 |
| © Macleans Magazine |
The Effects Of Environmentalist and Climate Alarmist Crying Wolf Begin To Appear
Dec 7, 2013 | Dr. Tim Ball | Wattsupwiththat.com
The cover story of the November 25, 2013 Canadian weekly magazine
Macleans pictures self-appointed Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki.
The caption reads,
"Environmentalism Has Failed" "David Suzuki loses faith in the cause of his lifetime."
Suzuki doesn't realize he's the cause of the failure as a major player
in the group who exploited environmentalism and climate for a political
agenda.
Initially most listened and tried to accommodate, but gradually the lies, deceptions and propaganda were exposed. The age of eco-bullying is ending. Typically
Suzuki blamed others for the damage to the environment and climate but
now he blames them for not listening to him. He forgets that when you
point a finger at someone three are pointing back at you.
Environmentalism was what academics call a paradigm shift, which Thomas Kuhn defines as
"a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions."
It was a necessary new paradigm. Everybody accepts the general notion
it is foolish to soil your own nest and most were prepared to
participate. Most were not sure what it entailed or how far it should
go. Extremists grab all new paradigms for their agenda but then define
the limits for the majority by pushing beyond the limits of the idea.
Environmentalism and the subset climate are at that stage pushed there
by extremists like Suzuki. Instead of admitting the science is wrong
they double down and make increasingly extreme statements, just like the
IPCC. It underscores the political rather than the scientific agenda.
For example, Suzuki, apparently frustrated that politicians were not
listening to his demands for action on climate change said they
should be jailed.
Environmental groups grabbed environmentalism and quickly took the moral high ground preaching that only
they
cared about the Earth. Suzuki set up the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF)
with tax benefits that required it to be non-political, but after active
involvement in an Ontario election he was forced to resign. His major
theme in the election was to push the climate change and alternate
energies put in place in that Province when Maurice Strong was in charge
of Ontario Hydro, the state controlled energy agency. Ontario is the
perfect example of how and why climate energy policies promoted by
Strong as Founder of UNEP are a disaster.
The Foundation campaigned on environmental issues most presented in
deceptive or incomplete ways. An example was the attack on salmon
farming and corrupted research on
PCBs and sea lice. This was the focus of an interview of researcher
Vivian Krause by Ezra Levant. Another was Suzuki's parade across Canada
pushing extinction theories
and claims of DSF Board member E.O Wilson that 3 species go extinct
every hour. He never named one. He never listed the plethora of new
species found. He refused to discuss the issue and in his visit to
schools pre-arranged and wrote a
question for a selected student to ask. He promoted threats of global warming, but refused to debate the issue or answer questions. When asked questions on a
radio interview in Toronto, he swore and stormed out of the studio.
He hired former Federal politician NDP (socialist party) David Fulton as
Director of DSF. James Hoggan has been Chairman of the Board for many
years. His PR Company has major alternate energy companies as clients.
Hoggan is the proud creator of DeSmogblog a web site that claims it is
"Clearing the PR Pollution that clouds climate science" but mostly
involves personal attacks on people asking questions. The objective was
to denigrate people by creating "favorable interpretations" to the
following questions. "Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they
doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting
money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?" This
doesn't answer skeptics questions about the science.
Their real agenda was disclosed in a Climatic Research Unit (CRU) leaked
email dated December 2007 from senior writer Richard Littlemore to
Michael Mann.
Hi Michael [Mann],
I'm a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (sic) (I got your email
from Kevin Grandia)* and I am trying to fend off the latest
announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th
century.
It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by
"smoothing," "correcting" or otherwise rounding off the temperatures
that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I
am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we're all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger's intervention in Science. (emphasis added)
(* Grandia was a former writer for DeSmogBlog who moved there after
serving as a research assistant for a Liberal Minister in Ottawa.)
Do as I say, not as I do is the hallmark of extreme environmentalists
behaviour. Al Gore is the poster boy for this hypocrisy. It appears
Suzuki is only different in scale. They were enumerated in programs by
SUN TV Reporter Ezra Levant. They include the familiar list of
funding and financial activities and
personal wealth accumulated, especially in properties.
A major part of Suzuki's attacks relate to global warming. His refusal
to debate or even answer questions is legendary. He ignores his lack of
qualifications on climate, but uses that challenge when it comes to his
supposed expertise in genetics and genetically modified food. A possible
explanation for his "environmentalism is a failure" claim is a PR move
to divert from the exposure of his climate ignorance in an
Australian interview. He could not answer questions about information fundamental to any understanding.
Suzuki abandoned his academic career in genetics decades ago explaining why in a
1999 Seattle speech. His concerns related to the internment of his Japanese Canadian family during WWII. Here are his words:
In the exuberance of the excitement over the discovery of new
principles of heredity - that seemed to apply across the plant and
animal kingdoms - geneticists began to make wonderful, wild statements
about the implications of their discoveries. I'm sure most of you know
that it ultimately led to what was considered a legitimate area of
science called Eugenics.
Some of our most eminent geneticists taught courses in eugenics,
wrote textbooks in eugenics, published articles in eugenics journals.
Eugenics being the attempt to apply the new-found knowledge of heredity
to improve the genetic quality or makeup of human society.
It seems more logical to maintain standing as a geneticist and work to
prevent such drifts occurring. Instead he quit and became a
tele-evangelist using state television (Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation) to push his environmental/political agenda.
His television series became his undoing as a classic example of how
extremism is its own undoing. It's why Suzuki's exploitation of
environmentalism, as he defines it, caused failure. Most programs in the
series were unjustified, misleading condemnations of different
components of society. I identified some of the misinformation in a
presentation to farmers in Saskatchewan a few years ago. Afterward a
woman told me that a month earlier she would have disagreed with my
comments. Now she understood because Suzuki did a program on farming and
as a farmer's wife she knew how wrong and biased it was. Each new
program exposed another segment of society to the deception. This
created a populace open to and not surprised by the exposure of his
hypocrisies. The same is happening to climate alarmism as more and more
segments of society are negatively affected. His actions and climate
driven energy policies close industries, decimate communities, cause job
losses and force business closures, virtually all unnecessarily.
As Suzuki's campaign to use environmentalism for a political agenda
fails he lashes out, blaming others for the failure. It parallels what
is happening in the climate alarmist community. The comments and claims
become more extreme, but achieve the opposite of their goal.
It
is necessary to consider the further negative effects of their
exploitation and deceptions. What is the damage to the credibility of
science? Can we pursue environmentalism with rational, science based, prioritized policies?
Dr. Tim Ball
is a Ph.D. in Climatology from the Queen Mary, University of London and
a former professor of climatology in the Geography Department at the
University of Winnipeg until his retirement in 1996. He is an
environmentalist, public speaker, consultant, author and columnist.
