David Suzuki Loses His Mind

Has David Suzuki really lost his mind? Not being a PhD in Psychology or Psychiatry, who am I to say.

Representing the mainstream of eco-alarmism, and certainly as a cheerleader for the notion of catastrophic, human caused, climate change, Suzuki is indicative of one thing; the Climate alarmists fear campaign is failing. Miserably.

Evidence for the ongoing failure of such alarmist cries is evidenced in the title of Suzuki’s latest Blog at HuffPo Canada. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-suzuki/climate-change-denial_b_1325198.html

Suzuki logic (logic you say?): When your advocacy fails, advocate for the loss of Universal Human Rights for those with whom you disagree.

Can anyone with a modicum of rational thinking actually deny that Suzuki is advocating for the most illiberal and reactionary of measures? Could it be denied that Suzuki is exclaiming the need to curtail freedom of speech and expression? Is it possible to deny that these are rhetorical questions? The answers, to some people, may not seem rhetorical and Suzuki has a host of followers that would blindly rally behind such nonsense.

Suzuki has won two awards from the UN, the UNESCO prize for science, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) medal and is named one of UNEPs Global 500 laureates.  Suzuki also endorses UN environmental capaigns and meetings.

Since Suzuki  is more than willing to be honoured by and to praise the UN, why does he appear to disdain a portion of the preamble from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Specifically the second paragraph of the preamble.

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, [emphasis added]

Companion of the Order of Canada

As Suzuki is a Canadian citizen, he has been awarded the 125th Anniversary of Canadian Confederation Commemorative Medal, and is a Companion of the Order of Canada. Both awards are tied to the Canadian Federal Government.

If Suzuki has no problems being endorsed by agencies of the Canadian federal government, what purpose could he have in taking a supercilious tone with the Canadian constitution?

Part 1, section 2, subheading (b) of the Candadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that citizens have:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; [emphasis added]

It seems incredible that Suzuki wishes to challenge key aspects of two documents which billions of people worldwide are happy to have or aspire to enjoy for themselves.

As for the question of Suzuki’s sanity…

If Suzuki and his fellow alarmists have all the pertinent, undeniable information to show humanity the error of it’s global warming ways, they should have convinced the vast majority of humanity by now.  He claims there is no debate about this issue.

The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. … The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate.

Of great confusion, in light of the last quote, Suzuki ends his blog post with the following nugget:

Armed with credible information, we can challenge those who misrepresent science, and spread confusion. If nothing else, we’ll be able to breathe easier!

I, unlike Suzuki, do not have a PhD but find his contradiction to be worrisome. If I can see the the double-think he displays so obviously, why can’t he, a man of high honours and streams of awards see his own cognitive dissonance? Suzuki certainly needs to challenge his own confusion. I’m still not certain if he has lost his mind but flags have now gone up.

The substance of Suzuki’s blog is immaterial and reads like a laundry list of of the same dredged up arguments against skepticism, all of which he assuredly takes at face value. The key portions of his blog are the bookends; the title and concluding sentence. Compared, they do tend to read like the rantings of someone with cognitive issues.

Suzuki's newest weapon of choice.

More frightening overall is Suzuki’s apparent ‘disregard and contempt for human rights.’ Freedom of speech is meant to protect uncomfortable opinions that challenge us to think, whether we like it or not. It is also meant to protect those who may otherwise be under the weight of authoritarian control or the pressure of popular belief. His call is for the use of a double-edged sword, which may seem appealing when you think you have the high ground. However when the ground shifts, you can easily get cut and more deeply than you think possible.

Sadly, Suzuki at age six was forced into a Japanese internment camp during WWII, which today could likely be considered a human  rights violation. How odd that now he would  grab attention with a call to violate human rights.  That carries more true alarm that any of what his opponents have to say.

Posted in Eco-Contardiction | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peter Gleick Blames the Rape Victim

Is the title of this Blog post fair to the actuality of what Peter Gleick did (or did not do?)

Before we get to that, a little background for the uninformed, ignorant or otherwise abstracted individuals.

Earlier this month documents were apparently ‘leaked’ from an ‘insider’ at a Libertarian think tank called The Heartland Institute. They are a relatively small operation focused on free-market issues with an annual budget not exceeding 7 Million US dollars as of this date. Even so, they are very well run and efficient in their campaigns, which like it or not, may be a testament to their free-market ideals.

The leaked documents purported to show nefarious undertakings by Heartland to muddy the waters and sow confusion, in a concerted ‘war on science.’ At least that’s how leftist/progressive/environmentalists always suspected (or wished) Heartland acts would act to undermine the much ballyhooed ‘consensus of global warmingclimate change, climate disruption’ to which the inevitable outcome is nearly nothing less than planetary ecocide.

The leak however turned out to be fraud and misrepresentation by none other than Peter Gleick, a Hydroclimatologist, global warming alarmist and co-founder of the Pacific Institute. Some of Gleick’s notable awards have had such humble titles as “Visionary on the Environment,” “Genius Award” and “Visionary: A Catalyst for an Enlightened Future.”

Gleick admitted his criminal resposibility in the affair. Ironically Gleick was the Chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics.

Arch global warming alarmists have lauded Gleick as a whistle blower, only at the task of rewriting every dictionary known to man. Such is their heavy burden.

For a run down on the whole affair with links to multiple sources visit this page at Anthony Watts site, Watts Up With That. Regardless of your views on Watts and his site you will find the widest breadth of analysis and reportage on this issue.

So just how is Gleick blaming the rape victim here?

One must understand that most global warming proponents are of a modern leftists bent. I doubt that revelation is hardly new. However, these people generally believe that anyone challenging their environmental views must be any combination of the following:                1) conservative  2) uneducated  3) anti-science  4) creationist  5) of low IQ,  6) on the payroll of ‘big oil.’  7) you fill in the ______ here.

The leftist intolerance of climate change skepticism is greatly at odds with the leftist tolerance of myriad ideologies, including those that would seek to end western/modern civilization as we know it.

One of the sacred cows of of modern leftist ideology is the  zero tolerance position taken for any remark that a rape victim may have had some fault in their rape.

Seriously deluded aspects of environmentalism and feminism can be found in the tailor made ideology of ecofeminism.

The key portion relative to this blog of Gleick’s admission of guilt is quoted as follows:

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

We must understand from that statement that Gleick is at a minimum paranoid and believed in what amounts to a conspiracy theory. If his belief were self-evident through the use of facts, what need would he have to make such a preposterous statement?

So imagine if a rapist had said in his own defense:

My judgment was blinded by my frustration of feminisms ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well funded and coordinated — to attack men’s sexuality and manhood, emasculating us, and by the lack of accountability of the women involved.

You would likely consider such a claim to be lunacy would you not? Not unless you inhabbit an upside-down world of belief driven self-satisfaction and do-goodery devoid of convincing evidence.

This is the reality of people like Gleick.

Posted in Eco-Crime | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment