deemed the story newsworthy at the time.

“If that brochure was frightening, the response of the media was terrifying,” Suzuki said, adding that the media was instead preoccupied with celebrity figures.

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.

mcgilldaily.com

Scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age

January 26, 2008

 Editor
Is it possible that Al Gore and David Suzuki are full of hot air? Maybe all their screaming about global warming caused the increase in temps. Just a thought.

Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

“Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005,” said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of “solar” impact on changes in the Earth’s climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.

Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 Celsius in the past ten years, however, it never happened, he said.

“A year ago, many meteorologists predicted that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the year 2007 the hottest in the last decade, but, fortunately, these predictions did not become reality,” Abdusamatov said.

He also said that in 2008, global temperatures would drop slightly, rather than rise, due to unprecedentedly low solar radiation in the past 30 years, and would continue decreasing even if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide reach record levels.

By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.

“By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041,” he said.

The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715, when only about 50 spots appeared on the Sun, as opposed to the typical 40,000-50,000 spots.

It coincided with the middle and coldest part of the so called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.

“However, the thermal inertia of the world’s oceans and seas will delay a ‘deep cooling’ of the planet, and the new Ice Age will begin sometime during 2055-2060, probably lasting for several decades,” Abdusamatov said.

Therefore, the Earth must brace itself for a growing ice cap, rather than rising waters in global oceans caused by ice melting.

Mankind will face serious economic, social, and demographic consequences of the coming Ice Age because it will directly affect more than 80% of the earth’s population, the scientist concluded.

Source: RIAN News Service is an English-language newswire providing real-time coverage of key events in Russia, Baltics and the CIS.