- Robert Goldwin Clark David S is a disgrace to Canada and should recieve the reciprical "Enemy of Canada Award!!!"
16 hours ago · 
Owen Abrey Also blogged it at http://paradoxicalx3.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-favorite-rant-david-suzuki.html** facebook said it was too big for your comments section.
15 hours ago ·
Nipper Kettle David another Fear Mongering tactic GLOBAL WARMING we have been going though these changes since the begining of time.Certainly no warming here
15 hours ago via Facebook Mobile ·
David G. Field
@ Nipper-I was wondering when you would pipe up with your inane comments. It's almost as predictable as rain in April in BC. I guess your right and every other scientist on the planet is wrong. So what degree in biology, geology, enviro...nmental science do you hold, or did you just shake a bunch of bones in a bowl and throw them on the ground to make this prediction. For the love of pete do some reading on the subject before you respond in the future. It would save you from showing your a&% to the world.See More
15 hours ago ·
David G. Field Hey Nipple, I'll help you out with your research. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/29/are-you-ready-for-more.html
14 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey I would prefer a peer-reviewed journal David--at least. Even better, I would like to read the actual experimental data before interpolation.
14 hours ago ·
David G. Field
Part of the problem, in both Canada and the US, is that there is too much political interference by lobbyists that would much prefer the status quo to remain. The oil lobbyists don't give a rats patootie what happens fifty years from now, ...they're only interested in accumulating at much wealth as they can while still alive. The Conservative government muzzles every civil department from commenting publicly on climate change and the dangers of GHG emissions. A prime example is the world wide efforts of the Harperites trying to influence foreign policy.See More
14 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey On that I agree David. We have become scientific illiterates who swallow what ever is spoon fed to us, rather than doing the research.
14 hours ago ·
Suzanne Wemp And most of the "science" that is fed to us is from corporation funded "research". Very, very little of it is credible, unbiased and trustworthy.
14 hours ago ·
Bill Bennett Interesting inference, that the science "fed to us" is bad information because a company paid to have it done...frankly science provided by the environmental community is easily as suspect.
14 hours ago · · 1 personLoading...
Suzanne Wemp Certainly all science should be suspect. And hold up to scrutiny. However most, if not all, environmental organizations don't make millions or billions in profits if their science proves true, so I consider their science far less suspect.
13 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey I agree bill, information is purveyed by people who want to sell us on it.
13 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey That becomes more important than the content too often. The biggest scam/corporations are the green ones like Suzuki's.
13 hours ago ·
Terry Hand and science fed by corporates is equally suspect and flawed the tobacco industry would be a good example. Bottom line is that greed has no distinction whether corporate or grassroots environmentalist EVERYONE as they say,has their price, Certainly due diligence is required on the part of the public and the old adage rings true, "when you snooze you lose!"
13 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey Its a problem because we have forgotten how to read raw data. And the purveyors are counting on us not "looking under the hood" as it were.
13 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey Invent enough crisis for people to rally and open their wallets to support the "cause". The greens are a well-funded well organized machine that will run you over if you remain skeptical. Who insist the science is "settled" but then lose the data... The supposed boogy men who fund the "counter-science" are rarely produced; and if you want grant money you need to research in a PC way.
13 hours ago ·
Suzanne Wemp
@ Owen - Perhaps the greens are not really a "well-funded organized machine" but actually the majority of well informed citizens? And the research is not lost. Much of it has proven true. Yes, smoking does kill you. Yes, DDT is bad. Yes, n...itrates cause cancer. I could go on and on... All of that was thought to be "junk science" because big business didn't want it to be common knowledge. Respectfully Owen, I suggest that perhaps people such as yourself have "forgotten how to read raw data."See More
13 hours ago ·
Nipper Kettle @david fied :at least I am predictable and so are the fear mongers that have been crying wolf for so many years. you cannot even get 10 of these scientist to agree on the issue of Global Warming/climate change.It all about the money and who screams the loudest.
13 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey
I am not talking about smoking or ddt. That is ancient history. The prime example is Proffessor Jones of the IPCC "losing" all the raw data the UN has supposed to have accrued on global temperatures for a minimum of 50 years! And when yo...u actually find the raw data to compare to the lauded "scientists" you find this: **http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/** So now when I hear something that sounds like the popular myth of the "scientists", I say show me the data. The common man does not insist, so they get fed the regurgitated stuff too often purveyed by the likes of David Suzuki.See More
13 hours ago · · 2 people2 people like this.
Suzanne Wemp @Owen - if you think public and environmental health issues like smoking and ddt are "ancient history" then that speaks volumes to your capacity for comprehending the legacy of our public policy decisions. History is in the making :)
12 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey Of course smoking is bad for you, and DDT has been banned in the US in 1976 & world wide under the Stockholm convention in 1995.
