A plea for the planet by a great geneticist

[Flash]

David Suzuki, a nature advocate and a great geneticist, (in my opinion should have had the Nobel price), is pleading for the planet.

He talks with all the statistics and much knowledge about what is happening with nature and the planet.

He plead to the retired businessman and CEO to tell the truth, since they have nothing to lose anymore and great wisdom to impart.

He plead governments to give the same impetus to changing the pollution as was given to going to the moon.

He says that stat are now telling that we have only a 5% chance not to have increase in weather of more than 2 degrees, which in itself is catastrophic.

For those who did not believe in planet warming, I must tell that now the stats are out in Canada and Canada is warming up at twice the rate of the rest of the world.

There is a definite warming, and northern regions are the first to see it. Which is what should be. Here, although we had a cold winter, last summer was so hot and humid in Montreal that the paint would not stick to the roads and lanes could not be redone (I asked my mayor why they did not do the job, it was the answer).

He says that we barely have 50% of chance to survive up to 2100, us, the human specie. He cannot believe we don't have love enough for our children to demand again and again to government to invest in protecting our specie, to force them to do it,

Then he shows some solutions, but not enough if investments are not in.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktnAMTmgOX0.

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:

Are we talking about the same "David Suzuki"? The David Suzuki you are talking about was around about 40 years ago. Since then he sold out to foreign cash and has a huge eco foot print that most Canadians couldn't compete with if they even tried.
I thought I would just type his name into a search engine and the first article says it all

https://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/my-unexpected-encounter-with-david-suzuki-1.html

So much for someone that might have? Should have? Probably deserved a Nobel Prize 40 years ago or more BUT he sold out to money and fame.

Come to think of it it is the same "David Suzuki"
chancy

[Dennis Leahy]

Hello Everyone:

Are we talking about the same "David Suzuki"? The David Suzuki you are talking about was around about 40 years ago. Since then he sold out to foreign cash and has a huge eco foot print that most Canadians couldn't compete with if they even tried.
I thought I would just type his name into a search engine and the first article says it all

https://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/my-unexpected-encounter-with-david-suzuki-1.html

So much for someone that might have? Should have? Probably deserved a Nobel Prize 40 years ago or more BUT he sold out to money and fame.

Come to think of it it is the same "David Suzuki"
chancy
chanccy, this is a great example of killing the messenger. Give the interview a listen, note the 4 sacred things mentioned - our common ground with humanity at the most basic biological level.

[Flash]

Hello Everyone:

Are we talking about the same "David Suzuki"? The David Suzuki you are talking about was around about 40 years ago. Since then he sold out to foreign cash and has a huge eco foot print that most Canadians couldn't compete with if they even tried.
I thought I would just type his name into a search engine and the first article says it all

https://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/my-unexpected-encounter-with-david-suzuki-1.html

So much for someone that might have? Should have? Probably deserved a Nobel Prize 40 years ago or more BUT he sold out to money and fame.

Come to think of it it is the same "David Suzuki"
chancy

He sold out to women for sure lollll. But to money and fame? Even if he had local fame (pretty much only in Canada, who knows him in USA?), he made incredibly good vulgarisation of science for 40 years. On tv maybe, but it was the way to reach people at the time.

Listen to the video, the content is quite good. Do not throw the baby with the bath water.

Now, that global warming comes from our activities or from the sun or from a new place we are passing through in the universe becomes irrelevant if we have to protect our specie against global warming consequences.

Truth still have to be told and drastic measures taken. That is what he iscalling for, and on this I agree.

[Flash]

Hello Everyone:

Are we talking about the same "David Suzuki"? The David Suzuki you are talking about was around about 40 years ago. Since then he sold out to foreign cash and has a huge eco foot print that most Canadians couldn't compete with if they even tried.
I thought I would just type his name into a search engine and the first article says it all

https://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/my-unexpected-encounter-with-david-suzuki-1.html

So much for someone that might have? Should have? Probably deserved a Nobel Prize 40 years ago or more BUT he sold out to money and fame.

Come to think of it it is the same "David Suzuki"
chancy
chanccy, this is a great example of killing the messenger. Give the interview a listen, note the 4 sacred things mentioned - our common ground with humanity at the most basic biological level.

Yes it is killing the messenger.

One should ask oneself the following: is it because I come from a state/province which is a main supplier of petroleum that I have been consciously or unconsciously pushed to be against anybody proposing causes and/or solutions that would destroy that petroleum industry?

In other words Chancy, is there any chance that your drastic thinking would be due to family, friends or your province being against him for talking against the petroleum industry which is THE main industry in Alberta?

As Suzuki himself described in this video when meeting with a close minded Petroleum CEO most probably who wanted to shut him up.

Ok found his net worth: 25 millions Can dollars (anout 18-20 US). For producing 40 years of science programs, articles and research.

This is much less than any such production career in the USA or in Europe. What are you talking about. Anderson Coopers has more and is just an anchorman, not a creator of anything.

NOW can we listen to the message before falling into silt (intended wording :heh:) ... and doing the petroleum industry destroying job for them, free of charge?

[DeDukshyn]

....

Yes it is killing the messenger.

One should ask oneself the following: is it because I come from a state/province which is a main supplier of petroleum that I have been consciously or unconsciously pushed to be against anybody proposing causes and/or solutions that would destroy that petroleum industry?

...



I was going to make a comment in a similar regard before I noticed the conversation even going this way ... I noticed that people who have a hate for Suzuki tend to have fallen for big corporations propaganda, and have no actual basis for any argument against him. I do hear constantly things like "he flies a jet around the world to speak about environmental issues - therefore he doesn't really care about the environment so therefore he is a fake and we don't need to care about the environment" --- literally stupid weak arguments like this - similar to Facebook meme posters saying things like "If you don't want a billion pipelines running across pristine sacred land then you better stop putting gas in your car or else you are a hypocrite" -- as though the oil in a pipeline somehow becomes gas in my car (it doesn't it gets exported to China in crude form). Its obviously parroted BS because there is no logic or reasoning happening there -- just conflation and BS reasoning that's really stupid.

So I say "bring it" to anyone who's going to use big corp propaganda as reasoning to hate one of the few people left genuinely trying to make a difference for our great grandchildren, and therefore as reasoning to not give 2 craps about the argument, and let's get this straightened out. The truth is the haters have no argument, they just parrot the propaganda put out by big oil and far right political groups.

There is no reason to keep destroying our planet - only our great grand children will suffer -- and suffer they will if things don't change fast ... is this the legacy we want to leave them?

[Flash]

Reposting another of Suzuki's interview video for those who will only look at detrimental posts, without listening to the op video.

This one is only 20 minutes long, can be listened to while doing something else, and is a must to help ourselves, the planet, our children. The basic message remains.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnSicq6Y1lY

Thanks Dennis and Dedukshyn for putting the thread back on track.

[chancy]

Hello Flash and everyone:

Yes it is killing the messenger.
One should ask oneself the following: is it because I come from a state/province which is a main supplier of petroleum that I have been consciously or unconsciously pushed to be against anybody proposing causes and/or solutions that would destroy that petroleum industry?
In other words Chancy, is there any chance that your drastic thinking would be due to family, friends or your province being against him for talking against the petroleum industry which is THE main industry in Alberta?



It's really quite amazing how you are putting words in my mouth Flash!! IF you want to tell the truth which you are not about me then you would know that Alberta implemented some of the harshes cap and trade rules and was the first province in the country to do so.
Furthermore I post an article about Suzuki swearing and going on to a human being asking for a few minutes of his time ( remember you were the one that said he is a great man! Great men don't swear at people for trying to get some honest answers)

I never killed the messenger Flash! I simply gave another perspective of Suzuki. Your own province imports cheap oil from the middle east and you have the audacity to ragged on me for being from Alberta?
This is why the dillusions in Quebec are so one sided...due to transfer payments Quebec has been living off Alberta for decades. That woujld mean that you and your province are part of the problem IF Alberta has been so lacks on it's implementation of the strongest cap and trade rules in the land of Canada.
I personally can tell you that Alberta has nothing to say to You or anyone in the east that buys all their war torn oil from the middle east. Your part of Canada has not come to reality as you are trying to portray Quebec as a poor underdog when in reality it has more to lose from oil and gas than you think.

FLASH: let me be perfectly clear! I was not rerailing your thread. Simply telling truth or is truth not valid in your thread(s)?
FLASH: to actually ask me these ridiculous questions about my character makes me wonder about your character? I am tired of getting ragged on for just stating a truth that you might not like.
Even Suzuki doesn't deny he was rude and many other things to this woman.

By the way you are lying about Alberta being a main supplier of oil. We do not have any oil pipeline to the east. Remember you get your oil from the middle east and have always done so.

IF you want to go after someone like myself at least get your facts correct. I will accept truth BUT you are simply lying....period

chancy

[Flash]

Ok chancy, please leave my thread and let other member the chance to judge by themselve. Thanks

I am not talking of yur caractere, just asking you to ask the question to yourself.

And I did not do Alberta blasting as you are actually doing for Quebec.

Never wrote about Alberta being a main supplier of oil, worlwide it is not, but oil being the main production of Alberta. Sand oil, quite dirty oil for nature. If any comparison is worth it, which in my views it is not -oil is dirty wherever it is from.

The solution is not in oil, but you rather blast the messengers, in this case me included.

So please, leave this thread.

[Justplain]

Although we must do our best to reduce and eliminate pollution, which includes the genetic pollution of GMO and poisoning of the environment with unsustainable fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides, we must remember that Mother Earth has been through warmer periods than we have now (or will have), even only as recently as some of the interglacial periods, where also carbon dioxide levels were considerably higher than now as well. Nature's creatures survived those times. Humanity survived the near extinction event of the great floods (there were apparently more than 1).

Yes, we need to get off the oil/internal combustion engine paradigm, for many reasons, including pollution and marginalizing it's power politics. We likely will overcome these technology problems, and we can contribute to this by voting with our feet and our wallets by supporting the lifestyle choices to get us to a better world. But climate change ain't gonna wipe us out.

[chancy]

Although we must do our best to reduce and eliminate pollution, which includes the genetic pollution of GMO and poisoning of the environment with unsustainable fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides, we must remember that Mother Earth has been through warmer periods than we have now (or will have), even only as recently as some of the interglacial periods, where also carbon dioxide levels were considerably higher than now as well. Nature's creatures survived those times. Humanity survived the near extinction event of the great floods (there were apparently more than 1).

Yes, we need to get off the oil/internal combustion engine paradigm, for many reasons, including pollution and marginalizing it's power politics. We likely will overcome these technology problems, and we can contribute to this by voting with our feet and our wallets by supporting the lifestyle choices to get us to a better world. But climate change ain't gonna wipe us out.


Hello Everyone
Thanks for speaking truth. It appears that only certain people are allowed to speak truth on this thread.
chancy

PS
Flash...speak truth and I will be more than happy to not post in your threads. Continue to bring out slanted and biased views and I will definitely call you out on it.
chancy

[Constance]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktnAMTmgOX0.

Thanks Flash. :inlove:
In this video at 13.08, David Suzuki talks about his visit to Australia in 1989 and how this was a game changer for him. He couldn't believe what we were doing to our Great Barrier Reef.

He revisited Australia a few years later and I went along to one of his talks. What he had to say about our lack of care for Mother Earth weighed heavily on my heart and mind. Actually, it was not what he said that weighed heavily on my heart and mind but how he said it. He was almost begging the people at that talk to reconsider how they lived.

I purchased a book he wrote called Wisdom of our Elders. I devoured that book and forwarded it on to anyone who would read it.

I don't allow to myself to get caught up in any of the debates as to whether climate change is real or not because all around me, it is self-evident that how we are living is not working.

Perhaps we could set aside any differences we have regarding what has been said here and maybe focus on what it is that we do agree upon?

What is it that we do want for each other and ourselves when it comes to Mother Earth and our relationship with her?

I would like to mention two things here that I would consider to be common ground but if anyone disagrees with this list, I am more than happy to alter it to reflect what unites us rather than what divides us.




To be at One with nature
To live in a safe and clean environment



“We're in a giant car heading towards a brick wall and everyones arguing over where they're going to sit”

― David Suzuki

[Flash]

Although we must do our best to reduce and eliminate pollution, which includes the genetic pollution of GMO and poisoning of the environment with unsustainable fertilizers/herbicides/pesticides, we must remember that Mother Earth has been through warmer periods than we have now (or will have), even only as recently as some of the interglacial periods, where also carbon dioxide levels were considerably higher than now as well. Nature's creatures survived those times. Humanity survived the near extinction event of the great floods (there were apparently more than 1).

Yes, we need to get off the oil/internal combustion engine paradigm, for many reasons, including pollution and marginalizing it's power politics. We likely will overcome these technology problems, and we can contribute to this by voting with our feet and our wallets by supporting the lifestyle choices to get us to a better world. But climate change ain't gonna wipe us out.


Hello Everyone
Thanks for speaking truth. It appears that only certain people are allowed to speak truth on this thread.
chancy

PS
Flash...speak truth and I will be more than happy to not post in your threads. Continue to bring out slanted and biased views and I will definitely call you out on it.
chancy

DUH....

this is exactly the same basic message I was trying to get across.

How come when it is Justplain, he is saying the truth, and when it is me, I am not?????? You went on your high horse because you do not like Suzuki and would not give a chance to the thread to develop??? Was that your intent?

I do not want your skewed views, based on what I believe to be based on racism against French Canadian and Quebec, to get involved in my thread. I very rarely bring Quebec versus the Canadian West politics in the forum, I think it is basically stupid and overall destructive. But you do. A few times, always when I wrote some posts or threads.

This is not the first time you do this to me Chancy. I had enough. It is stupid and not needed.

Now, let the thread develop, if it will ever, because you probably gladfully are killing it.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Lesson here: Don't mess with one of Canada's greatest heros.

[DeDukshyn]

... But climate change ain't gonna wipe us out.

