The nature of David Suzuki

In his final stretch, the world’s most famous environmentalist is beset by doubts and doubters


 
  242

DAVIDSUZUKI-cover

David Suzuki has launched a cross-country tour. In this piece from November 2013, he spoke about his life and legacy: 

David Suzuki has finally realized that there are some hills he can’t climb. Now 77 years old, dealing with gout and other indignities of age, the world’s best-known environmentalist recently traded in his mountain bike for one with an electric motor. The ride from his waterfront home in Vancouver’s Kitsilano neighbourhood to his office on West 4th Avenue, isn’t very long, but it’s mostly uphill. And although it has never been enjoyable, the effort suddenly started to seem unbearable this past summer. So he sought technological assistance. “God, at my age, can’t I cheat a little?” he asks.

The small admission of defeat came just a few weeks after a much more potent reminder of where he’s headed. On July 9, Tara Cullis, his wife of 40 years, and 13 years his junior, suffered acute heart failure while swimming in the ocean off their home. She made it to shore, where someone on the beach called 911, and then called their house. Suzuki, barefoot and wearing a Yakuta, a traditional Japanese housecoat, made it to her side before the ambulance arrived. She survived, but the road to recovery has been rocky. Suzuki has drastically cut back his speaking engagements and travel. The couple has sworn off alcohol and salt. It has been a time for reflection for both of them. “The reality is that at my age, I could kick the bucket tomorrow,” says Suzuki. “Everybody goes, ‘Oh, no. You’re going to live into your 80s.’ But the reality is that I’m living in the death zone and I accept that.”

His scientific career began in the late 1950s; his media one, a decade later. Since 1979, he’s been the face of CBC’s The Nature of Things, an internationally distributed science program that’s now in its 53rd season. Suzuki’s official CV runs 17 pages. It lists dozens of academic and broadcasting awards as well as his 25 honorary degrees. Now a professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia, he has authored or collaborated on 50 books. In 2011, Reader’s Digest anointed him as its “most trusted Canadian.” And this October, he topped an Angus Reid poll of the country’s most admired figures, with 57 per cent of respondents giving him the thumbs up. However, lately, he seems to have been garnering more controversy than accolades. Suzuki has come under fire for his outspoken views on immigration—that Canada is at its environmental capacity, basically. On a swing through Australia in September, he drew criticism for suggesting the country’s new prime minister, Tony Abbott, is guilty of negligence and “crimes against future generations” for scrapping a carbon tax and dismantling climate change bodies. He has stepped down from the board of his eponymous foundation, uttering dark warnings about the bullying of Canadian scientists and the federal government’s attempts to marginalize environmentalists. His critics in the media have become emboldened, savaging “Saint Suzuki” for his personal life as well as his politics.

Earlier this month, the Royal Ontario Museum put the environmental activist on “trial” as part of a new exhibit on climate change, charging him with seditious libel for a manifesto that called for an end to oil. All across Toronto, billboards were plastered with his grandfatherly image, and tag lines like “Treason or reason?” and “Radical or rational?” Suzuki eagerly embraced the pageant as an opportunity to explore questions that he’s been asking himself.

For a while now, the green movement’s chief messenger has been wondering just what he and his compatriots have really accomplished.

“Environmentalism has failed,” Suzuki declared in a dark blog post in the spring of 2012. The heady victories of the 1970s and ’80s over air pollution, acid rain, and clear-cut logging are distant memories. The oil and gas industry has never been stronger, sinking ocean wells, fracking across the continent, and going full-bore on Alberta’s oil sands. Meanwhile, the fight against climate change has come to a virtual halt, as governments around the world put the economy ahead of the environment. “We’ve come to a point where things are getting worse, not better,” he said in an interview with Maclean’s.

In the final stretch, David Suzuki is beset by doubts and doubters, both at home and abroad. During his recent trip to Australia, he sat down with a national network for a one-hour televised Q&A. It was anything but a love-in. The evening began with two hostile questions on global warming from invited dissenters. Other audience plants took him to task for his stand against genetically modified foods, statements he had made about the effect of cyclones on the Great Barrier Reef, and his views on immigration. Suzuki never lost his patience, but he seemed to wilt under the attacks as the show went on. “I’ve had a belly full of fighting. We’ve got to stop the fighting,” he pleaded at one point. The message that he has been delivering for four decades is no longer getting through. And time is running short. “I hope there’s a happy ending. That’s all I have left. Hope.”

Getting a hold of Suzuki these days isn’t a straightforward task. Although he still comes and goes as he pleases at the foundation, writes columns for its website and maintains an office in the same building, they no longer handle his PR. “It’s complicated,” sighed a spokesman. His email address is a secret. His office phone number is unpublished.

When Suzuki came to Toronto to promote the ROM trial by reading out his anti-carbon manifesto on the steps of a downtown courthouse, the press release was sent out that same morning. Even then, that didn’t stop one of his chief tormentors from trying to sabotage the show.

Ezra Levant, the Sun News Network shouting head, showed up with a camera in tow and a line of aggressive questions. When Suzuki retreated into the back of a waiting Chevy Volt and refused to come out, it provided Levant, once the communications director for Stockwell Day and long-time oil sands cheerleader, with some dream visuals. The next day, his program The Source devoted an hour to tearing down the green crusader. “We’ll trace the evolution of the man from happy, chatty scientist to a reclusive crank,” Levant proclaimed with a shark-like smile. “Increasingly paranoid, increasingly prone to conspiracy theories, and moving further and further away from true science.”

David Suzuki receives an honorary degree from President Stephen J. Toope at the University of British Columbia fall congregation in 2011. (Eric Dreger/CP)

Back in 1989, Suzuki participated in a highly publicized debate with Philippe Rushton, a University of Western Ontario psychologist who had published controversial research linking intelligence to race. The crowd was squarely on Suzuki’s side and most observers thought he scored an overwhelming victory, but the experience left him leery of becoming a foil for cranks and deniers. Mindful of Levant’s tiny reach—his show airs twice a day and has a combined national audience of less than 20,000—the geneticist has steadfastly refused to agree to an interview. But that hasn’t stopped Levant from taking highly personalized shots at Suzuki on TV and in print via his column for the Sun chain. In recent months, he’s accused Suzuki of living a plutocrat’s lifestyle, citing the $8 million assessed value of his Vancouver home, and claimed that he co-owns an island off the coast with an oil company. He’s also made much hay from a talk that Suzuki gave at John Abbott College in Montreal last year, saying he charged a $41,000 fee and demanded a complement of all-girl bodyguards.

“I’ve had critics all my life,” says Suzuki. “But I certainly think the intensity and vileness of the personal attacks has changed.” Levant, who is a trained lawyer with a great deal of personal experience with Canada’s libel laws, has been careful to make most of his allegations technically factual, Suzuki says, but they’re a contorted version of the truth. The house in Vancouver was purchased for $145,000 in 1975 with a loan from Suzuki’s in-laws. For years, he and Cullis lived in the basement and rented out the top floor in order to afford it. Later on, they added a second storey and her parents moved in. Suzuki’s mother-in-law, now 95, still lives above them. “It’s not like it was an investment. It’s the crazy escalation of house prices,” he says.

As for the charge about the island, it took some digging for Suzuki to figure out what Levant was talking about. In 1986, after winning a $100,000 achievement award from the Royal Bank, he and his wife bought 10 acres on Quadra Island as a getaway property. It was part of a much larger parcel that was being subdivided. As it turns out, one of the other buyers made their purchase through a family business, a Calgary company that once delivered home heating oil, but now exists in name only.

Similarly, Suzuki allows that there is a shred of truth to the story about his Montreal talk. Presented with an offer from the college to use students from its police training course as security, his assistant wrote an email saying Suzuki preferred a more low-key approach, and noting that he regularly travels with a female assistant who clears a path through crowds by politely asking people to move aside. His appearance fee—not just for the speech, but a full day of fundraising activities for John Abbott—was about $10,000 less than has been reported, and came out of the pocket of a well-to-do Montreal supporter, not from the college’s end.

Suzuki believes the muck-throwing is part of a wider trend where experts are now being painted as adversaries. “Scientists are being portrayed by much of the power structure in politics and business as having a vested interest—that they’re just out to get more grant money by exaggerating the threats,” he says. He decided to resign from his foundation in the spring of 2012 because he feared it would be targeted for a tax audit by the Harper government and might lose its charitable status. (More than 900 environmental groups have had their books scrutinized over the last couple of years for evidence of large foreign donations or excessive spending on political activities.) “I wanted to protect the foundation,” says Suzuki. “And at my stage in life, I simply found it intolerable to have to hold back on what I say.” Although given that the organization is still branded with his name, and Cullis and their two daughters, Severn and Sarika, remain on the board, it seems to have been more of a protest than a serious attempt to distance himself.

Laurie Brown, the CBC radio host who hatched the idea of the Toronto mock trail—complete with real lawyers, a judge and a jury—senses that an element of theatre has already infiltrated the debate about the environment. “Everything has become more polarized in the last few years,” she says. “And David is a lightning rod.”

Suzuki says he likes the idea of being put in the dock for his beliefs. It reminds him of one of his favourite movies, A Man for All Seasons, the 1966 film about Sir Thomas More’s principled path to a beheading by King Henry VIII.

David Suzuki as Atlas. (Greg Pacek)

Suzuki has always had a short and cryptic response for people who ask how a bespectacled and slightly hippie-ish geneticist ended up as a TV star. “Pearl Harbor.” He’s a third-generation Japanese-Canadian—both sets of grandparents settled in Vancouver in the years before the First World War—and spoke only English as a child. But that made no difference in the hysteria that swept North America’s West Coast after Japan’s sneak attack on Hawaii in December 1941. Within a couple of months, the Suzuki family’s dry-cleaning business had been shut, their home and property confiscated and sold off by the Canadian government, and they were interned as “enemy aliens.” Five-year-old David, his mother and two sisters were sent to an abandoned mining town in B.C.’s Slocan Valley. His father was put to work building the Trans Canada Highway, a hundred miles to the north, for a wage of 25 cents an hour, less the cost of “room and board,” for himself and his family. Conditions were deplorable. The accommodations were cramped and filthy—Suzuki recalls waking in the morning covered in bedbug bites. Fresh food was in scarce supply. And the government hadn’t thought to provide a school for the more than 2,300 children. Although Suzuki’s memories of those years, as detailed in his two autobiographies, aren’t all unhappy ones. Left largely to his own devices in an isolated mountain community, he spent lots of time fishing and running around in the woods, developing a deep love of nature.

Prohibited by law from returning to Vancouver after the war, the family resettled in southwestern Ontario. For a few years, all the Suzukis worked as farm labourers near Leamington. When David was in Grade 10, they relocated to London, Ont., to join extended family.

In his youth, he was ashamed of his heritage. “I read in Life magazine that Asians had developed an operation to enlarge eyes and I yearned to have this done. I wanted to dye my hair brown and to anglicize my name,” he wrote in 1987’s Metamorphosis. “Self-hate was the most terrible cost of the war years for me.” Yet at the same time, the small and insular community of Japanese-Canadians in Ontario was the only club to which he felt he really belonged.

He was also driven to succeed. At his father’s behest he started entering public-speaking contests, working tirelessly to memorize his talks, and restarting from the top each time he stumbled. (It’s a technique Suzuki still uses to learn his TV scripts.) And despite the iffy start to his formal education, he became a top student, excelling at math and science.

In 1954, he won a full scholarship to Amherst College in Massachusetts, and developed a passion for the new field of genetics. After graduating in 1958, Suzuki married his high school sweetheart, Joane—one of the 10 Japanese-Canadian girls in London he wasn’t related to—and went on to the University of Chicago, where he sped through a Ph.D. in just three years. Afterwards, he took a post-doc position in Oak Ridge, Tenn., but soon found he couldn’t abide the still-segregated South.

Although Asians were accorded the same privileges as whites, the treatment of blacks enraged him. He joined the local NAACP chapter, becoming its only non-black member. When American colleges came calling, he spurned them in favour of a job at the University of Alberta.

Suzuki only lasted a year in Edmonton—the climate was too brutal, he says—but it was there he got his first experience in TV, hosting eight Open University lectures on a community station, broadcast at the crack of dawn on Sunday mornings. In 1963, he took a job at UBC, returning to his birthplace. His research on the genetic structure of fruit flies became the focus of his life. He pulled long hours in the lab, seven days a week, often spending the night in a hammock he had strung up in the back room. His first marriage disintegrated.

By the late 1960s, Suzuki had established himself as a budding scientific superstar. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada awarded him as one of the country’s top young minds. He was invited to teach for a semester at the University of California at Berkeley, where he discovered and embraced the counterculture. CBC Television harnessed his new persona—at once hip and geeky—first for a series of specials, then giving him his own weekly Suzuki on Science show. In 1975, he moved to radio, becoming the first host of Quirks and Quarks. A year later, he was named to the Order of Canada.

David Suzuki and author Farley Mowat speak at a news conference in on Toronto, October 12, 1988, to push for a debate by the three federal party leaders on environmental issues. (Bill Becker/CP)

Suzuki’s strength has always been his ability to translate the world of science for the layperson, cutting through the jargon and breaking down complex ideas into digestible television bites. At the height of its popularity in the mid-1980s, The Nature of Things was drawing a weekly audience of 1.3 million, or almost 20 per cent of all Canadian viewers. And the entire series was being broadcast in 13 countries, including the U.S., with 55 more nations picking up individual episodes. That success is what made David Suzuki a trusted global brand. He still defines himself as a geneticist, but it’s been decades since he was an active researcher or has even taught in a university setting. And his role as science’s interpreter was long ago supplanted by his calling as environmental evangelist.

Suzuki traces his own awakening back to The Silent Spring, Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking 1962 book. But his beliefs really came to the fore in the early ’80s, as he joined in the fight against clear-cut logging in what was then the Queen Charlotte Islands, now Haida Gwaii. “It was a totally unequal battle. The important things that forests do—like providing air—weren’t included in the economic equation.” In 1985, he produced an eight-part CBC special, A Planet for the Taking, criss-crossing the globe. That led to a high-profile part in the efforts to preserve the Amazonian rainforest, where he formed alliances with people like Anita Roddick, the founder of The Body Shop, and rocker-turned-activist Sting.

Suzuki soon became one of the green movement’s most visible champions. In 1991, he and a group of friends founded the David Suzuki Foundation, a non-profit that promotes environmental causes and education. In 1992, he spoke at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. That slow creep into the spotlight provided lots of ammunition for his critics. Around that time, the Globe and Mail dropped him as columnist, suggesting he had become too preachy, and then produced a scorching feature that painted him as a “media-wise politician” in a lab coat.

But those who know Suzuki well say there’s nothing manufactured about his concerns. David Schindler, a professor of ecology at the University of Alberta, recalls a canoe trip through the north of the province, where Suzuki ended up taking a plane ride with some First Nations chiefs to check out the oil sands. “He came back and he was incensed, just beside himself. He said, ‘We’ve got to stop this thing,’ ” says Schindler. “He gets very angry about the environment and social injustices.”

Suzuki says he used to think that his TV work was drawing attention to important issues, that the content was the star. Over the years, however, his view has changed. He’s been stopped too many times in the airport, or on the street, and complimented on a show he’s never done. He now realizes that for most viewers, he’s the constant—that rather than being the messenger, he’s the oracle.

“I’ve never made any pretense of being Mr. Know-it-all,” says Suzuki. But that doesn’t change public expectations that he should be able to pronounce on every issue, and debate all comers. When Suzuki doesn’t have an answer, or messes up his facts, as he did on Australian television, it’s news. Somewhere along the way, people started to assume he was infallible. “To the extent that I’ve failed, that’s it,” he says. “I’ve somehow got to be smarter.”

There was a time when it seemed like the war to protect the Earth was almost over.

Back in 1988, George H.W. Bush, a conservative Republican, campaigned on a pledge to become “the environmental president.” Suzuki remembers Lucien Bouchard, then the federal environment minister, and the biggest star in Brian Mulroney’s cabinet, earnestly telling him that global warming was “a threat to the survival of our species.” But all these years later, green crusaders find themselves refighting, or even losing, battles they thought were over long ago. Stories about atmospheric CO2 concentrations reaching the highest level in recorded history, or UN warnings of a looming worldwide famine due to global warming, receive far less attention than the latest development in the Senate scandal or Rob Ford video. In an Internet age, even Suzuki’s own reach has shrunk. CBC is happy to talk about how many awards The Nature of Things has won, but it won’t discuss its ratings, which now hold steady at about 400,000 viewers.

“Many of the battles that we fought 30 or 35 years ago, that we celebrated as enormous successes . . . Thirty-five years later, the same damn battles have started again. That’s where I think we failed,” Suzuki says. “We fundamentally failed to use those battles to get that awareness, to shift the paradigm. And that’s been the failure of environmentalism.”

Nearing the end of the journey, Suzuki finds himself standing before yet another mountain. It’s frustrating, but he says he isn’t ready to give up. Is he worried about his legacy? “When I’m dead, I won’t give a s–t what they say about me. I’ll be dead,” he snorts. “I’m not thinking about legacy. My concern now is to get the message out, to get people to understand how serious this is.”

Some of his compatriots believe it’s already too late to save our species. Suzuki is more optimistic. Nature, if given the chance, will be more forgiving than we deserve, he says. All humans have to do is start paying attention to the flashing warning signs.

At his Toronto trial, the verdict on David Suzuki came back “Not guilty.” The news didn’t make the next day’s papers.


 

The nature of David Suzuki

  1. “Levant proclaimed with a shark-like smile”

    Lol, oh Jonathon (personally I thought it was more goat or badger-like). I guess if it was true Suzuki would then oppose using Levant’s fins in soup.

    • I have likened it to a muppet’s maw – like Bert’s, of Bert and Ernie fame.

    • It would be better if environmentalists didn’t hand such ammunition to Ezra Levant themselves.

    • It would appear that Ezra has done his work well. It is about time someone exposed Suzuki for what he is; namely, just another talking head from the CBC.

      The guy hasn’t been a real scientist since the 1960’s.

      If you want to know how fruit flys fuk, call Davy. If you want to know anything about the climate, you are better off stepping outside and looking up.

      This was pretty evident during his interviews in Australia….Poor david didn’t know anything.

      • Poor, dumb James has found a year old thread to run wild in.
        Does he not know that he’s trying to converse with people that left their comments a year ago, or is he hoping that he’s found a place where his lies and BS will be uncontested?

        Suzuki doesn’t suggest people get their climate science from him either – unlike James he doesn’t suffer from the delusion that he knows more about climate science than climate scientists.

        • Glo-Bull Warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in human history.

          • Yes Boob, it’s bigger than the conspiracy that caused the controlled demolition of the twin towers, or the one that killed JFK.

          • And again Lentard displays his idiocy for all to see,

        • A thread, as you have proven, which still has readers.

  2. Truly remarkable piece of apologist muck – did Suzuki ghost-write this article?

    • He doesn’t need to, the media are lined up to give him tongue baths.

    • Apologizing for what?

      • Apologist not apologize. Two words that sound the same, but hold different meanings.
        An apologist is person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people. In this case Suzuki was being attacked by Levant, but Jonathon Gatehouse wrote the above article in Suzuki’s defense, which means it constitutes apologetics.

        • JAnderson and FancyLad you are so smart. Good for you for seeing through this environmental brainwashing. And so bright with English too. You should be proud of yourselves and the good you are doing for this world. I am being sarcastic.

          • What the earth are you babbling about. I wasn’t criticizing Suzuki or the environmental movement, I was correcting a stupid misinterpretation of some basic terminology.
            Since you fail this hard at reading comprehension, maybe learn to tone down the frothy outrage; because for a guy like you, it’ll probably always be misplaced.

          • Actually good point FancyLad, i didn’t see your post about Ezra at the top – really quite funny. I will try to tone down the outrage in the future.

  3. The problem has become much larger than all the battles to save the environment combined. Its not just about the tar sands, logging or fracking anymore. The problem is that the transnational corporations have dug their tentacles into the political process to such an extent that democracy is now just a sham. Wanna save the planet? Fight to take back democracy first.

    • What is wrong with fracking?

    • Suzuki is a fraud, the high priest of snake oil salesmen, underneath Suzuki’s green exterior lies a red totalitarian dictatorial interior and those gullible environ-MENTALISTS who believe his BS still cling to the Cult of Glo-Bull Warming.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • You just proved my point peppy

          • And you just proved ours….attack when faced with facts,

          • Wrong, Suzuki, Gore, the IPCC, MET, etc. have been lying to the public for years, it is you and the other followers of the cult of Glo-Bull Warming who do not wish to face the facts.

          • What and the Oil Companies are beyond reproach and have never lied to us? Never ahrmed the environment irrevocably..over and over and over again? Most of the time trying to avoid accountablity on it where they can get away with it. I mean are you on crack? Like most of the workers in Fort Crack.. or haven’t you heard that phrase. I’m so tired of this right wing zealost agenda when anyone ever even mentions that there may be a problem with what we could be doing to the environment… and it’s not even debatable anymore, the facts are happening NOW (Hells Calgary Floods!, Hello Toronto Floods.oh and it not New Orleans any more where no one gives a rats ass, it’s in your backyard ! The UK is sinking..) Your transparent attacks on reason and logic defies all rational.. but greed and corruption will drive a man to great lengths won’t it now?

          • JJ wrote:

            “And you just proved ours….attack when faced with facts,”

            JJ…if you want to point to facts, you need to include all of them; not just the ones that support your side of the debate.

            Fact:
            Climate models dictate that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere trap heat and increase the temperature.
            True Fact: There has been no discernible warming for almost 20 years now, but the level of CO2 keeps increasing.

            FACT: IPCC geniuses reported that the Glaciers atop a certain mountain would be gone by 2035.
            true fact: It would appear, this is Not the case. They will be around for hundreds of years.

            Fact: Michael Mann’s research, and his “hockey stick” graph, was one of the main drivers of climate alarmism.
            True Fact: Real scientists have long since revealed that Michael mann carrries no respect in the real world, as his stick has since been debunked by more qualified folks than him. In fact, Mann will be forced to defend his work in court, and he’s trying as hard as he can to avoid going to trial, as a long list of folks are ready to show how he fudged his data to bring about the result he wanted.

            Fact: The climate has been in a constant state of change. It has been much warmer in the past, and CO2 levels were far higher than they are today. There we no SUV’s during that period.
            During the mediavel warm period….grapes were growing in Newfoundland, and GREENLAND….got its name for a reason. (ask the vikings)

            the climate changes, and there are periods of warming, but the “man made” global warming you are so concerened about….is a sham. Only the gullible believe it now. (or those with a financial interest in keeping the population terrified)

          • DrewM…

            After that ill-informed screed….all i can ask is what brand of tinfoil do you use to keep the radio waves out of your head.

            I’m buying stock.

          • Just about all of James’ evidence-free claims are outright lies.
            That’s why he is never able to provide evidence for them.

          • Lenny wouldn’t know the truth if it was right in front of his nose.

            Typical environ-Mentalist.

      • In what sense has David Suzuki ever proven himself to be a totalitarian dictator?

        • Calling for people to be jailed because they disagree with him might point in that direction.

          • Rubbish. Suzuki’s ruminations regarding holding fiddler-politicians legally accountable for their inaction in the face of clear, irrefutable evidence that humankind’s runaway use of fossil fuels, massive deforestation of the planet, and the virtual strip-mining of our oceans is causing climate change of unprecedented speed and scale was simply to shine a light on the problems we face. Personally I think it’s a foregone conclusion that we cannot reverse or even arrest this process at this juncture, so we should consider diverting our resources and talents to dealing with this “brave new world” that we are unwittingly creating for our future generations.

          • “Your own mouth condemns you, not mine; your own lips testify against you” Job 15:6

          • Weird.

          • CArlySimon.

            It is the IPCC and other fraudulent climate scientists who depend upon the ignorance you have shown in your post.

            I guess everyone needs a useful idiot.

            your village called…they want you back.

        • Well ……let me see…..Quote straight out of the ass ‘ s mouth, ” If you don’t agree with Us ( the climatologists/environmentalists) than your not a credible scientist ! Well I say those are fighting words for more credible scientists than Suzuki and his cohorts of crime with CBC support at that . The media is very much to blame for this fiasco/hype/fraud at great cost to legitimate livelihoods providing a necessity to North Americans and the World . Legislation enacted filled with fraudulent data and extorting monies from the publics wallets with even more Carbon taxs . Micheal Mann lost his case in court and they say Suzuki’s funding his legal costs . Both are into “red ink” here….I’m just so thrilled and happy their getting their just do , these so-called emminent “credible” scientists . Now Suzuki may be involved in further law suits around the World for his involvement with this “clique” of scientists . I want all my money back , David , that you helped extort through bad legislation and the science of it . I imagine a lot of other people , do too !

    • solvealltheproblems: I couldn’t agree more, well said.

    • can you also include the environmental lobbyist and unions as groups that have their tentacles in the political process, thanks. fyi, no tar in the oil sands…

    • great point..

    • What democracy? It’s gone. Corporations and Industry totally control governments, pretty much worldwide.Sick!

      • Is anyone surprised that a poster who hates corporations as much as “CARING” would use that as a nickname?

        Progressives…….they are invariably fixated on displaying their own moral superiority, than they are on actually doing anything.

        CARING…..why don’t you do some reading, do some critical thinking, and be willing to change your mind when you find evidence that you may have been mislead.

        THINKING, and coming up with a solution is always preferable, than simply just caring……particularly when caring accomplishes absolutely nothing other than making you feel good about yourself.

    • I agree, and the ‘Green Industrial Complex’ is the name for them. Energy costs are rising, people are starving in Africa so we can put ethanol in our SUVs, and air quality in Europe is falling. I don’t know how much more greening the globe can take. See “The little green book of eco-fascism’ for more details.

      • TomAnderson:

        Agree.

        Bear in mind, that many of these greenies don’t really like people; they see us as the problem, not the solution.

        they don’t WANT Africa to thrive, and they don’t want people to stop suffering…………they want the planet to have LESS people. Lizzie may and her ilk, think the world should be around 2 Billion people…and they are ready for a die off.

        not surprisingly, they never want to be the first ones to go.

    • Farley is a liar.
      Look it up.
      So is Suzuki for that matter….

      • I don’t think ANYONE argues that Farley Mowat played fast and loose with the truth in many of his books, specifically all the ones that claimed to have an element of autobiography to them.
        I don’t really put Suzuki in the same category, though.

  4. “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ~ Socrates

    The climate change debate was won by scientists years ago. The problem is that it’s popular opinion that determines social actions these days. As long as we allow our politics to be determined by populist ignorance, we will not act.

    • Which countries are being run by climate change deniers (maybe Australia, but not many)? In which countries are deniers a majority of the population? The reality is that accepting climate change is only a tiny part of the battle ahead.

      Chretien believed the science behind global warming. So did Paul Martin. Emissions? They went up 25%. Harper’s record is actually better than Chretien and Martin (emissions fell slightly per capita). The reality is that most leaders and citizens accept that global warming is real, but also believe that transitioning to a green economy will be costly.

      A “green shift” sounds like a great idea if you work in the service sector and live in a city with excellent public transit. It’s a tougher pill to swallow for others. And those divisions within countries are magnified a thousand times between countries. China and India are emerging from poverty – are they really going to give it all up to save some polar bears?

      You are fighting a debate that you’ve already won, instead of engaging in the next debate: given that climate change is real, where do we go from here?

      • The Green-Shift (one more time!) moved taxes off of things we didn’t want to tax – work – and onto things we didn’t want – pollution. It was revenue neutral, only the money would come back in your paycheck and if you wanted to spend it at the gas pump you were free to do it. Like millions of other Canuckistanians you didn’t bother to learn the facts, just bleat the slogan.

        • I never challenged the idea that a green shift would be revenue neutral. I simply suggested that some people have lifestyles (or are employed in industries) that use carbon more intensively than others. People in that boat will pay higher taxes than they do currently, while others will pay less.

          Though to be fair, only an ineffective carbon tax would be revenue neutral in the long-run. If the carbon tax effectively discourages people from emitting C02 (or if it spurs innovation) then, over time, it will raise less and less revenue. So you are trading reliable sources of revenue (e.g. corporate taxes) for a source that – if it achieves its intended purpose – will raise less revenue over time.

        • Scissorpaws….

          The Green shift was a tax on everything. In case you didn’t notice….Canada is a huge, cold place. Taxing carbon would hurt people; particularly the poor. Are you going to be the first person to turn off the furnace in february?

          People need to stay warm, and we need to move things by truck. There was nothing “revenue neutral” about it. It wouldn’t hurt energy firms….it would hurt the people who use energy (all of us) as corporations just pass the costs along to the consumer.

          Green shift was a useless, tax-grab designed to steal more money from Canadians, by scaring the bejessus out of them with false claims of doom if we didn’t send more money to the Liberal party.

          • Of course it was revenue-neutral. Just like BC’s carbon tax is.(in fact, BC’s carbon tax has been revenue negative).
            Simply asserting otherwise doesn’t change reality.

          • Willis Eschenbach on BC’s carbon (fraud) tax

            … The first cost to me in this is the cost to common sense. Making energy more expensive is going in exactly the wrong direction. Forcing people to pay more for energy makes no sense at all. I want to see energy get CHEAPER, not more expensive. I cannot put this too strongly:

            Cheap energy is the salvation of the poor … This means that anyone advocating policies that add to the price of energy is actively harming the poor … slowing economic development in the parts of the planet that need it most.

            … The second cost involves the concept of a “revenue neutral” tax. … To understand the problem with this, let me try to disambiguate two concepts—“revenue neutral” taxes, and “sin” taxes. … the more just and equitable the revenue-neutral sin tax is, the less it will affect behavior. In other words, in order for a revenue-neutral sin tax to be effective, it needs to be unfair …

            … The third cost is one of fairness, and this one has huge ramifications. Children I know all over the world have a clear sense of what’s not fair. Despite being revenue-neutral, which the BC plan demonstrably is, the plan is far from fair.

            … The fourth cost is the cost to the poor. I give them their own category because the poor are hit the hardest by rising energy costs.

            The fifth cost is the tax on the tax. Of course, the Government of Canada gets to charge the Goods and Service Tax (GST) …

            The sixth cost is the overhead. You can’t run a complex program like a carbon-based energy tax without lots of paper pushers.

            The seventh cost is the pensions. Every person taking your tax money today and faithfully giving it back to you tomorrow in blessed revenue neutrality will be taking your tax money for thirty years after they retire and not giving back a dime.

            The eighth cost is the rent-seekers. These include folks like Sustainable Canada and other organizations for whom this is a grant-raising bonanza. … They produce nothing useful, they are a dead weight on society, but they come right along with the tax, they mate for life.

            The ninth cost is the cost of tax avoidance/evasion. …under any definition there are several costs in this arena of what might be called creative responses to the BC tax.

            The tenth cost is the hours people will spend filling out the paperwork.

            The eleventh cost is official hypocrisy. One surprising thing I found out in researching this is that the good burghers of BC have fields containing evil natural gas … and even more coal …

            The twelfth cost is officials denying inconvenient reality. The so-called “fugitive emissions” (meaning leaks) of methane are a big issue with the radical left who would like to end fracking (and civilization as well, apparently).

          • Lentard, like all leftwingnutz can’t handle the truth.

          • These include folks like Sustainable Prosperity Canada and other organizations for whom this is a grant-raising bonanza. …

          • Yes Boob, experts get grants to study things, while massage therapists and Sierra Rayne (stripper?) get kook blogs to champion kook theories.

          • The only thing Sustainable Prosperity Canada is “expert” at is leeching off of the taxpayer, but of course that is lost on morons like yourself.

          • Yes Boob, what expertise could a Professor of law and economics possibly have that could compare to a masseuse and a stripper?

          • Get some help from your local Mental Health Association Lenny.

    • Nonsense, the decline was hidden, along with a whole lot of other things, including the sensitivity.
      The so called science behind AGW is a farce.

    • climate change is real, agreed. But the hyperpole has to stop, the accusation that the oil sands is the poster child for carbon emissions is just plain wrong. Canada is quite good overall compared to every other industrial country. To cap/trade carbon tax people who are just making it on their minimum wage incomes is ridiculous and wrong. We are a large country and transportation is required to get around. I live in cottage country and for my job I drive over a thousand kms a week, as I am sure many others do, so do I have to pay an extra fee because I need to move around for my job, really. hosertohoosier has made some good points below, so I will not repeat them. The statement that scientist are muzzled and the Conservative gov’t denies climate change is wrong, that is untrue. Ontario has shown that we can not afford a green shift, my hydro bill has more than doubled in the past 2 years, has the shift to solar/wind that now provides under 3% of energy for the province changed anything in Ontario, no only our taxes, deb, deficit and increase on my hydro bills..sorry for the rant…

      • are you kidding me. Each person in Canada uses more energy than anywhere in the world even 25% more than the average American. Not sure what gives you the right drive more than anyone else on the planet. I hope your not young!

        • thanks for reading the whole post, it was a bit of a rant. What gives me the right to drive so much, how about freedom of choice, how about living in a free country, how about keeping a roof over my family, and pay those high energy cost that the Liberals have created for me. Yes we use a lot of energy, yet our GHG emission is the lowest for an industrialized country, so your point is.

          We have a very large country, its takes a bit to get from point A to B, not everyone lives in the city and rides the bus. Just think if the Lib’s didn’t spend the billion dollars on cancelled gas plant and gave some money to rural Canadian’s to install solar panels, or perhaps geo-thermal heating – but that would have been too clever right…Get every rural Canadian off the grid – focus on the cities and a lot of money will be saved. If you really want to make a statement, send a letter to Ontario Hydro who has fleets of vehicles driving the roads with one person in each truck, now that is a waste…

        • BC boy:

          You are aware that Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world when it comes to land mass correct? As such, it takes a lot of energy to move goods back and forth, and it takes big trucks, and big trains to do it. The “right” to use energy in Canada is more of a necessity.
          you may have also noticed, that we are one of the coldest places on earth for a good part of the year. And again, we need to heat our homes. Again…not a right, a necessity.

          You hope that the other poster is not young……..and I hope that when you are no longer young, you would have used the intervening years to expand your grasp of reality and logic. Because right now kiddo…..your youth is as obvious as your ignorance.

          • Lying James just can’t resist telling whoppers like suggesting that anyone is saying we’ll have to stop heating our homes.

    • Maybe YOU consider the scientists to have won the climate debate argument, but apparently the climate hasn’t been told. Maybe you should contact that big ball of burning hydrogen you see in the sky and let it know it’s supposed to be getting warmer.
      Now…go drink your Kool Aid.

    • Phil King:

      You write that the climate change debate was won by scientists years ago. You are aware, that thousands of scientists disagree with the current mantra correct?

      If the scientists won the debate years ago…..you may want to tell the planet, as it apparently didn’t get the message, and has stubbornly refused to follow the climate models these brilliant scientists have created.

      Must be Harper’s fault. But keep telling yourself the debate has been won.

      • Remember that when James says “thousands of scentists” he’s not talking about climate scientists – he’s talking about kooks like himself with no relevant education who’ve convinced themselves that they know more than the experts.

          • All the pharmaceuticals in the world won’t help that kind of impotence.

          • Get some help from your local Mental Health Association Lenny.

  5. It’s overpopulation. But how many kids has David had?

    • Does Canada need a two child per family policy? and no amniocentesis tests…for gender-based abortion.

      • I think we’ll make do with insane housing costs and dismal employment prospects for young people.

    • World population growth has fallen by about half since the 1960s, and some projections see population plateauing (UN medium estimate) or even shrinking (UN low estimate). So maybe we should land on an aircraft carrier and declare “mission accomplished!”

    • Just five….

  6. The irony is that we could have made a serious dent in global C02 emissions, if only seal-clubbing right-wingers had prevailed over folks like Suzuki and Greenpeace on the nuclear power issue.

    We HAVE the technology, we can build it: a cheap (per kilowatt hour), zero-emissions source of electricity that can provide continuous power to our energy grid. Unfortunately, many environmentalists have made the perfect the enemy of the good – opposing nuclear on spurious safety grounds (per terawatt hour deaths are higher for every other source of energy – INCLUDING Chernobyl). As a result, about 40% of global energy production still comes from coal.

    And the technology keeps getting better. Reactors have quadrupled productivity in past decades. Thorium reactors will solve the problem of potential weaponization, enabling us to spread nuclear technology more easily (we also have hundreds of years worth of thorium). Better design technology enables the manufacture of smaller nuclear plants at much lower costs.

    The real divide on the environment shouldn’t be between environmentalists and capitalists. Rather it should be between pro-science folks that want to continue human progress and the anti-science zealots of the right (climate change deniers) AND the left (e.g. Suzuki). We need a revolution of the radical centre, to put the grownups back in charge of environmental policy.

    • Good post, although I think the pro-nukes (I am one) deserve a heap of the blame for their inept PR approaches. Still at this point in time any scientifically literate “environmentalist” that is not pro-nuclear power is either lazy or in denial.

      • You two realize death numbers mean nothing right now the problem is with the long term effects of nuclear, look at fukishima we will ALL face the fallout from that eventually if its leak is not stopped soon and completly

        • Realist: (too bad your argument wasn’t reflected in your nickname)

          More people died in the first few hours of the weekend in Chicago, than have died due to fukishima.

          You may want to use chernobyl next time. higher body count, but still only the equivalent to 4 months of murder in the USA.

          If you want to worry about something……wait for the next spanish flu…as in the greater scheme of things, Nuclear is a pussy.

    • This is a smart post. Listen to this guy. Seriously, I would agree with you for most of it. The only concern is the safety of the Japan example. Clearly not safe, but not in disagreement they could be made much much safer. Like not right on the ocean for example.

      • No one has died from Fukushima radiation. 20,000 souls in the flood, but whose counting?

    • Indeed. Fracking – something that every Suzuki lover hates – has brought US Carbon emissions down 12%, while Germany a ‘really green place’ is seeing emissions rise, even as huge renewable programs have been funded for a decade.

  7. I would like to better understand what he means by: “We fundamentally failed to use those battles to get that awareness, to shift the paradigm. And that’s been the failure of environmentalism.” What could have or should be done differently to avoid fighting the same battles over and over?

    • Maybe they could have tried telling the truth!

  8. He is not now and never has been a scientist. Why doesn’t his ego let him correct those who call him so?

    • He is a professor of Genetics, with a PhD in zoology. Suzuki is clearly a scientist. Perhaps you meant to say that he lacks expertise in subjects relevant to his activism. That is a fair claim, but how many climate skeptics pass that bar? Ezra Levant’s expertise appears to lie in trolling people.

      • He propagated fruit flies at UBC, wasn’t much of a scientist then, clearly isn’t now.

        • Your ignorance is showing – fruit fly research is INCREDIBLY important. Experiments on mice take a long time, because mice have a long life cycle. There are many things that you can pre-test on fruit flies at a lower cost, because they have a very short life cycle.

    • He is a scientist; however, he hasn’t published an academic paper since 1982. Suzuki long ago became a `personality’ and polemicist.

  9. Biggest fraud in the world, especially his ridiculous popularity poll where the choices were him, or a pedophile and a bunch of other no hopers.

  10. He still opposes Golden Rice and Golden Bananas which would prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of childhood blindness every year.

    • Don’t forget about his fondness for “Silent Spring”

      That book is reponsible for millions of deaths due to the banninf of DDT.

      But again, environuts don’t care about people. They appreciate the depletion in population.

      Besides…the enviro-weenies, have nice homes, live in nice countries, have enough food, shelter, safety etc…etc….

      they don’t care if a few million third world kids kick off due to mosquito bites.

  11. This comment was deleted.

    • 4 separate comments, that’s aren’t replies? I’m sorry he killed your dog.

  12. No mention of him making a complete fool of himself on Australian TV, they forgot to screen the questioners and he was actually forced to answer a couple of real questions.
    He failed badly at it.
    I almost felt sorry for the old fraud, but it sure explained why he avoids debates like the plague.
    He looked like a complete idiot, he didn’t even know what the global temperature databases were, or anything about Golden Rice except that he was opposed to it.

  13. So man has been pouring pollution into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution? Some time in the 1700’s? About 300 years?

    We were taught in school that the Great Lakes Basin was formed by the ice age and there was a layer of ice, a couple of miles thick, sitting on top of the land, pushing it down. When the ice melted, it provided the water in the lakes. Water flows from the upper lakes, over Niagara Falls (or through the power plants there), pours into Lake Ontario then runs out the St Lawrence into the Atlantic. The normal long term average rate of water flow in the Niagara River is 212,000 cubic feet per second. We are admonished to save water!

    I digress, so, anyway, a long time ago, it was cold enough that most of Canada was covered in a thick sheet of ice. But, the planet warmed up enough that much of the ice has melted, and it did that without the help of man polluting the air! Now we have lakes.

    Just how warm/hot should the planet be? Well, let’s look back to a time when man was not on the planet. A few weeks ago there was another news item. A dinosaur fossil was found by a pipeline crew working near Spirit River, Alta. That’s a couple of hundred miles north-west of Edmonton. Presently, that area is a little too cold for a large cold-blooded creature to survive. Florida has alligators in swamps, Canada has alligators in zoos. Was the earth hot enough all year round for cold blooded dinosaurs to live north of Edmonton?

    I am completely convinced that global warming is happening. I am not convinced man’s activity is greatly exacerbating the rate of warming. I am reasonably convinced that if man had never been on the planet, global warming would occur, regardless. I strongly suspect that no matter what man does, the planet is going to warm again to the point where large cold blooded reptiles can survive near and perhaps even in the Arctic.

    A worthwhile reason for limiting air pollution is quality of life. Scientists simply stretch their credibility to the breaking point by making outlandish claims.

    • Of course climate changes all the time. That’s a complete red herring though– it’s like saying, “Because every dog I’ve seen so far today is black, every dog I ever see must be black.”

      The truth is, none of the factors that we can attribute to previous changes in climate have been in effect over the duration of *this* one. If anything, the factors we’ve been seeing should have lead to our climate *cooling* over the past couple decades. The only way the numbers we’ve been seeing make sense is if you add in CO2 predicated AGW.

      The scary bit is, that natural cooling is probably coming to an end in the next few years, and airborne CO2 lasts for hundreds. We really haven’t seen anything yet — and by the time we do, there’s pretty much nothing that we’ll be able to do to change it.

      Oh, and incidentally, your examples are crap because the problem is the global temperature, not the temperature of a localized region. Yeah, Greenland was once green and all that, but the rest of the world was cooler at the time too.

      • “The only way the numbers we’ve been seeing make sense is if you add in CO2 predicated AGW.”

        TOTAL UNEQUIVOCAL B S! All the GCM’s cited by your precious IPCC predicted …WARMING!!!!!

        You can’t change that fact – people like me will NOT let you get away with it.

      • Thwim….

        Nice to see you still ignore the facts that may interfere with your doublethink. Not surprised though.

        The global temperature was much warmer in the past….not just localized regions. and when you put more CO2 in the air…what happens?

        More plants grow.

    • To all of you who are making yourselves look like fools on this forum…whether you agree with David Suzuki or not you cannot deny that he is a very intelligent human being and if I could accomplish one tenth of what he has accomplished in my lifetime I would consider myself successful. And…he is only human. If he slips up now and then…why attack him personally! Holy shit…surgeons slip up from time to time…and the cost is people’s lives….still human. Not to mention the fact that he has the balls to go up against politicians and big oil (that runs the planet) to fight for what he believes in instead of just hiding out on a forum behind a computer!! (and yes I am in the same category right now. You don’t need to be smug and point that out in a reply!)
      And…for all you climate change deniers I have two things to say.
      1. Whether you agree with manmade climate change or not is irrelevant. You cannot deny the fact that the tonnes of shit we are pumping into our waters and air every day is not doing something! The planet isn’t limitless. We are arrogant to think that we can continue to abuse at no cost. The planet will fight back and we will have a big price to pay and rightfully so! Many of you are only denying the truth so that you can push the fear of reality aside for a while longer or because you fear an attack on the almighty pocketbook but guess what? Your money won’t be any good when there’s no food to eat!
      2. the changes that environmentalists propose or the things we should do to help the planet can only do that – help! It’s not doing any more harm surely!
      I have seen the changes in the planet in the past twenty years just from our winters alone – they have gone from four months down to one. I just worry about where we will be in the next twenty!
      And who’s making the big bucks here? Suzuki or the oil companies! Come on!!! Who’s propaganda gets them the most revenue????? I don’t care about the debate and who’s winning but I do care about our basic life support systems, a little bit more than money or a wasteful western way of life!

      • The mob is fickle and unfortunately…that’s who holds the power!

      • Gladly agree we should not pollute but … CO2 is NOT pollution. CO2 is a trace gas necessary for just about ALL life on earth and it is clear that, with CO2 nearing 400ppm, the climate models are woefully incomplete now that it’s been over 16 years without further warming, (ALL of the GCMs predicted warming, some of them ‘catastrophic’ warming).

        No warming = dead AGW theory in anyone’s science book, ask Ben Santer.

      • backtobasics wrote:
        “I have seen the changes in the planet in the past twenty years just from our winters alone – they have gone from four months down to one”

        Clearly, you did not spend your year in Canada last year.

        hate to break this to you….but taking a vacation to florida, and then complaining that you only had 1 Month of winter is silly.

    • I like Suzuki. I like what he stands for. I believe in him of course, and I believe what he talks about. However, like most people I’m just too busy in my daily life to contribute in any way (other than recycling). I really don’t understand those who dislike him. I don’t think the haters are really so stupid as to just have problems with people who seriously try to make the world a better place. They must be people hit by collateral damage. Like they lost a car because of air care or lost a job due to some imposed government limit on logging or something like that. So then unfortunately Suzuki becomes the person they can focus upon. We all have choices in our selfish little worlds but it’s much smarter (selfishly speaking) to make our own lives ‘better’ rather than try to bring down someone else. The funny thing is these dumb asses only draw more eyes to the conflict and thus benefit Suzuki in getting his message out. I guess that’s just the nature of things. ;-)

    • What is he being ignorant about. Show me one example.

  14. Suzuki still wants to jail people who don’t folloiw his new green Puritan religion.

    • Source?

      • Suzuki himself.
        You mean you don’t know about that nonsense from him?
        Might be time to watch that ABC video from Australia…..

  15. “David Suzuki on the very first question is revealed as a complete know-nothing. His questioner tells him that the main climate data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.
    Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science.
    His questioner then lists them: UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS – four of the most basic measurement systems of global temperature.
    Suzuki asks what they are.”
    http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/david-suzuki-ripped-in-australia-for-being-a-phony-and-know-nothing/
    Then he accuses the questioner of cherry picking the data, when he is in fact using the data quoted by the warmers.
    Mind boggling that the media still worshipo this fool.

    • You don’t have to cherry-pick data supporting the notion of climate change. Of all of the climate science in existence, the vast majority of it agrees that climate change is a thing and that it will have consequences.

      • Tell that to Suzuki, he thought the guy was cherry picking the data that is the basis for the IPCC reports.
        The man is seriously confused…

        • Except he was. “http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics_v_Realists.jpg”

          Both use the same data. As you can see, by cherry picking data sets, you can make a case for a lack of warming that is garbage when the whole picture is looked at.

  16. With the IPCC completely discredited and Agenda 21 fully exposed, it was inevitable that this whole scam would crash and burn. It was never about anything except wealth transfer, enriching snake oil salesmen and world control for the UN. A gullible public and a compliant media set the stage for the biggest scam in human history. The billions wasted on this farce could have done so much more in fighting real pollution and helping impoverished countries crawl out of poverty.People like Suzuki are the ones that can’t see the forest because the trees are in the way, but not unlike Al Gore he became rich by fanning the flames of panic. Just follow the money.

  17. When a King loses all hope that he will win the battle, a good king will turn to his army and prepare them for defeat. Is that not what he is doing now? In all of this we have lost sight that the Government is blocking science and the message it produces, so that it can continue to grow economically without sanction from any corner. Zuzuki, is human and fallible. Yet, without the prospect of a new leader to lead us, should we not listen in light of what he has shown us? His years of knowledge, connections and facts that have come true, more often then not. And yet, now at this time of great division and lack of respect for future generations, has he not granted the field for a new king to emerge? To retire gracefully, and allow others to fight on from the foundation he and his contemporaries have laid? Regardless if you like him as a person, his reputation and his work speaks for it’s self. You don’t have to like the king…you just have to respect, honour and thank him for a thankless job. And pray that his replacement is just as good, if not better. Because he’s right….at this point in time all we have is hope.

    • Is that you Dr. Fruitfly?

    • “we have lost sight that the Government is blocking science and the message it produces,”

      It is not the job of “science” – or of once-upon-a-time scientists like Suzuki, for that matter – to “produce a message”.

      Yet there are far too many once-upon-a-time scientists who have chosen to divert from the tried and true scientific method, thereby undermining any trust one might have had in their whinging pronouncements and self-serving pontifications.

      Far too many of them have become legends in their own minds; and in the minds of their mindless advocates and acolytes. Their dedication to the same “cause” provides a demonstration of a profound deficit of critical thinking skills and/or intellectual honesty.

      The resulting discredit of such saints and their chroniclers (in this instance Suzuki and Gatehouse) reflects badly on the chronicler, his fact-checker(s), editor(s) and publisher – not to mention the publication’s “brand”.

      Shame on you, Macleans, for permitting this superficial, biased and mediocre sob-story to grace the cover of your once respectable and readable magazine!

      One is obliged to read all the way through before getting to the only significant point:

      “At his Toronto [drama queen] trial, the verdict on David Suzuki came back “Not guilty.” The news didn’t make the next day’s papers.”

      The real verdict, IMHO: For CBC yet another fail. For Suzuki yet another demonstration that he’s a once-upon-a-time scientist who’s long past his best before date.

      And speaking of the latter,the view from here, so to speak, is that this is a somewhat poetic parallel to the impending demise in slow motion of the influence of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the rapidly crumbling credibility of its “scientific” foot-soldier”, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

      And while I’m here, on a musically and pre-seasonal related note … I invite you to come one, come all, come sing along:

      http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tis-the-season-to-be-gloomy-an-annotated-climate-carol/

  18. It is good to know that David is among the most popular and trusted Canadians. That says something about our national character. As for the trolls who use Ezra’s Fox News North style of demagoguery to deflate serious issues, it says more about the desperation of the fossil fuel funded PR campaign to turn Canada into a petro-state. For those of us who want to see a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren David makes a great “elder” who represents Canada at its best.

    • Most popular and trusted within the confines of the “green” crowd who are nothing but a vocal minority in this country.

      • You are factually incorrect and a troll, Your talking points come from Sun News where I am sure you are much appreciated. Enjoy your bubble.

        • There was a limited list of people to compare him to, feer instance Pamela Wallin, Mike Duffy, and a guy charged with child molestation.
          Way to set the bar up there!

          Anyone stupid enough to fall for that scam ‘poll’ has %$#@ for brains.

      • Did Reader’s Digest only survey the “green” crowd? Can you get back to me on that?

      • You really need to stop upvoting all your comments with fake accounts my friend.

    • Popular compared to pedophiles…
      Look it up, it’s beyond parody!

      • Rob Ford must envy your wit.
        Did you vote for him?

      • Suzuki likes to have young college girls on hand for his personal “security”.

    • Yet Australia proved beyond ANY doubt the man doesn’t know even the most fundamental data about climate change.

      Quite ironically, Ezra Levant clearly proved he he knows dramatically more about the IPCC facts than does Suzuki.

      Suzuki is a preacher, a religious zealot, an anti-scientific blowhard who draws his conclusions from populism and represents them as science.

      And you think it is a good thing that a zero-knowledge AGW advocate is given respect scientifically.

      • What you have proved, I fear, is that you believe a right-wing talk show host over the peer-reviewed scientific community that has researched global warming for the last 50 years. Are you willing to bet your children;s future on the word of Ezra Levant ??? What does that say about you ???

        • This thread is about Suzuki, and it is an indisputable fact that in Australia he revealed his total (not partial) lack of awareness of even the most fundamental data concerning global warming…this startling reality revealed by Ezra Levant.

          I do not ‘believe’ anyone, including Levant… but I do believe the facts he brought to the table. And those facts show – without any doubt whatsoever – that Suzuki is an unqualified, unaware fool when it comes to IPCC data and its conclusions.

          What YOU have proved is that YOU blindly believe in a cult leader who is absent of any knowledge and ability to produce a cogent argument in favor of AGW.

          Facts don’t matter to you, only blind faith matters to you, because you support Suzuki as credible about AGW.

        • Were you aware that the American Meteorological Society just conducted a poll of its membership, and only 52% stated that global warming is both real and dominantly caused by humans.

          So much for scientific consensus. That was IPCC manufactured BS.

          But you’ll just believe anything, right?

          • You might reflect that even with your unreferenced AMS source (Ezra?) the AGW hypothesis is plausible and consistent with Suzuki’s reporting. If you check Wikipedia you will find around 50 scientific organizations that have endorsed the “consensus” including AMS. So ad hominim attacks on Gore/Suzuki do little to advance our search for practical policies that might insure that our children do not have to pay for our misunderstanding of complex climate models.

          • An anonymous poll is the only place a good scientist can express his/her opinion without fear of career-ending recriminations. Very interesting indeed.

  19. Dave showcases his ignorance of GMOs.
    Ignorance isn’t a crime, but he should shut his pieihole if he knows nothing about the subject:
    —–
    “Nor does David Suzuki know what the hell he’s on about when he’s fear-mongering about genetically modified crops:

    DAVID SUZUKI: Well, I mean, that is always the argument that’s made. GMOs are very, very expensive. Now, the people that need this food are not going to be able to afford it. Are we going to just create these new crops and then give them away? I simply don’t believe that’s what’s going to happen. I don’t think it is a generosity for the rest of humanity that is driving this activity.

    RICK ROUSH: Actually, we are. I mean, Bt corn technology has been given away to the Kenyan State Government research people for use for subsistence farmers. Monsanto gave away insect resistant potatoes in Mexico over 20 years ago. James is working on lots of similar cases. In cases where there is no economic return, it is, in fact, being given away and they’re not so difficult to develop. When I was at Cornell, we got a gene that was a gift from Monsanto for experimental purposes. We made broccoli plants that were resistant to attacks of Dimebag Moths. A student – one of our students made about 50 transformants in about six months. The great cost of these things are no longer the actual creation of the plant. It’s the regulatory challenges to take sure that you can take them to market, to do all that safety testing.”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/david_suzuki_proves_hes_pig_ignorant_about_global_warming/

    • And yet…people around us are dropping like flies from cancer!! go figure!

  20. Apologetics for the Green Religion’s Saint Suzuki at it’s finest.

    “At his Toronto trial, the verdict on David Suzuki came back – not guilty”.

    How amazing that Suzuki the self anointed “environmental evangelist”, “oracle”, and now someone playing the part of martyr-to-the-cause would need another external validation of his greatest via another contrived accolade to his greatest. What a vain, shallow narcissist he has become.

    I grew up watching the Nature of Thing and used to love watching it every week. Over time Suzuki has transformed from an educator who presented facts and let people decide what course was right into someone who believes jail is where people who don’t follow his beliefs belong. There is a small step from believing you are right to being righteous…fortunately we live in a country were the self righteous cannot jail those just because they dare to hold a non-Suzzuki thought.

  21. Ezra’s right and you’re wrong.
    Dave’s a champagne socialist and junk science fake.

  22. Let history be the judge. I suspect Mr. Suzuki’s name will be long remembered. As for ilk like Ezra Levant the dust bin awaits.

  23. Once upon a time he may have been worthy of praise of some sort – for his efforts to stop egregious polluters, perhaps. But over the last 30 years he has become worse than useless; a lying, hypocritical and pompous phoney. He made himself very wealthy by telling other people that they oughtn’t do the same.
    I look forward to not bothering to read the obituary of this nasty little excrescence.

  24. An amazing man who’s consciousness is beyond most people and unappreciated. I for one listened to the messenger and his message in understanding we live in a finite world and exponential growth without limits is foully! Thank you David!!

  25. We’re doomed. I don’t think it’s our fault, it’s in our DNA. Even once all the nations of the earth accept that AGW is real and a threat to humanity, you have to get them to all agree to do something about it. The only thing I can see that might do it would be a serious and major effort on behalf of the planet to Hydrogen from electrolysis. Zero emmissions forever. But it would mean global cooperation of a scale never seen before. WW-3 with all of humanity fighting the enemy of climate change, building solar cookers in deserts using sea water for electrolysis, pumping hydrogen in old natural gas pipes. Learning to ship it as liquid in ships. Huge mega project. But you can burn hydrogen anywhere you can burn natural gas. Zero emissions guaranteed. No fracking. No Tar Sands.

  26. I get so angry when I hear people speaking poorly of David Suzuki! I was born in 1958 and David was already trying to make people listen to him! He has been a huge positive influence in my life and in the lives of so many! Heck, people were still throwing their garbage out the car window back then! It must be so frustrating to try so hard and then get this kind of treatment! I hope you know David that you have in fact made a huge difference even though it may seem like we’re still not listening. Thank you so much for all you have done! Sincerely, Cathy Tocher

  27. Ahhh yes the media’s favorite misanthropist. The ghosts of tens of millions, of dead African children are waiting for father time to take you.

  28. Suzuki being criticized and attacked in such personal and vicious manners is truly mind boggling. It makes you wonder if people push away views that make them uncomfortable. No one likes to think about their own consumerism.

    • Suzuki hands out at very least as much attack without justification as he himself suffers.

      • Suzuki is fond of attacking, but when challenged, he resorts to the childish routine of claiming that his opinion is not to be assailed or questioned; that his wisdom is so self evident as to be unquestionable, and that he simply wishes not to fight. This tactic always allows him to make unsupported and often factually questionable statements that are assumed to be facts instead of opinions, simply because he does not allow his detractors or opponents the opportunity of rebuttal.
        I’m sorry, if you’re going to make the kind of bold assertions that Suzuki makes on many matters, then he needs to have the guts and intellect to back them up.

  29. Sadly, I agree with David Suzuki’s analysis. The environmental movement has lost ground over the last 40 years, but I have to say that I think it’s mostly self-inflicted.

    I remember when he was starting out on his environmental crusade, and he seemed to believe that any means was justification to an end, as long as it was for a good cause. He was using logical fallacies to cast aspersions on his opponents, exaggerating doomsday scenarios and cherry-picking scientific data to suit his agenda.

    There was never anything bad about his motives, but the tactics have eroded his credibility, and that of many other similar movements. Practicing good science requires telling the whole truth, not half-truths and alarmist claims designed to frighten people into action. After awhile, people stop caring, and unfortunately that’s what has happened.

    Instead of believing in the science, we have started believing in whatever our side of the political spectrum tells us is science. Now the whole earth can go to hell, while we sit in political gridlock, shouting insults at each other.

    • You’re pretty much bang-on. Between the exaggerations of impending apocalyptic doom and their deep associations with the far-left (either by choice or infiltration), the environmental movement has lost a big chunk of its’ credibility with the mainstream of society.

    • I agree that the enviromental movement has failed for many of the reasons you cite. In a democracy, you change policy through elections. In an election everyone has the opportunity to get on the soap box and convince voters why their position is valid and important and why voters should vote for them. It simply comes down to salesmanship and rhetorical pursuasion. The enviromental movement has failed to convince voters. They should look at their tactics and accept responsibility for their failure instead of whining and blaming others.

      • The real reason it has failed is because you just cannot simply fight money. Who cares about trees when they are used to print money!! The human race makes me sick!

        • Since the polymer bills were introduced, now its oil that’s used to print money!

    • Where does the government’s and oil companies denial campaign come into this? Why do you all still think scientists are the bad guy? Seriously! They are trying to create a future where we can all still enjoy living on this planet whereas gov. is worried about the next four years and oil companies about lining their already bursting pocket books!!

      • What I’m hearing in your post seems to sound like: “never mind us, what about them?” And that’s the recipe for dysfunction and gridlock I’m talking about. 99% of what you can change is on your own side of the battle.

  30. In spite of the defeatist scenario this article describes, there has been an incredible shift away from environmentally-damaging practices in the last 40 years. The list of accomplishments is really quite impressive, when you tally it all up.

  31. I believe in you Saint Suzuki…Luv Cyn

  32. To paraphrase The Last Poets’ great lyric: Wake up Canucks or we all through!

  33. David Suzuki, you are one of my heroes. I love you and thank you for courageously and intelligently interpreting the science and for telling the truth.

  34. IMO The most damaging Canadian ever to hit the world stage, and a poster boy for everything that is despicable about the far left.

    Not only that, he discredits science itself. Trotting around the world proclaiming looming disaster from climate change, we then see in Australia he has not even the most fundamental clue about the most basic datasets of the IPCC. He is a gigantic discredit to the scientific community and to the very cause he so politically advocates.

    I consider this man to be a far bigger embarrassment to Canada than even Rob Ford.

    The world will be far better off when he’s gone.

  35. Many of the comments below are petty and ridiculous – total mind pollution! Suzuki does not claim to be the 2nd coming of Christ, or to retain the full body of all science in his head. He is a person, living in the same broken society the rest of us are. He is working hard to follow his heart and ring a crisis bell that many people don’t want to hear, (or don’t want others to hear). To those slinging mud: regardless of what your passion/cause is, I sure hope you work as hard as Suzuki does to correct things you don’t believe are right, instead of spending your time just spewing hate about those who do on the internet.

    • I totally agree with you, Candace. I grew up with Dr. Suzuki and am in total agreement with his environmental philosophy.
      I have never seen so many ignorant comments made about man who has been voted the most trusted Canadian of this decade. Surely he must have gained the trust of a lot of people just as smart (perhaps smarter) than a lot of these negative trollers.

      • Jackal, that poll about the most Trusted Canadian was a Conservative plot.
        It was actually a poll to see who the most gullible Canadians were, and where they lived.
        Not surprisingly, they were made up mostly of Liberals and NDP supporters from the cities.

  36. The headway lost is due to inviting foreign countries to “invest” in the negative ads against the oil sands – when the Saudi’s and people of their ilk start funding environmentalist that is when we stop listening to them. Blame the greed on both sides…

  37. po l’il David Suzuki – everyone beating up on the poor old guy.

    when the writer referred to Ezra Levant’s `shark-like’ smile, I wondered when he was going to allude to a hook nose, as well.

    In fact, to the extent that Suzuki is being criticized, it is very long past due.

  38. David Susuki is the embodiment of those whom author and psychologist Steven Pinker calls “The Better Angels of our Nature”. He is a national hero. He has blessed many more of us without even knowing by sharing his scientific insights despite the abuse he took as a truth telling genius from the not-so-genius Greedies.

    His CBC program “The Nature of Things” has increased our understanding of the positive possibilities that surround us. In fact his recent program with the tongue-in- cheek title “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” brought to public consciousness the root cause of serious mental illnesses (actually biological brain diseases) and shown how infectious microbes can invade human brains.

    He gives us new hope that scientific research can eradicate these brain diseases if we follow this new development in brain research findings.

    His ‘Nature of Things’ on CBC are absolutely ‘must-sees’ for me. Without him my knowledge of life and its amazing variables would be lost to me.

    Bless him and his family.

  39. So much hatred expressed in these comments. Very disappointing.

  40. Suzuki himself could not have written a more one-sided article about
    himself.

    “Earlier this month, the Royal Ontario Museum put the
    environmental activist on “trial” as part of a new exhibit on
    climate change, charging him with seditious libel for a manifesto that called
    for an end to oil … Suzuki eagerly
    embraced the pageant as an opportunity to explore questions that he’s been
    asking himself.”

    “Pageant” is the right word for the mock trial in Toronto, “complete
    with real lawyers, a judge and a jury”. Why
    not a debate with some scientists instead of lawyers? Perhaps because he tried that
    in Australia, and it did not go so well for him. According to your article:

    “The evening [in Australia] began with two
    hostile questions on global warming from invited
    dissenters. Other audience plants
    took him to task for his stand against genetically modified foods, statements he
    had made about the effect of cyclones on the Great Barrier Reef, and his views
    on immigration. Suzuki never lost his patience, but he seemed to wilt under the
    attacks as the show went on.

    Those “invited dissenters” and “audience plants”
    seemed like genuine scientists to me, raising genuine questions about Suzuki’s
    proclamations. He indeed “wilted under the attacks” but only because he had no answers.

    “Back in
    1989, Suzuki participated in a highly publicized debate with Philippe Rushton,
    a University of Western Ontario psychologist who had published controversial
    research linking intelligence to race. The crowd was squarely on Suzuki’s side
    and most observers thought he scored an overwhelming victory …”

    I saw that debate in 1989. It was not a debate. Rushton
    was trying to explain his research and his findings. Suzuki called him a
    racist. That was it. The audience, of course, applauded Suzuki. Who would want
    to side with a racist?

    • Suzuki – like more of the environmentalists are only interested in ‘debates’ that they can win. They are not interested in debating anything because their numbers and ‘facts’ fall apart real fast.

  41. These comments are laughable. Blah, blah, blah… Read it for what it is and shut the hell up..

  42. Suzuki the ‘Environmentalist’ always gives it away when he shouts, “Oh, I gotta go and catch my Plane to Toronto!” What a Phoney!

  43. He is a massive jerk in real life. Total nutter. Stay away from my kids Suzuki!

  44. Time to turn over “The Nature of Things” to Jennifer Gardy, host of the two “Myth or Science” episodes. She is the new face of science.

  45. Lets face it, Suzuki has made a very good living off espousing environmental causes. How large is his carbon footprint?

  46. Did Suzuki pay Macleans to write this puff piece?

  47. Jennifer Gardy is nothing more than another phoney Jew. The only reason she is replacing Susuki is because she is Jewish. The Jew World Order has positioned Jews in every major position throughout the world. Don’t believe me?

    Do your homework people. It’s time to start calling out these dirty bastards and expose them for what they really are….EVIL!!!

    More than 80% of the comments made here are by Jews, including the journalist who wrote this piece of garbage. Susuki is a brilliant man. Don’t allow these bullies to brainwash you. They all hate Susuki for exposing their LIES! Their Talmud demands that they lie. They’re not trust worthy, nor honest. NEVER TRUST A JEW!

  48. Ezra Levant? Who?

  49. I wonder what the Jewery, *ahem, i mean media will pull next? Who will they choose to bully next, in an effort to pull the wool over your eyes. Don’t buy it people! Don’t let mainstream media keep you from discovering the truth!

  50. After reading this I must publicly apologise for a comment made in regards to his ‘lavish lifestyle’ and using more gas than a small village to heat his homes.

  51. Threw up all over my screen. Seeing this fraud makes me ill. Hypocrisy brought to a new level. Hurry up and die already you goddamn snake oil salesman.

  52. The issue with environmentalism and DS is part of it – is that it’s “all or nothing” the same heavy handed approach that some businesses use – there is middle ground – we can use our natural resources wisely while showing respect for the environment and protecting it – it doesn’t have to be “all or nothing” – wise use is possible.

  53. On climate change Suzuki is only reporting what 97% of peer-reviewed climate scientists have concluded given the weight of evidence – AGW is here, its real and we need to do something about it now, ( Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. EOS 90 (3): 22–23.)

    • Except that the methodology to get the 97% was very twisted, has been discredited, and no real scientist will have anything to do with it.

      • Maureen – there have been at least 6 independent studies of the content of peer-reviewed climate science articles ( 100,000 +) and they have all found that they point substantially to AGW (wikipedia) Perhaps you could identify the source and methodology that found something different. Please dont cite Sun or Fox News, Heartland, Friends of Science or other Koch funded PR.

        • Go to http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=97%25

          Now I will predict that you will tell me that Wattsupwiththat is not deemed a ‘credible’ site by the Global warming crowd – funny how that is – anything that disagrees with the fake consensus is then attached at not being credible.

          • Something is not true beause you believe it to be true or want it to be true.
            Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled – Richard Feynman

          • So because you can cite something that is irrelevant from a physicist it means that you are right? Present your counter on how the 97% consensus study was a valid study using methodology that was not corrupted.

          • Can you deniers just get off your computers and look outside? You don’t need to be a scientist to see it!!!! Elders know it! Natives know it! Animals know it! Plants know it! Children know it for God’s sake!

          • I do look out my window and at end of November and temperatures are NORMAL but the week before they were below normal (to the tune of -35). So looking out the window proves what? Doesn’t the global warming crowd always tell us the weather is not climate (except when they can use it prove a point).

            As well, all this summer, there were hot days (it is summer on the Prairies after all) but the record temperatures were still from – guess when? The 1930s – that wonderful decade of dry and hot temperatures, followed by the 19teens when the same pattern emerged – way before the increase in CO2

          • Who you going to believe Maureen…… a bunch of left wing global warming kooks who are making millions off this schtick….or your own lying eyes?

          • We were addressing the 97% consensus study that has been proven to have used wonky methodology (to be polite) and which was pushed on politicians to support spending billions on global warming. And you present a bunch of stuff from wikipedia!!! rather than address the study in question.

          • Dear Maureen – If it is important to you to win this debate then I concede. Your one study invalidates my six studies. My concern is only that my grandchildren will live in a hospitable climate not more than 2 degrees (C) warmer than now and whatever the exact percentage, a significant number of the 100,000 plus studies on AGW have pointed to a potential problem with gigatons of GHG emissions produced by burning fossil fuels. What if you win this argument but lose the next generation to catastrophic climate changes ???

          • I’m sad to see you write that because it sounds very passive- aggressive – poor me, the big meanies are picky on us who are just concerned about the children. First when anyone on any side pulls out the ‘its for the children’ in a debate it usually isn’t and they have run out of anything to say that supports their cause. Second, for the past 2 decades those who question (not deny) but question the science used in global warming are slammed as ignorant Neanderthals that shouldn’t be allowed to exist (Suzuki himself as said as much!). The cries of ‘the science is settled’ should be spoken by no real scientist. Climate probably is changing as it always has, but there is a lot of uncertainty about the influence of humans on that change – the world has been a lot warmer in previous centuries as well as a lot cooler so that influence of man may be very little. I remember my grade 8 science teacher (1968) telling me and my friends that in no uncertain words that by the time we are 30 we will not be able to go outside at any time of the year without dressing like it was winter. With the joy of reaching a certain age I realize he was a bad teacher who was trying to indoctrinate his students rather than teach them some real principles of science. Maybe I am biased by that experience, but whenever some scientist who is chasing the money is telling me about doom and gloom I tend not to believe them.

            My concern is the billions and billions and billions of taxpayer dollars that have been conned out of governments by scientists and other special interests who have been using unproven and unreliable ‘models’ to suggest impeding doom (and which have lined their pockets!! Al Gore anyone!). The fact remains that their is at least a 17 year pause in warming that is unexplained by the very expensive models that have been touted as the be all and end all. I am for a continued and vigorous debate, but not one whose aim is to shut up the opposition!!!

            There is lots of things that we can to make sure that we are good stewards of the environment to pass onto our children and grandchildren – ensuring there is clean water and clean air is important, ensuring that farming practices are sustainable (and that doesn’t mean farming as we did in 1910), ensuring that we don’t consume more than we need (does any household need FIVE big screen TVs; I’m stunned at the number of houses I visit where a family of 3 or 4 have more TVs that the number of people in the house!) – that is wasteful and does not contribute to a whole family when everyone heads to their own space to watch the same program. But some of that are choices that individuals make and I’m not about to demand control over people’s choices.

          • Maureen – I am sad that you have such a low view of human nature that you think that I, David , Al and the whole scientific community of climate scientists ( or some significant percentage of them) are out to con you out of your tax dollars. Science is never ultimately settled but cigarettes do cause cancer and species do evolve. There has been a slowing of the atmosphereic warming trend since the 1998 high point but the basic physics of global warming has not changed and with 2013 being a near record warm the “pause” may be over now statistically. How much data would it take to persuade you? You do not trust governments to take effective action except in time of war. Few governments have taken ANY effective action to reduce GHG emissions despite the science. I attribute that to the “Dutch Disease” the tendency for petrodollars to cisplace other economic interests. I think markets have the same tendency toward anarchy that people do and that, therefore, citizens are responsible for assuring that governments act in the interests of all. I have two grandchildren and if our government does not act in their interests I will hold people like you responsible.

  54. What a wonderful tale…he is bang on. You people that for some unknown reason don’t care enough to understand the world around you and the reality of our present and peer into the future then keep being ignorant and saying shit about Suzuki when I bet none of you morons have even an education…and I mean after high school.

    • And your education is what?

  55. Anyone who approaches this subject in a partisan way is suffering from a sort of self-inflicted mental retardation. Depriving yourself of the other half of the story, makes you a half-wit of sorts, who can not possibly grasp all the relevant facts of the issue, nor deliver a credible scientific opinion on the subject.

    Unfortunately that’s what has happened to a large extent in the environmental field. As Bush once said: “you’re either with us or agin us.” and this illustrates the mood reflected by Suzuki and his many followers. It’s much more religious than scientific, and when real science meets Suzuki, the results are disastrous for Suzuki, as the Australian experience has shown us.

  56. So tell us what your really feel about Suzuki – this was a love letter presented as a hard hitting article.
    The fact reminds that Suzuki will only talk about things that he wants to talk about and only in environments where everyone admires and coddles him. His scientific credentials left the room a long time ago and he NEVER had any in environment or climate change/global warming to begin with.
    As for Levant – thank god there is someone in the MSM who is willing to tackle the hard questions – you may not like his approach (who cares!), but he consistently demonstrates that he knows way more than the people he approaches for interviews (his interviews with the line 9 protestors are so funny and sad at the same time since they demonstrate the lack of knowledge the professional protester has about the things they have been bussed in to protest about).
    As for the environment – Canada has made huge leaps in protecting and preserving our environment and that is part of the problem – we are now down to the nitty gritty where the cost of ‘improving’ something outweighs the actual improvement. Having 18 reviews of a project that show the same thing is a useless waste of money and time (but not for the people doing the reviews and that is an industry all to itself). GM foods are just fine and most of the leaps in food production for the last 150 years have been in modified foods of one sort or the other. If Suzuki and his lot were around 100 years ago the Marquis wheat variety that make the Prairies the breadbasket of Canada would have never been planted! But then given some of his comments about immigration, he probably would have been fine with that (tell me again how his family came to Canada – maybe he should return to Japan since he seems to be done with immigration).

    But having said all that – should we try to be more limiting in our use and quality of our water – yes; should we try to reduce/reuse – yes; should we be concerned about what goes into our air and the quality of our air – yes. But all of those things are being dealt with (I have the awful low flow toilet and patio taken up with city mandated recycling bins to prove it!), but how much more is possible? Depends on how much more people are willing to give up – and for me – not much more!

    • Are you willing to give up a planet to live on? And you say GM foods are fine until you’re diagnosed with cancer! (tell me which GM food company do you work for?) And my low flow toilet works wonders! Awww..it is an inconvenient truth isn’t it? That’s the problem with the human race, we never want to be inconvenienced. To hell with the rest of the ecosystem but don’t mess with my toys! I hope my kids’ generation is a little less arrogant than mine.

      • Do you panic about everything in your life? Do you go outside and cross the street – because you could get hit by a bus!! Do you drink any liquids or eat food because you could choke you know! You are just hysterical!

        As for cancer – since there are much more proven causes of cancer (smoking, drinking liquor, multiple sex partners to name but a few) that we can actually do something about. Besides if you live long enough, your bodies cells will turn on you and we will all die of cancer – cells are only programmed to last so long.

        The hysterics about GM foods are way overblown – usually by ill-informed environmentalists who think we should all return to 1920 – here’s a clue – not going to happen!

        • Exactly the reaction I expected. And… you just might be wrong about that last point…if you live long enough and your cells don’t attack you you might find out!

          • so funny how you all think that the scientists who do the real research are so ill informed!

          • check out research done on monsanta corn by Harvard University of you think it’s ill-informed!

          • Where did I say that? BTW did you read that the premier research done on GM foods and rats with tumors has been withdrawn by the publisher because it was WRONG!!!!!

  57. I don’t get the Suzuki hate. Couldn’t think of a more genuine person who gets it. No basis of him being a dictator or a fraud. Climate change is real, we don’t need scientists to tell us that anymore. It’s in our faces. This new lifestyle of consume and develop has gotten us in a position where we need to try to reverse the damage, but i get what Suzuki’s saying. If Government policy is backtracking and allowing large corporations to do what they do and continue to be irresponsible than why try anymore. That’s got to be a serious warning sign for all of us, when David Suzuki is saying what’s the point. Canadians are one of the worst polluters per capita because we can be. Europeans don’t live sustainably because they want to, they do it out of necessity and common sense. Canadians live comfortably economically and even geographically, but it comes at a cost that we and our kids will have to pay. It’s up to every person to make different lifestyle choices and put pressure on local and federal government wake up.

    • honestly its the hypocrisy – he knows better and wants us to live the way he wants us to but does not live it – he is a millionaire (and good for him) that uses a high level of energy, yet wants us to cut down – he talks about how terrible the oil sands are but mentions nothing of Arab oil and how dirty and worse that is – he wants wind turbines but does not speak of the dangers (noise and damage to birds and animals on the ground). Its the holier than thou approach and his refusal to answer real questions. This I believe is the real problem. – As for the gov’t allowing corporations to pollute and get away with it, the current gov’t is probably the best and most green gov’t in our history, believe it not, but true…

      • The guys not perfect and the only major hypocrisy I see is a result of his job and what he does. He has to travel a lot I’m sure, to educate on not just the climate but nature in general. Someone has to do it. I don’t think he’s ever said “be like me” but he’s suggested what needs to happen. Other than that how much do we really know about his personal life style. The article gave a good example of the BS that’s said about him that proved to be false. And the oil sands are “dirty oil”. So much energy put in for a small payback, and look at how it’s extracted, by digging a pit the size of the UK. More embodied energy just to dig and move the earth. It’s really raping the land. And how many birds have been killed by wind turbines vs. tailing ponds and oil spills. The only health impact is a result of proximity but I’d still rather have a wind turbine in my yard than a pipeline or train. I don’t know what real questions he’s refusing to answer, unless he doesn’t have an answer, but our current Government really doesn’t like to answer questions. Maybe they are the “greenest” but not green enough. Hence why we’ve won the UN fossil award. David Suzuki is just a guy. It’s the message and reality we face that matters.

        • so who was on the U.N. panel, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Oil sands is “dirty oil’, serious, all oil is dirty and the land is raped to get it out no mater where it is. For Canada to receive the booby prize for this is more U.N. BS and makes me sick to think people actually still listen to that corrupt world body. As for your “message and facts that matter” – Canada is under 2% of world wide GHG emission and China actually tried to embarrass us into Kyoto, really. Overall Canada is a very clean country and has actually gotten better under the Conservative gov’t, thems the facts. PM Jean signs Kyoto with no actual interest in fulfilling any obligation, thems more facts. Here is some more hypocrisy – oil sands gives our Fed gov’t billions if not trillions which in turn gives 1 billion annually to the CBC which gives it to Susuki to complain about the oil sands, hmm. Have a great day…

          • Just a hunch but you’re from Alberta or Sask? That’s right, all oil is dirty and we’re not making the right use of it by burning it. We need to get off the stuff but we’re hooked. How do we know for sure that oil sands money goes to CBC? I’m sure it ends up in a pott with our tax dollars that supports CBC, which funding was cut by Harper by $115M. Which is probably going to those kick-ass fighter jets we really need. Touche about the UN. And I’m sorry it makes you sick, Even if it is a trivial joke why did they choose Canada? I don’t think they pick names from a hat. We have 0.5% of the world population out of 240 countries, 2% GHG emissions in my opinion is still too high. I moved to Edmonton a few years ago and wow, urban sprawl, oversized houses, lack of density, no lack of monster size 4×4’s., There is nothing sustainable about this lifestyle. And what is the government doing to help us curb this? Dick. Alberta is still using coal powered plants. Fossil award goes to Alberta. Like I said before, I don’t need scientists or analysts or even Suzuki to tell me what’s wrong. I can see with my own eyes. I’m a young Canadian and I look up to Suzuki because he speaks for my generation.
            Harper – baby boomer generation, which seems to only look out for its self. Thanks boomers.

            And I will have a great day!

          • actually from cottage country in Ontario thus the travel. I would never want the beautiful area I live in to be destroyed, but living in trees and caves is not for me. We are blessed with natural resources and yes we do some bad things to get it, but we also do a lot of responsible things to get it. Its being the poster child of all things bad that Canada is given that pisses me off, there are so many other bad countries re: oil out there. I believe the U.N. has its panties in a knot due to our support of Israel, nothing more nothing less…But without these natural resources where would our health care, education and other monies come from. Could you imagine the cost of energy in this country if it were not for the natural resources we have, wow. I think citizens of this country get the short end of the dipstick – gas in other oil producing countries is pennies, but not us. I agree we are a wasteful nation and could do better – if you are old enough then you know how far we have come since the 1960s…thanks for the chat…

        • I realize he is just a guy and good for him for sticking to his guns, but the message is confused and dare I say corrupted by some of the organizations that sponsor it. Dr Susuki may be a good guy in this, but he is the face of it and that is self inflicted – its the rock and glass house syndrome. He should first look into who paid the bills before screaming at who he is being paid to scream at, I sure know I would as you probably would also…

      • Actually I had the pleasure to hear Suzuki speak just a few days ago and he DOES indeed talk of the danger to birds and bats from the wind turbines but goes on to state that the threat to human health has been studied extensively and there is no viable evidence. There has to be some trade off we just have to choose the one that’s least damaging. I’m not saying that birds and bats aren’t extremely important but global emissions are a threat to EVERYTHING! The funny thing is when someone is in the limelight the public just wants to pick apart what they do wrong. It’s human nature, if a neighbor gets something you don’t have or achieves something you don’t (even if it is through their own hard work and dedication), let’s find a way to stomp on him…but when they are below us (or we think they are below us) we are all there to help and are then dubbed good samaritans. Now there’s hypocrisy. Of course he isn’t perfect but I do think he is genuine and isn’t living the highlife while wanting us to be nomads living off the land!

    • I know several people who have met him, they all say he is a collosal ass.

  58. The writer of this article is clearly just a shill for Suzuki. I watched the espisode when suzuki was in australia, and while Mr. Gatehouse mentioned “hostile questions” from the audience, the truth is far different.
    The questions were of a legitimate scientific nature…and Suzuki botched it badly. They were in no way “hostile” as Mr. gatehouse suggests, but given Suzuki screwed up the answer so badly, I am assuming the only friendly questions according to the “Gatehouse Scale” would be softballs lobbed from the audience of the CBC studio.
    The fact Suzuki cannot even answer the most basic scientific question without a set of speaking notes showed clearly that he long ago stopped being a scientist when he discovered being a simple minded shill proved far more lucrative.
    Suzuki is just Canada’s Al Gore….though paid far less.

  59. The problem now is methane release in arctic oceans. Massive intervention and drastic reductions in co2 and geo engineering are required to halt what could be runaway global warming. This is just science and supported by observable evidence. And the last time this happened the dinosaurs & 96% of global species went extinct. The problem is that people think science is an institution as corrupt as politics or corporate world. Not true! We thoughtless energy junkies have grown into a kind of dissociative existence, cradled by corporate constructs of life which feel like comfort and normality, but are completely separated from the reality of our connection to what actually cradles us.. Air, water, plants, animals. We cannot exist without them. But we can exist without oil and gas. And this we have forgotten about and ignored the reality that feeding on oil instead of nature has removed a caloric set of checks and balances that would automatically have kept our balance with nature. We think we have moved our understanding of our universe ahead. Maybe so but it is not for the greater benefit of anything or anyone else besides western humanity. We are actually no smarter than yeast: feeding on its environment until it makes it so toxic it dies off.

    • Well said. It doesn’t matter how we feel about one man…let’s just get to action.

  60. Deniers of climate change………your idiots.

    • so the civil discussion begins…

    • No, they are YOUR idiots…

      No one says the climate doesn’t change, all we are saying is that if the bulk of it is caused by man why do the people telling us that keep lying about it?
      Hide the decline!!!

      • Can someone please refer me to some liable arguments by climatologists or scientists that we aren’t causing the change? I would think it’s just simple, common sense that pumping green house gases in to our atmosphere for a hundred years would have a global impact to the atmosphere. Take the rapid melting of glaciers for example. Why? Please provide me with a convincing argument. The reason I made the above comment was based on many of the comments I’ve seen here. All that’s being said to argue against man-made climate change sounds more like conspiracy than fact. Arrogance is the more polite way to say it.

    • Thank you for that link. For those who aren’t going to look it up, it is a story about thousands of U.K. pensioners dying of the cold due to green levies to combat global warming.

    • No.
      Unless when you said “valid” you meant “stupid”,
      then yes.

  61. Well, a lot of vitriol here. Climate change is happening, the question is why. Developing nations are not going to sit back and have the majority of its populace live in poverty while industrialized nations live in comfort, emmisions be damned. Mr. Suzuki has become a lightening rod no question. Perhaps it’s time to let someone else pick up the torch. Although I’m not crazy about it (Fukiyama and Chernobyl come to mind) nuclear energy is probably the wave of the future. I find it interesting that amongst those that weren’t beating up on ol Dave and were commenting on the desimation of the planet no one brought up the out of control population growth, which probably drives most energy consumption; and while Suzuki might be all of what his detracters say, I’d still take him over Levant any day.

    • Do not put Fukushima in the same category as Chernobyl. Fukushima withstood a seismic event PLUS a related after event that was far greater than it had been engineered to endure. The net result was the destructioon of the plant with no loss of life, no radiation-related injuries, and no long term danger to life or property. (Background radiation near the plant site is lower than the normal background radiation in all sorts of surprising areas around the world.)
      Chernobyl, on the other hand, was the direct result of drunken engineers, trained by a society that was wholly incapable of making a decent automobile, or even a really good bicycle for that matter, playing with nuclear power plants. Chernobyl was never a case of “if”, but “when”. Just as Russian airliners would inconveniently fail to fly at randomly unfortunate moments, and Russian nuclear subs were prone to going down but not up, Chernobyl was a catastrophe simply waiting to happen. There were never any incentives for the people who built and ran it not to get it wrong, therefore they did get it wrong.

      • actually they are just starting to realize the after effects. Increased radiation readings in the water and fishlife on the west coast……..where I live.

    • Watermelons.

  62. “The evening began with two hostile questions on global warming from invited dissenters.”

    LOL. Dissenters! The two hostile questions were science based questions, asked in a polite and respectful manner. Suzuki’s response was to first, demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about the most basic aspects of the catastrophic man-made global warming debate, and secondly, to accuse the two gentlemen of being paid by big oil. So much for scientific discourse.

    After reiterating his call to have politicians that disagree with his view point about climate, thrown in jail, he then goes conspiracy nut about new prisons in Canada for environmental saviours, such as himself.

    It’s comedy gold with a fair and intelligent host, real climate scientists in the audience, and the finger-pointing activist, David Suzuki.

    A simple Youtube search is all the author needed to do to learn what really happened in Australia. As for the accuracy of the rest of this hot oil massage of an article…

  63. All you need to do is go to Youtube and look for Suzuki on Australian TV and you can plainly see that he is nothing more than a snake oil salesman of the highest degree.

  64. I’m sick of being hectored by these liars, I think I’llgo burn another pile of tractor tires at the farm.
    Maybe dump I’ll dump a couple of barrels of used oil in the river and gun down a few rare birds…
    Quit lying and I’ll quit burning tractor tires and shooting rare birds.

  65. Suzuki is in the pay of Big Stupid.
    Well, he’s an integral part of Big Stupid.

  66. What ever happened to Kyoto?
    No, not the treaty, the dog, what happened to Dionne’s dog?
    Did the poor mutt get dumped off at the pound in the middle of the night after his usefulness as a prop ended?
    Shamelessly booted out of the limo in a cloud of broken promises, shattered dreams, and tire smoke?
    Or did Dionee try to pass the poor hound off as a reindeer by duct taping a set of horns to him ala the Grinch?
    We all know about the weight distribution problems inherent with that option…

    And why oh why did the idiots in the media and on the left think naming his dog after a stupid counter productive treaty was in some way intelligent?
    Can Harper get the same fawning admiration and worship from the hopeless fools in the media if he names his cat Kyoto?

  67. His Australian debate really showed me how much Mr Suzuki really knows about the subjects he talks about. He was caught many times not knowing the facts and did lose his cool and started to name call at one point. And he is paid by US special interest groups, thats why he stepped down. I sincerely hope his books are audited. I really don’t care what this guy has to say anymore, I simply refuse to believe anything he says. He’s a paid shill

  68. I think he’s fake What about his HUGE rock star bus he travels in>? oh yeah, this is a lefty mag

  69. Far too often Suzuki comes off as emotional and downright religious in his approach to environmental issues. Every morning I hear his daily dose of guilt on the radio and often I am struck by how unscientific some of the things he says are. People like him are why people are tuning out.

    The environmental challenges we face are real but when we approach them with emotions and not rationality and science we do more harm than good. A great example is how we use large amounts of rare earth elements to build wind turbines that require enormous amounts of fossil fuels to construct and transport but disregard the thorium that is also mined in the process. That thorium can be used to power the planet cleanly with no risk of meltdown and without the nuclear waste that current methods produce. In fact, the “waste” of thorium reactors includes things like Uranium 239, something NASA is desperate for.

    The emotional single-mindedness of most environmentalists won’t even let them look into this technology that could save us on so many levels. Their fervour to “save the planet” is dooming us for it is not the planet that is in jeopardy, we are and as long as we approach this with a worship mentality and not a humanist one we keep marching to our eventual demise.

  70. How might we measure the harm that he has brought with his contempt for humanity, his facile alarmism, his scaremongering, and his efforts to hinder progress? The environmental movement seriously lost its way in the last decades of the 20th century, and he was one of its leaders. Self-appointed saviours of the world in their own minds. A burden on society in mine.

  71. We all have contradictions and no one is perfect. But Mr. Suzuki has escaped critical scrutiny by the media. His – and his Foundation’s – campaign against all GMO’s is unconscionable. He repeatedly points to the scientific consensus to justify his position on global warming, yet ignores the scientific consensus on, for example, Golden Rice. Golden Rice will save thousands if not millions from blindness and even death. Even on global warming, his appearance on ABC made it clear he is not current and frankly I was embarrassed for him.
    The frustration I see in many of these comments is some have a sense of misplaced reverence in which the media never tells the Emperor that he has no cloths – not even gently.

  72. Explain please Dr Suzuki why the NOAA global temperature methodology is based on anomalies in contravention of basic statistical science .

  73. hi what is youi name ha lol

  74. what you do for life

Sign in to comment.