12 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey The science, the data has long been reviewed. Sure the tobacco companies don't like it. Who cares? We are talking of scientific data. Which is absent in the popular-myth purveyed as science for the masses.
12 hours ago · · 1 personLoading...
Suzanne Wemp @Owen - Totally agreed. Which is why home owners still think using pesticides are safe. The didn't have the scientific data.
12 hours ago ·
Greg Krasichynsky
Science done by scientists and published in peer-reviewed journals is biased because those ivory tower elitist eggheads work for big knowledge. Facts are a matter of opinion. The tv says so. So my facts are every bit as valid as anyone's.... So are yours. It's a free country. Except for leftists, who should be locked up.
Everybody knows that multi-billion dollar transnational hippie communes fund "environmental" stuff. For REAL information, it's best to go to those who have nothing to gain except huge amounts of money at no cost except everyone's but their own: Corporations!
Who saved us when welfare recipients, sick children, unions, teachers, and the elderly brought down the economy? That's right - corporations. Who pays for your services and carries the heaviest tax burden in BC and Canada? That's right - corporations. And who has a record of consistently creating jobs when given billions in free taxpayer money? Yup - corporations.
You leftists commie pinkos just aren't friendly to business. It's your socialistic fault that BC has a huge debt, faltering economy, rampant corruption, insane privatization, environmental deregulation, and loss of services. Because you're so.... so..... not like us salt of the earth regler foke whut just hates farners and believes the teevee. "If it's on tv, it has to be the truth" - Actual quote by conservative voter, said in all seriousness, and nearly in tears that anyone would question our great leador.
Give generously - please help save corporations from eco-terrists!See More
10 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey
Peer-reviewed journals are not perfect, but without question they are better than the typical newspaper. Additionally, one needs to ask about the credentials of the author. For example, who granted the PhD? What was the area the PhD was ...focused? (a biologist making philosophical constructs and assumptions, or weighing-in, opining on cosmology, or meteorology, needs to be received by the reader rather tenuously.) When was the PhD granted? And Where has the author been recently published--In addition to who has funded the research. Extremely well-respected science can be done by scientists who receive corporate grants. In that case, as in any case, funding sources, terms of reference needs be appreciated to weigh the research against bias, a priori and prejudice.See More
about an hour ago ·
Owen Abrey
@susanwemp: sometimes relative risks need to be considered. For example, when DDT is sprayed inside African homes, infant malarial infection rates drop 95%. So while a child *might* get sick from DDT, 1.2 million will die of malaria ever...y year, and 500 million will be malarial positive. When DDT was restricted, malaria rates skyrocketed. Now that DDT is being used again for vector control in Africa the incidences have significantly reduced. In many areas of the world, DDT virtually wiped out malaria, saving millions of lives, all the while being a health threat of vastly minor degree. These conclusions are derived from multiple peer-reviewed journals, with no notable moral hazards detected by authorship, journal editorship, or outside interests stacking editorial boards.
Bill Bennett I hope people will have that debate here. The public deserves to know the tenuous, even questionable, nature of the climate change hypothesis and the extent to which scientists now question that hypothesis. And if it is all true and Canada emits 2% of global, anthropomorphic CO2, shouldn't our tax dollars be focused on mitigation rather than prevention?
3 hours ago · · 2 peopleLoading...
Owen Abrey Frankly Mr. Bennett, I think BC should consider the big one to hit Vancouver and our challenges being prepared re: upgrading/ rebuilding old apartment blocks, before even thinking about climate change right now. Millions are in mortal peril on the one hand vs. a longer growing season on the other.
about an hour ago ·
Greg KrasichynskyThe extent to which scientists question that hypothesis is negligible.
Not to be confused with the huge extent to which it is questioned by fox-news scienticians affiliated with such esteemed global academic resources as the Fraser Institu...te and Hollywood upstairs deregulation college. Who can indeed also prove that if every little girl drinks a gallon of crude and smokes four packs a day, she will live to 200 years of age. There are statistics that back that up, from world renowned experts. Being on fox makes you world-renowned, and reading from exxon's scripts legally entitles you to be called an "expert." Statistics don't have to be legitimate or validated, they just have to back up a thesis.
I love the idea that "big environmentalism" is forging studies and collecting lies from academics because of what they stand to gain from the poor polluters. It's not that they love clinging to life, it's that they hate business.
I love even more that there are people on the record (being cited in the history books as fiercely committed) that make those assertions. How will their grandchildren view them? Will they, 50 years from now, admit that their grandparents stood up for banks, oil, and weapons, against the evil forces of clean air, drinkable water, the poor, the sick, and children? Will they be proud of the intelligence, education, wit, and compassion shown by their corporate-shill forbears?See More
about an hour ago ·
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Discussion on Bill Bennet's Face Book Page.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment