Canada's leading global warming/climate change spokesperson, David Suzuki, openly suggested imprisoning politicians who don't adhere to the global warming/climate change agenda.
In early February, Suzuki was an invited speaker at Montreal's McGill University Business Conference on Sustainability. While lecturing to a crowd of 600, Suzuki called on Canada to balance its environmental and financial interests, negatively referring to the booming Alberta oil-sands development. Suzuki also suggested that his audience engage in a more radical action, jailing politicians who oppose the global warming agenda. Describing such men as committing an "intergenerational crime," Suzuki exhorted the McGill crowd toward legal methods of eco-fascism:
What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because they're doing a criminal act.(2)"It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years," explained Suzuki. Calgary Herald commentator, Licia Corbella, saw through the rhetoric:
Notice how he didn't say 25 or 30 years ago. Know Why? Because 25 years ago this prophet of perdition was predicting that Earth was doomed to plunge into another ice age! Cooling was a catastrophe and now warming is a catastrophe. He should make up his mind.(3)I wonder what Al Gore was thinking 25 years ago?(Steve)
Al Gore, producer of An Inconvienient Truth and David Suzuki are incorrect in their global warming assumptions. The global warming craze is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy.
Global warming is not caused by man's increased production of "green house gases", ie increased production of carbon dioxide due to excessive burning of fossil fuels. The increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result of increasing temperatures in the oceans caused by increased solar radiation activity (cosmic wind) as evidenced by sunspot activity. Increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere lag global temperature increases by decades if not centuries and therefore do not cause global temperature increases.
For an in depth discussion of trends in climate change, its causes and fallacies of the Gore Suzuki doomsday model please visit junkscience.com (All the Junk That"s Fit to Debunk.)
From the junkscience website we learn that:
On the matter of Earth's recent climate history, it is implausible that despite variance in solar irradiance Earth has had a stable temperature for the last 1,000-2,000 years. History instructs us this is not so, literature tells us this is not so, and a large spectrum of paleotemperature reconstructions tell us this is not so. USA Today and the hokey "Hockey Stick" representations are obviously wrong, regardless of how politically correct their concept of human culpability might be.The hokey "Hockey Stick" temperature change graph referred to here is a graph published by USA today which is often used by doomsday climate change advocates to justify the kyoto protocol and other drastic international legal measures to reduce "green house" gases. The hockey stick graph has been proven wrong.
Regarding whether Earth has really warmed to some extent, regardless of our ability to accurately determine it? Yep, we have no problem with that. We have seen nothing compelling regarding Earth's current suspected temperature trend being anything extraordinary nor alarming but we have no reason to believe Earth's mean temperature is not changing, or that it does not do so continuously -- frankly, temperature stasis is a myth.For an excellent review of global trends in temperature change and a discussion of methods of analysis please view the following video. Global Warming Doomsday Called Off. For a full screen version of the video click here.
Does increasing carbon dioxide affect Earth's mean temperature? Yes, although probably only trivially and to a declining extent. Note that Professor Pielke, Sr., freely admits carbon dioxide to be a less-than-critical factor necessitating obsession and he is a senior and well-respected pure scientist who does not subscribe to the planetary emergency scenario.
Increased solar activity? Absolutely and at least half of Earth's estimated mean temperature increment since the Nineteenth Century can be attributed to increased solar irradiance, probably more than four-fifths is from that source although we are still trying to sort out climate and forcings, something which will likely require decades yet. Nonetheless, the best available thermometric temperature records list Earth's global mean temperature as variance from a commencing benchmark average, usually 1951-1980 or 1961-90, and show -0.3 °C c1880 or 1870, with 0.0 °C variance from this average occurring c1940 and with 2000 listed as +0.3 °C. In other words, Earth warmed 0.3 °C from origin of record to benchmark average by 1940, then warmed another 0.3 °C subsequently. Since the vast majority of the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere occurred following the Second World War and this is concurrent with only half the apparent temperature increase, the assumption is that this increase was driven by some other cause, in this case the increase in solar irradiance. There is no reason to believe all other temperature varying forces ceased to exist when carbon dioxide began accumulating, hence the "at least half" attribution above.
Are we looking at a looming disaster from carbon dioxide emissions? There is absolutely zero indication of that. Although human emission of carbon dioxide has likely had some measurable effect on planetary temperature the effect from continued emission is rapidly diminishing as radiative windows in which carbon dioxide is active approach saturation. Before long carbon dioxide emission will have exactly no discernable effect on global temperature.
Can we have significant effect on global temperature trend by limiting future carbon dioxide emission? No -- no equivocation and no argument entertained, allusion to "control" of the planetary thermostat by tweaking minor parameters is a nonsense.
Do we face a planetary emergency precipitated by carbon dioxide emissions? No, there is zero evidence that such a scenario might be true.
Do we believe a warmer world would be worse than a cooler world? No, quite the reverse since a cooler world would make feeding the current population significantly more difficult, far more so the anticipated increasing population of the next generation or so. If there is to be a change in global mean temperature then warmer is distinctly preferable to cooler.
Frankly USA Today have made a nonsense of "global warming" and we don't know what planet Ozone Al is on but he apparently has no idea about this one or its climate.
This article may be reproduced WITHOUT CHANGE and in its entirety for non-commercial and non-political purposes. thechristianobserver.blogspot.com
(1) "Canada's Eco-Fascism", Fast Facts On World Change Hope For The World Update, Spring 2008,p. 12, Noblesville, Indiana.
(2) Craig Offman, "Suzuki jail talk draws fire." National Post, online edition[www.nationalpost.com], February 8, 2008.
(3) Licia Corbella, "Suzuki's dragnet can't keep real science behind bars," Calgary Herald, online edition, February 9, 2008.