Well, considering there is far more to the corporate destruction of our earth than "climate change", then let's just shoot for "massive suffering of humanity on a global scale?" -- that should be a nice balance and protect "the economy"? Besides it won't be me that suffers -- it'll be my great grand kids ... screw them, right?

----------------------------

I don't know why defending the right for our planet to not be continuously destructed and poisoned is impossible these days without someone opposing, defending it, or downplaying it or asking everyone to look the other way in a sense ... why would this be? Do you people really want a slow death for your great grandchildren? Is it always "someone else's problem"?

Why is there defense of the poisoning and destruction of our planet. Two members here literally just did that in two different ways -- one was to attack the messenger (the messenger being Suzuki, not Flash), and dismiss the message (without even hearing it) and the other basically claimed that "destruction of the planet is 'ok' because we have survived other horrific disasters" (paraphrased of course).

Why? Think about it -- neither argument is rational nor reasonable ... almost like a program being parroted without forethought ... without watching the video, without bringing an argument of substance actually on the video topics, just sweeping, broad, thoughtless dismissals ...

If you are one of the ones who don't believe the glaciers are melting and that the earth is warming, that is fine - there's a fair bit of debate in that area, but we should not be so foolish to conflate an uncertainty here with the absolute certainty that we are being incredibly destructive to out planet - our home - our future. There is no doubt over this and please if anyone would like to argue about how environmental issues are none of their concern, please do as has been already asked and start your own thread on that topic. I'm sure it will be a worthwhile read. [/s]


Edit: I just want to add that there is an obvious political bias here when it comes to environmental concerns. It was touched upon when the discussion turned topic turned to "Alberta". I have never seen so much political polarization here in Alberta, and all across Canada as I have recently.

Alberta is "conservative" country - we only have a left leaning government right now because the last party nearly bankrupt the entire province during a potentially extremely lucrutave oil boom - how they managed to do that I have no clue but it was what it was. Most people in Alberta would probably piss on kittens to get their "pipeline" built because they somehow believe it will magically make their lives better. Many people have a massive unconscious alignment here with greedy corporations (due to massive propaganda campaigns that political fanbois spread at command), and those corporations are "oil". Environmental concerns stand in the way of "oil". Viola, you have an immediate emotional reaction against anything concerning the environment because you are either a staunch conservative or "Oil > Earth" is the program. This is basically all of Alberta right now.

Now it looks like I am being a left winger attacking the right, but this is how I see it: having love for the earth, our home, and her creatures is a human thing. Not wanting to live in a cesspool of destruction and despair does not lend itself to "left" or "right". Not wanting to breath cancer and wonder why cancer rates are so high isn't a political issue. Its a human one.

How is it that a political bias can take being "human" out of the human? Why is it that people of a conservative political bias constantly act dismissively of any environmental concern? Can one not be a conservative and have humanity? have balance?

Anyway, I digress ... sorry for the off topic rant. :)

[Ernie Nemeth]

Climate change is not possible to refute, since that is the nature of climate. Unlike global warming which can be argued.

But, to ask me to sacrifice my few dollars and my convenience is to make me the bad guy. Since childhood I have seen this atrocity and understood its agenda.

It is the corporations that owe us the cleanup at their expense. We made them the big successes they are. Now when they are more solvent than our countries and have more influence than our politicians they turn their backs on us.

Like the tobacco companies they should foot the bill for their irresponsible industrial practices.

[Justplain]

Dedukshyn, I went to great length to say that pollution is bad and should be counteracted. I in no way 'downplayed' the significance of pollution. The doomsday fear mongering that is foisted on the average person is what I object to. Ernie makes the point as to who should, or can, do something about the current mess. However, we are not in danger of extinction from this. And I do believe we will solve the problem.

There isn't much most of us can do, other than choosing the least polluting alternative available to us, and those choices are fairly limited. Whose to blame for that can be argued, but it's fairly obvious that wealth and greed are a major factor, just look at what happened to Tesla's work. Rumors are that the black ops military has all the needed tech, but how do we get it?

I don't expect the average person to give up their warm homes to live in cardboard shacks to save the planet from us. However, requiring public policy to invest in helpful tech, and to regulate out bad tech, is the main way this society can achieve this. As well as voting with your wallets.

So, we don't need any soapbox speeches deriding those who have differing points of view than you. It's just childish.

[DeDukshyn]

...

It is the corporations that owe us the cleanup at their expense. .

Perhaps you haven't thought about this much. I agree that a carbon tax seems really stupid - and it mostly is ...

I'll give you Alberta for example, because I live here. The big corporations that are the greatest environmental offenders have plainly said that any action that regulators put on them that causes them to have to spend more money than they want will be passed directly to their sellers, and the consumers. Full stop. Let that sink in ...

There is no way to penalize these companies - they have that much power and control. A massive increase in cost to these industries means that all the prices go up, purchasing power goes dow, economy suffers, Big Corp still makes their profits, but the politicians that applied these penalties gets instantly voted out for ruining the economy and causing inflation. Big Corps just spill out their propoganda and people vote out the government that tried to do exactly what you just said, and a government that chants for more support for big Corps gets voted back in and all the penalties are removed.

That's how politics work when everyone is programmed to see the world in a "left vs right" spectrum.

Alberta was one of the first provinces to have a "carbon tax" but it is a tax on the rich, not on the corporations. The corporations said, "go ahead tax us - and watch your consumers cries when we just pass that cost directly to them - what are going to do then?".

So the government figured that the wealthy are probably the ones gain most form these corporations so let's let the corporations pass all the penalties on to all the consumers, then lets redistribute that money to the less wealthy and middle class in the form of rebates.

The problem is not as easy to solve as you think -- you underestimate the grip over people and voters these large corporations have, the mind bending propaganda that is used by them and their political "buddies".


The ONLY solution is for each of us to sop supporting these companies. Buy a bike, live local, live simple, the only way to take power from these corporations is to find ways to stop giving them power. It will need a critical mass to have any real impact so we all need to talk about this and not sweep it under the rug because someone doesn't like the speaker of whatnot.

You don't have to sacrifice a "few dollars' you just need to live responsibly. Waiting for the government or for these big corporations to actually do something effective will be like waiting for ETs to save us from ourselves .. it ain't happening unless people on the ground - the consumers start making choices that drive home the message.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Dedukshyn, I went to great length to say that pollution is bad and should be counteracted. I in no way 'downplayed' the significance of pollution. The doomsday fear mongering that is foisted on the average person is what I object to. Ernie makes the point as to who should, or can, do something about the current mess. However, we are not in danger of extinction from this. And I do believe we will solve the problem.

There isn't much most of us can do, other than choosing the least polluting alternative available to us, and those choices are fairly limited. Whose to blame for that can be argued, but it's fairly obvious that wealth and greed are a major factor, just look at what happened to Tesla's work. Rumors are that the black ops military has all the needed tech, but how do we get it?

I don't expect the average person to give up their warm homes to live in cardboard shacks to save the planet from us. However, requiring public policy to invest in helpful tech, and to regulate out bad tech, is the main way this society can achieve this. As well as voting with your wallets.

So, we don't need any soapbox speeches deriding those who have differing points of view than you. It's just childish.

I hear you, but to be fair, I was only referring to your comment about the earth having survived other horrible catastrophe's so that means "we'll be fine". It is this type of conflation that is highly detrimental to having an appropriate and reasonable attitude toward the topic.

Not sure why saying that pollution is "bad" takes 'great lengths' to get there ... perhaps my observation wasn't so out of place after all. :)

Also I wasn't arguing against people who have an "opposing view", I was being critical of people who were instantly dismissive in a sweeping generalization, without watching the content of what this thread is about and without offering any sound logical reasoning to back up their views. I expect at least a little of that here on Avalon. I don't mind opposing views, but if the debate can't be even slightly thought out and intelligent - I get critical.

[DeDukshyn]

I was avoiding this thread because, even though I disagreed with the arguments made in the video, the thread title conflated “a plea for the planet” with “a great geneticist”.

The “plea for the planet” is an impassioned emotional plea, a tactic used to divide people into a false dichotomy: either you care for the environment and accept the “plea”, or, you don’t care for the environment and therefore believe in the destruction of it.

I both care for the environment, and reject the arguments he makes. He uses three false examples for why the planet is suffering. If I disagree with the three false assumptions then I am attacked for not caring for the planet.

The title of the thread should maybe be more aptly changed to: A plea for the planet by David Suzuki. or maybe just, An impassioned plea for the planet.

While I don't agree with some of what you wrote, you've came the closest to offering a reasonable opposing view (perhaps you can say why you think his examples are false? - there would be nothing wrong with discussing that), but then you stopped short of explaining your claim ... the issue I am having on this thread is people using their political bias as an argument without a discussion on reasonable points about the topic.

[Flash]

Justplain and Joe, and Dedushkyn, and Ernie, and Constance, this is exactly what I wanted to happen with this thread, that is happening right now, finally.

Both Justplain and Joe you have differing point of views, expressed politely, clearly, and even with a suggestsion from Joe, to which I may listen.

Everyone explain their point of view and how they see what can be done, great. (corrected, was writing on iphone, the keys are too narrow).

Also, starting to find solution is great. For example,
Justplain: However, requiring public policy to invest in helpful tech, and to regulate out bad tech, is the main way this society can achieve this. As well as voting with your wallets.

We all agree that pollution and lack of care for our planet is a problem. From exposing our points of view, which may differ, or not be in accordance with Suzuki (who also think the planet needs less pollution), we open the talk and start seeing further for solutions.

Thanks to all who are directing the thread in a worthwhile discussion.

Personnally, the first thing I would push for is take off the law that make corporation equal to human citizens in their rights, which seem to me utterly wrong and unfair to individuals. No invididual or even groups of people have the finance to fight those corporations. Change the law, making corporations will, needs and behavior subservient to humans, not equal, nor above. Push and lobby politicians to change that law. Make campaigns to make the public aware of this law and to change it.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I wasn't considering the pragmatic situation as it stands today. I merely stated the truth, that corporations created the problem and so they are culpable. Of course all expenses get passed along to consumers, whether right or wrong that is how it is...

The other thing to remember is that corporations no longer price their goods according to cost but accordong to what the market can bear. For that reason, it can be argued that corporations have the room to make reparations without any cost to the consumer. The problem is. Modern accounting that will look at profits before and after and conclude their companies took a hit and lost revenue - revenue they should never have had in the first place.

[James]

Regardless of anyone’s thoughts on mankind-driven climate change, ecological stewardship in a capitalistic society is super important.

On the other side of town, folks kept developing peculiar cancers at relatively young ages. Some investigative work found a local company was disposing of carcinogenic waste in several different wooded areas at night. This got into the ground water, and now miles of my country neighbors are buying their water.

The west side of town had the same issue a few months ago with ethylene oxide emissions from a manufacturing facility that was in violation of state regulations. Lots of cancer cases.

[ThePythonicCow]

Now, that global warming comes from our activities or from the sun or from a new place we are passing through in the universe becomes irrelevant if we have to protect our specie against global warming consequences.
As with diseases of the body, so with diseases of the planet.

The better one understands the true underlying mechanisms and causes of the disease, then the better will one's remedies be.

For example, if global warming is primarily caused by petroleum based energy and chemical industries and uses, then the mechanisms and solutions will be quite different than they would be if global warming is primarily caused by changes in solar system activity.

I suspect that we were seeing above on this thread an energized polarization of people (a favorite tactic of the deep state, in my conspiratorial mind set) between (1) those who observe the grave harm being done to our bodies, our families, our society, our environment, and the life and planet around us, and (2) those who are being harmed by the "solutions" and "cures" being imposed on us to remedy these harms, or who doubt the validity of proposed analysis and offered solutions.

What if the grave harms that we each observe, to ourselves and to life on this planet, are quite real?

What if we are being sold false narratives as to the true causes of those harms?

What if these false narratives are being used to cover up more grievous harms to humanity and to life on this planet?

What if those false narratives are being used to justify false remedies?

What if those false remedies cause us and this planet yet more harm?

What if the polarization that this creates, between (1) those who know first hand and feel deeply these harms, and (2) those who know first hand that the primary remedies being sold us are as fraudulent and harmful as chemotherapy or vaccines ... what if this polarization intrudes on our healthy discussion and better shared understanding of what is really going on?

What if that better understanding is the key to a better future for humanity and for this planet?

How would we conduct a public conversation on these matters if such an understanding was such a key?

[Didgevillage]

"Global warming" is a hoax and a multi-million dollar business.
Scientists, like David Attenborough, can be bought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuudPum21nE

Yes, the Holocene has ended. What's next? Ice Age.

[DeDukshyn]

The ONLY solution is for each of us to stop supporting these companies. Buy a bike, live local, live simple, the only way to take power from these corporations is to find ways to stop giving them power. It will need a critical mass to have any real impact so we all need to talk about this and not sweep it under the rug because someone doesn't like the speaker of whatnot.



I completely agree with you about this statement. Unfortunately, my local “environmental activists” refuse to compromise with me. They hold dogmatic beliefs about CO2 and methane being pollutants and driving climate change - they won’t agree to local and simple living without also penalizing CO2 and methane producers. (i.e. people like David Suzuki)

Just to be extra clear about the danger of including CO2 and methane in any regulatory or political solution - CO2 and methane are natural products of breathing and digestion (human life). One doesn’t have to be very creative to realize how utterly evil and nefarious that kind of legislation could be. It is not a stretch to see how the totalitarian tiptoe would be used to eventually legislate population control (eugenics-another popular topic with my “environmental activists”, but they prefer to call it “overpopulation” ). Grrrr, the agenda is so evil, and most local activists are oblivious to the wider agenda.

I totally see your view, and understand it. But ... I think that just because there is conflation and confusion around what attributes to what poison, and how those poisons effect the earth and its precious life, (our planet is the only thing for maybe a trillion miles or more in any direction (that we know of) that actually has Life on it -- it IS special), doesn't mean we should look the other way or believe out of despair that we cannot do anything about it. In fact, the way I see it, it means we should be more focused on driving the discussion to "what can we do ourselves that we know will make a difference" instead of "well carbon tax is just another tax grab so obviously there's nothing wrong with the environment" -- which is a very prevalent attitude.

Just because governments won't or can't do what is needed, just because industry won't or can't do what is needed, doesn't mean we should lash out against people who genuinely just feel a massive connection to the spirit of nature and the pain being felt. This is happening right now. What we need to do is guide the dialogue to "what can we do personally?" -- political bias, "taxes", corporate interference, don't even need to be a part of that conversation.

And thanks for discussing specific points with a bit of thought out reasoning without just parroting some propaganda I've already heard. :)

[DeDukshyn]

...
What if these false narratives are being used to cover up more grievous harms to humanity and to life on this planet?
...


When the concern over environmental toxins, airborn and food based carcinogens, massive destruction of vital rainforests for meat farming reasons, massive oil spills, etc. was entirely replaced with a single concern "carbon", then the misdirection has had the effect it likely was intended to have in the first place.

I'd wager the intended effect (by some of the players) was to take eyes entirely off those valid concerns above and replace it with a concern that could a) be dismissed as not provable, and b) would cause divide so that people would attack each other instead of the originators (some pf the "players" I referred to)

So it looks like its working, as no one seems to care about drowning in poisons and pollution now that "carbon" has stolen the entire show ... as I suspect was intended.

We need to stop falling for all the BS - not just the part that they could care less if we fall for or not, while embracing the part they wanted us to embrace. The part that takes our eyes off the real and immediate problems.

[Constance]

I suspect that we were seeing above on this thread an energized polarization of people (a favorite tactic of the deep state, in my conspiratorial mind set) between (1) those who observe the grave harm being done to our bodies, our families, our society, our environment, and the life and planet around us, and (2) those who are being harmed by the "solutions" and "cures" being imposed on us to remedy these harms, or who doubt the validity of proposed analysis and offered solutions.

What if the grave harms that we each observe, to ourselves and to life on this planet, are quite real?

What if we are being sold false narratives as to the true causes of those harms?

What if these false narratives are being used to cover up more grievous harms to humanity and to life on this planet?

What if those false narratives are being used to justify false remedies?

What if those false remedies cause us and this planet yet more harm?

What if the polarization that this creates, between (1) those who know first hand and feel deeply these harms, and (2) those who know first hand that the primary remedies being sold us are as fraudulent and harmful as chemotherapy or vaccines ... what if this polarization intrudes on our healthy discussion and better shared understanding of what is really going on?

What if that better understanding is the key to a better future for humanity and for this planet?

How would we conduct a public conversation on these matters if such an understanding was such a key?

Right on point there Paul. I like how you are thinking about this. How do we conduct a public conversation if such an understanding was such a key?

In the words of Einstein, what I think is that "We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them."

If we are to have any chance of succeeding in this business, it feels as if we need to find another way, maybe even a way that has never been thought of before to start this process.

For the longest time, we've had all the biggest, best and brightest minds working on all of this and yet despite all our best and current efforts, things are only getting worse and not better.
Despite all the information we have, we have been unable to form a clear concensus around what is really happening.
As John Naisbitt once said, "We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge".

The issue that we have is that people have not been ready, willing or able to, up until now, to set aside anything that we cannot agree upon or do not find relevant - and seek to truly understand what it is that we want for ourselves and each other.

[Justplain]

Ok, if you want research that debunks climate change and CO2 levels fake science, then here you go. As well, Flash has asked for lifestyle alternatives, and here are some.

1) 'Climate Change' claims refuted:

a) Carbon Dioxide Levels

Carbon Dioxide levels in the past have been much higher than now. Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a “CO2 famine” and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/


b) Temperature and Climate Forecasting Errors

Here's a short (14 min.) take from an hour interview with one of the leading research experts in the world who identifies that the climate prediction computer models are faulty, and that the best one, Russian, is not used because it doesn't give the desired results. This short clip misses the part where he tells us that the scientists have to produce the desired results or they lose their funding because the government is the only ones interested in this research.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5851667173001/?playlist_id=5736530682001#sp=show-clips


2) Independent Living:

a) Foam Cement is “the BEST building material in the world.”

“It is an ultra light masonry product weighing only 1/5 of the weight of ordinary concrete,” “It is composed of 1 part water, 1 part cement (which is powdered or ground limestone), 1 part non toxic dish soap. The detergent is foamed using air from a compressor and a pump or motor to agitate the mixture (I use a conventional drill and paint mixer to blend it all together and it works fine). The expansion of trapped materials results in ”air” or oxygen molecules which comprise the majority of the material (I believe close to 80%) upon expansion.”

“it’s fire proof, water proof, insulating, bulletproof, earthquake proof, hurricane and monsoon proof, impervious to insects, rodents provides acoustic insulation and is 100% free of toxic of harmful substances, which makes it 100% biodegradable and completely recyclable. It is all natural and produces no by products. Also, as if it weren’t’ enough, it won’t rot, rust, corrode, warp under cold or heat or otherwise decompose in at least 30 years for my home so far.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=llsQL2bPWqY


b) Hempcrete homes are a good use for industrial cannibis:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/bowen-island-company-makes-tiny-homes-made-of-hemp-1.3872979

c) Urban farming:

The Dervaes' urban homestead is sustainable and dense. They grow and raise 400 varieties of vegetables, fruits, and edible flowers that amount to about 6,000 pounds of food a year, enough to feed the family with surplus left over to sell. Fresh eggs from chickens round out their diet.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAnBGHhjAc

[AutumnW]

"Global warming" is a hoax and a multi-million dollar business.
Scientists, like David Attenborough, can be bought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuudPum21nE

Yes, the Holocene has ended. What's next? Ice Age.

Global warming hoax hoax perpetuated by multi trillion dollar oil and big banking industry. It's likely multi causal but we are playing a very large role. LOVE carbon taxes.

[Constance]

I have been working on this problem for the last 10 years, and outside of “let’s get government to legislate our problems away”, I get no response when it’s time to actually do anything other than something that is beneficial for the individual. Zero collaboration. And that’s why I have concluded this is a generational problem - it will take strategic planning of two to three generations in advance to see any effective change for the better, and likely not until people are really suffering.

So yes, I have homeschooled; taught, designed and practiced permaculture and sustainable living, researched and experienced community living. And the number of people who understand the problem and are willing to tackle it through action = zero

So I’m having some trouble taking any of you seriously.

I have used the quote from Einstein myself many times. I believe it, but it’s just more words. What action do you propose to generate real change?

I have many ideas of my own, but why share until there is the intelligence and wisdom to actually influence real change. Until then I’m resigned to do my best as an individual to set an example as best as I can - it’s a sad solitary existence but I just don’t see the level of commitment from this group or anything others I’ve been a part of.

How many here participate because of its entertainment value - we like talking about ufo’s and all things paranormal, etc., but is that it?

Maybe in 20-50 years (generations) minimum, in my way of thinking, there will be the ability to start reversing the damage. But I think even that is being optimistic. We are much more likely being in a lockdown AI artificial construct by then.

There was a fun sounding Avalon meetup in Nevada. But aside from entertainment value, what was accomplished? Any strategic planning and/or rituals setting anything remotely approaching the annual Bilderberg meetings?

Who will rise to the challenge to do more than talk?



People need to be willing, able, have the capacity and have the capability to respond.

This has been my call to action for about the last decade :). I'm beginning to sound like a broken record which means that my call to action might not be relevant to anyone! This is important to note because it means that if what I have to say is not relevant, it means that I need to go back to the drawing board.

We gather together the largest round table the earth has ever seen and work together on the overall solution to humanities plight. But in order to do this, we need to first be able to agree on what direction we want to take, otherwise, where are we heading? So in order for us to agree on which direction we need to take, we need to firstly work out what we want for ourselves and each other. The common ground, the common-passion if you like.

[ThePythonicCow]

we need to firstly work out what we want for ourselves and each other. The common ground, the common-passion if you like.
What we want ... and what we have, what is true about the circumstances and world we find ourselves sharing.

[DeDukshyn]

I have been working on this problem for the last 10 years, and outside of “let’s get government to legislate our problems away”, I get no response when it’s time to actually do anything other than something that is beneficial for the individual. Zero collaboration. And that’s why I have concluded this is a generational problem - it will take strategic planning of two to three generations in advance to see any effective change for the better, and likely not until people are really suffering.

Maybe in 20-50 years (generations) minimum, in my way of thinking, there will be the ability to start reversing the damage. But I think even that is being optimistic.

Hi Joe,

You can't change others, so getting frustrated when they don't change is futile and only detrimental to yourself. It may take 20 years to get the proper awareness, yes. But it may take 100 if we all give up with poor attitudes.

What I find helps people to change is to not try to change them, but just merely and consistently share what you do and why it gives you benefit / satisfaction, with others. If you do it right, you'll pique someone's curiosity and then the seed will start to grow. You can't shove saplings down people's throats - they will not accept that, but if you can get in just one tiny seed, you never know when that seed will start to grow within them. This is how the world will change - force doesn't work, and some time will be needed.

Keep up the good fight! :)


I agree that conflating the carbon argument with any environmental concern is detrimental to progress, but it is why I often write stern sounding posts to make distinct again that it doesn't matter what one thinks about "carbon" or "climate change" - the world is getting in pretty rough shape due to humans in so many areas, and no one can deny that.

I'm not the biggest fan of Schwarzenegger the governer, but he had an excellent speech trying to highlight the same - about how the real problem isn't whether climate is heating or cooling, the real problem is the distraction that argument applies while mass destruction continues on in other ways.

For a conservative, he had a pretty appropriate view on global and local environmental issues. That's a quality I like to see in a conservative politician.

[Didgevillage]

Late Professor Bob Carter (James Cook University, Australia) said :Saying "CO2 causes global warming" is like saying "Lung cancer causes smoking."
He found that throughout long geological history, there was always a slight increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (long before industrialization) after a warming, not the other way round.
He was a geologist, so he knew what he was talking about. Not like David Attenborough or somebody whose speciality is something else.
Climate has ALWAYS been changing, period.

[DeDukshyn]

Late Professor Bob Carter (James Cook University, Australia) said :Saying "CO2 causes global warming" is like saying "Lung cancer causes smoking."
He found that throughout long geological history, there was always a slight increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (long before industrialization) after a warming, not the other way round.
He was a geologist, so he knew what he was talking about. Not like David Attenborough or somebody whose speciality is something else.
Climate has ALWAYS been changing, period.

And exactly to my point above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106568-A-plea-for-the-planet-by-a-great-geneticist&p=1285499&viewfull=1#post1285499)... seems like a good reason to dismiss the destruction of our planet, doesn't it? This is how well it works - you can spell it out right in front of people's faces and they still will redirect the conversation to a pointless argument in dismissiveness of all the harm that is being caused our planet.

[Didgevillage]

Global warming/cooling and environmental pollution are apples and oranges.

It is the human arrogance that it is the master of this planet and can change it anyway to suit its needs.
It is actually the other way round. Humans may have been give the task of a care-taker, but not the master.

It is worthwhile to note that "global warming" was a perfect excuse to build nuclear power plants, the worst destroyer of the environment. Can you say Fukushima?

[DeDukshyn]

Global warming/cooling and environmental pollution are apples and oranges.


Indeed they are. Here's my point again. You can't discuss oranges without everyone instantly and often inappropriately turning the argument to apples - like you just did - ignored oranges to spew about apples. They've got you and everyone else by the balls and no one even realizes it. Its a program that runs automatically, without the victim even being aware what they are doing.

[onawah]

Bumping this :bump: It couldn't be more clear. Thanks DeDukshyn.




...
What if these false narratives are being used to cover up more grievous harms to humanity and to life on this planet?
...


When the concern over environmental toxins, airborn and food based carcinogens, massive destruction of vital rainforests for meat farming reasons, massive oil spills, etc. was entirely replaced with a single concern "carbon", then the misdirection has had the effect it likely was intended to have in the first place.

I'd wager the intended effect (by some of the players) was to take eyes entirely off those valid concerns above and replace it with a concern that could a) be dismissed as not provable, and b) would cause divide so that people would attack each other instead of the originators (some pf the "players" I referred to)

So it looks like its working, as no one seems to care about drowning in poisons and pollution now that "carbon" has stolen the entire show ... as I suspect was intended.

We need to stop falling for all the BS - not just the part that they could care less if we fall for or not, while embracing the part they wanted us to embrace. The part that takes our eyes off the real and immediate problems.

[onawah]

Speaking for myself (and I suspect for other Avalonians of a certain age as well, though they are certainly able to speak for themselves), when I was younger and fitter, I was actively participating in things like intentional community, organic gardening, living close to the land, etc.
Now, at 70 years of age, the best I can do is network as much credible and useful information that I can about various critical issues, in hopes that Avalon is read enough and influential enough to do more than "preach to the choir", but to reach people who need access to such information.
If I was younger and fitter, I would be living in an intentional, sustainable community, and doing what I could to help that movement flourish.
It feels to me like organized governments are failures and Thomas Jefferson may have rightly foreseen a future, when the current paradigm collapses, where most people are living not in cities, but in more agrarian communities.
I think cities are not a healthy environment for living things, and humans are not grounded, balanced or even sane when they have lost their connection to Nature.


I have been working on this problem for the last 10 years, and outside of “let’s get government to legislate our problems away”, I get no response when it’s time to actually do anything other than something that is beneficial for the individual. Zero collaboration. And that’s why I have concluded this is a generational problem - it will take strategic planning of two to three generations in advance to see any effective change for the better, and likely not until people are really suffering.

So yes, I have homeschooled; taught, designed and practiced permaculture and sustainable living, researched and experienced community living. And the number of people who understand the problem and are willing to tackle it through action = zero

So I’m having some trouble taking any of you seriously.

I have used the quote from Einstein myself many times. I believe it, but it’s just more words. What action do you propose to generate real change?

I have many ideas of my own, but why share until there is the intelligence and wisdom to actually influence real change. Until then I’m resigned to do my best as an individual to set an example as best as I can - it’s a sad solitary existence but I just don’t see the level of commitment from this group or anything others I’ve been a part of.

How many here participate because of its entertainment value - we like talking about ufo’s and all things paranormal, etc., but is that it?

Maybe in 20-50 years (generations) minimum, in my way of thinking, there will be the ability to start reversing the damage. But I think even that is being optimistic. We are much more likely being in a lockdown AI artificial construct by then.

There was a fun sounding Avalon meetup in Nevada. But aside from entertainment value, what was accomplished? Any strategic planning and/or rituals setting anything remotely approaching the annual Bilderberg meetings?

Who will rise to the challenge to do more than talk?

[Didgevillage]

Global warming/cooling and environmental pollution are apples and oranges.


Indeed they are. Here's my point again. You can't discuss oranges without everyone instantly and often inappropriately turning the argument to apples - like you just did - ignored oranges to spew about apples. They've got you and everyone else by the balls and no one even realizes it. Its a program that runs automatically, without the victim even being aware what they are doing.

It is an assumption that human activities --- be it industrialization or cows belching --- cause global warming.

Climate always changes while chemtrails and HAARP will probably precipitate the arrival of Ice Age glacial.

Greenland was warm and green about 1,000 years ago and Vikings settled there and lived there for generations, doing agriculture (with cows), until the earth climate cooled and the Viking descendants were forced back to Norway.

The Industrial Revolution may have turned major cities in England black, but it's a child play compared with the radioactive pollution caused by the nuclear industry, under the mantra of "clean energy" "zero CO2 emission" "carbon footprint" blah blah

[pyrangello]

The apples / oranges adaptation is a good one. One the one hand, do we cause large earthquakes,volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, or have hand in the permafrost melting from below to the surface. Nope.

On the other hand do we fail as good stewards of taking care of the earth? Pollution in the ocean, spraying of chemicals in the sky and earth, the burning of the amazon rain forest, the nuclear pollution and disasters , the use of chemical, atomic, or conventional weapons , and the steadfast movement of staying dependent on fossil fuels. We are getting a Grade A for that. A for the Axxhole award.

I am encouraged at the new efforts being put forward from the younger generation and the amount of people that want to put forward an initiative to clean up this mess and start preserving what a beautiful place this is. Technology and young innovative thinking may be the savior combined with the dying off of the old narrow minded ego driven for greed at any costs thinking individuals in power who thrive on that position as that mentality has become an obsolete way of thinking and is unsustainable .

If there was a time for the United Nations to do something , my suggestion is that they put together an approach of enforcement thru out the global community.

1) Compile a list of the top 10 countries polluting the oceans and set up a global initiative for managed landfill sites.
2) Put a complete halt to the burning of the amazon rain forest now and create programs for alternative means of income in these areas even if we have to subsidize this for a while.
3)Embrace those with ideas of cleaning the oceans and act with reinforcements.
4)Put together a plan to contain the Fukoshima reactor as was done with Chernobyl by some 19 countries in the newest containment vessel.
5) Start a long term plan of shutting down all nuclear reactors, it takes 40 years of constant cooling even if a reactor is shut down FYI. And shift to alternative sources or less hazardous.
6)Broadcast every 3 months the progress being made in all areas of this initiative and set up a fund where donations can be accepted on a worldwide scale. You may be surprised.

So many of us on this earth do not want to leave behind a mess for future generations, we just need to have a point of entry to focus all of our energy and resources to make this happen.

And for something to really contemplate here is a 3 minute narrative by Charlton Heston that really gives food for thought- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO-LvxMscYg

[Flash]

A timely (for this thead) release of a Canadian film

24 Davids, the film maker took 24 men named David throughout the world to describe their environments, their earth and social challenges they have to live through, the approaches of science and human creativity that could help, to help the whole planet.

Sight for the planet, as in this movie, should probably encompass minutiae details up to overall global understanding of what is going on and the potential solutions.


https://vimeo.com/224206463

I will not be posting this week and for quite a while, please, continue the thread, it is getting very good.

And thanks for all those who want to change personally (in their life and their inner being as well) and collectively to better our planet and make sure we survive.

Basic survival science, in one's own space, transforming Africa


https://vimeo.com/237622371

Very brief comments on the privatization of our common ressources - activism and all


https://vimeo.com/237621631

The science of it


https://vimeo.com/237622087

The psychology - emotional components of it all


https://vimeo.com/237622169

The inventive future for earth, from a scrapyard in Africa


https://vimeo.com/237623344

thanks to all participants in this thread, you are exactly now doing what the thread was first intended for, and thereby helping the world.

We never know from where and how our ideas will be picked up. And applied.

Anyone who has already transformed for the best their living milieu, thank you.

Any of your ideas maybe developed here, it would be great. The thread could also be a pot pourri of ideas or positive opinions, while observing sometimes negative realities, it would be great as well.

PS: I heard of this movie yesterday night, went to check, and it is real good fit for here. I did not know of this gem movie, which got out in February 19. Having known of its existence, I would have started the thread with this. Thanks to my personal friend in Montreal who brought it to my attention.

[Sandy123]

Three of your opinions really grabbed my attention and what I think is pertinent to saving our beautiful planet and humanity.
Joe's post - We humans need to CHANGE our ways.
Paul's post - What if these false narratives are being used to cover up more grievous harms.
Onawah - Return to nature.

[Denise/Dizi]

Bumping this :bump: It couldn't be more clear. Thanks DeDukshyn.


[QUOTE=Paul;1285471]
...


I know this is off topic, and I do apologize for that... but I see a lot of people writing that they are "Bumping this".. What does that mean exactly? I am not familiar with what a BUMP is?

And Flash, I will miss you terribly.. I DO hope that you return quickly and contribute in some way, your heartfelt posts do not get lost upon me. This thread, whether disputed for ANY reason, does touch on very serious issues, and if we can get past pointing fingers at motivations, recognize many DO have motivations that aren't good, and actually come together to not only find solutions, but implement them? Then the THREAD was PRICELESS..

Hat's off to you for GOING THERE...

[Didgevillage]

David Suzuki is a fake scientist.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm

[Flash]

David Suzuki is a fake scientist.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm

I do not mind to have Suzuki contested, but please, do not try to destroy this thread, trolling it or blocking any possible discussion, as it has been at the start by some members. The thread has taken a very nice turn, turn that maybe worthwhile for all of us.

Now, as surprising as it is, if Chancy would have given time to the thread to unfold a bit and be able to discuss it, which he did not, trying to kill the thread and its intent instead, I would have said the following:

1. Ideas and science can and should be discussed, nobody has all the answers.
2 Suzuki has good points, maybe we should avoid throwing the baby with the bath water. Lets keep the good points, see what is contested or what could be studied further, right.
3. I am personally in agreement with many part of the article you linked (Note to myself: the article dates from 2000. Much science has been done since 20 past years. This article may not be up to date either, while reproaching Suzuki not to be up to date). I would not go as far as saying he is a fake scientist, although he is certainly a better communication person.
4. David McRea, the article author, is a software consultant, not a science scientist (although some are quite intelligent and understand hard science). Do not forget this. To truly judge someone, often we should have the same level of expertise or work in the same fields. So, if we are not, at least lets judge the intent.

and mostly

5. Lets continue giving our ideas, solutions, always based on as much research as we can, albeit sometimes it is impossible.

6. Lets always look and remind us of the intent of this thread. This is not a thread to destroy others, to stubbornly opiniate (different from having an opinion).

This is an eventual brain storming thread for naming problems and finding potential solutions.

UP to now, it is great what i have read here and I really thanks everyone.

[Flash]

David Suzuki is a fake scientist.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm

I see you’re new here, I don’t know if you’ve seen this other Avalon thread? http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?96561-...Climate-Change...--AKA-Global-Warming--...-is-it-a-scam/page8&highlight=Climate+change

There’s plenty of solid evidence regarding the politics and pseudoscience surrounding climate change on that other thread. For anyone on the fence, it’s a must read.

I feel like this thread is addressing a more subtle question about environmental responsibility. Should we have it? Does it have any effect on the quality of our life?

Exactly, spot on.

[DeDukshyn]

David Suzuki is a fake scientist.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm

No he's not a "fake" scientist - he has B of A in biology and doctorate in zoology -- please take whatever you think you have to one of the climate change threads, or start your own thread. Or stop visiting this one if you have nothing to offer on the sad state of the planet and the elite's program to make fools constantly dismiss that damage and constantly deflecting the conversation to "carbon" or "fake scientis" or whatever deflecting that is being done -- you see when you do that, you are part of the problem- this is exactly what the people who are actually destroying our planet want you to do ... do you work for them knowingly? I tried to make this clear to you already that you are one of the fooled, by continuing to do this even after I directly pointed.

Don't make me do it a third time please.

Please people, I don't think that arguments like "we don't know how much damage is caused by humans so I guess that means we should do nothing for our planet", and "I don't like Suzuki, so I guess there's nothing wrong with our planet" are useful.

How is the destruction of our planet, whether you agree in the carbon thing or not, helped by continuously and consistently shifting the discussion to these things?

Is Suzuki Infallible? No of course not, just like you ...

Cancers are still on the rise, 1000's of hectares of forest are cleared every day, for destructive mass farming and oil production, Tons and tons of poisons are constantly sprayed over our foods and is destroying the soil; the oceans are full of plastic and acidity is rising --- "but carbon is fake and I don't like Suzuki!" - Please stop, that is not being remotely helpful in any way.

[Flash]

David Suzuki is a fake scientist.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm

Out of fun

For this article here linked, I also found from the same author, in the same magazine, an article on domestic violence. My daughter is having internship in the field, I had to have police intervene in my life, I know other people (men and women) who had to call police, and what I was reading was so far fetched that it became hilarious.

The author is from the same city as mine, next neighborhood from mine, so pretty much same environment. He is English speaking, I am French. Does not matter much here.

When I read this
If you want to cool down an angry situation which has gotten out of hand (this appears to have been Mme Roy's objective), go to anyone but the police. The police will escalate the matter. In many jurisdictions, they will arrive in SWAT teams, break down your door and ransack your home. Once inside, they will hunt down any evidence they can find which might indicate that your husband has, or once had, violent tendencies. This will justify treating him as a common criminal. They will forcibly remove him from the house in handcuffs, often with a machine gun in his face. He will be blamed for whatever trauma this may cause to you and your children.

I could not do anything else than laugh loud, alone in my house. Hilarious. I have never ever seen or heard police acting like that in Montreal for domestic violence. SWAT team, ransack home, remove him with machine gun, come on. rolf For regular every day happening in a large city domestic violence call???

The guy must have been threatening his wife with a gun and taken hostages for this to happen.

So my conclusion: take everything this author writes with a grain of salt. And this means revise every thing he said about Suzuki before concluding anything.

Digevillage, would you by any chance have better articles and more trustworthy authors? Is that truly all you have?? furthermore dating from year 2000?

And anyhow, lets not distract from the real intent of the thread, as mentioned previously.

[Didgevillage]

How could I destroy a thread, I wonder, if I call a spade a spade, fake science fake science.

I suppose it is an effective way of shutting down, or shouting down, a valid argument to call someone a troll in a forum.

Environmental pollution is one thing; climate change is another.
Climate has changed over millions of years, and we are sitting in the middle of an Ice Age.

Within this current Ice Age, there is a regular alternation between glacials (each one lasting about 130,000 years approx.) and interglacials (each one lasting about 13,000 years) and we are at the very end of a warm interglacial called the Holocene.

When the Holocene started, this planet suddenly became very warm, melting the ice in North America and on the Tibetan Plateau, etc, causing big floods everywhere and raising the sea level, which sank Atlantis.

Within the Holocene, there are regular rises in temperature in about 1,000 years or so, although the overall trend is cooling toward a new glacial. Going back three thousand years, there was a warm period and population increased in Central Asia and Siberia but when this warm period ended, many of these people were forced to move south; thus the invasion of the Indian subcontinent by Aryans and invasion of China by nomadic tribes from the north.

About 2,000 years ago, the planet warmed up again and the Phoeniecians sailed up and down the coasts of the Atlantic, while the Celts reached North America, because the seas were relatively calm. The Romans colonized Britain, growing grapes for wine there. In the Far East, there was much traffic between the Japanese islands and the mainland as well. When this warm period ended, there were shortages of food, there was much upheaval and Germanic tribes invaded the Roman Empire, Attila the Hun from Central Asia invaded Europe.

About a thousand years ago, the planet warmed up again, and the Vikings settled in Iceland (which had been previously settled by Celts) and Greenland which was literally green, where the Vikings conducted agriculture for hundreds of years. After generations, these Scandinavians were forced to move back to Norway, as the climate cooled.

Toward the end of the 20th century, the planet warmed up again, but only slightly. Nothing like 2,000 years or even 1,000 years ago. This was the very last of the warming and it ended in 1996 and the planet has steadily been cooling, and the very cold Ice Age glacial is just around the corner.

The elite know it, and yet they want to avoid mass panic, and install the New World Order quietly, so they started a disinfo campaign of "global warming" by using their paid agents. The elite are hard at work to reduce the world population to the level of 500 million so that the planet will be "sustainable" in a glacial period.

In an Ice Age glacial, new lands will appear which are now called continental shelves, isolating the Mediterranean Sea, and Sea of Japan, while connecting Australia with Tasmania and New Guinea. So it's not all doom and gloom.

[DeDukshyn]

How could I destroy a thread, I wonder, if I call a spade a spade, fake science fake science.

I suppose it is an effective way of shutting down, or shouting down, a valid argument to call someone a troll in a forum.

Environmental pollution is one thing; climate change is another.
Climate has changed over millions of years, and we are sitting in the middle of an Ice Age.

Within this current Ice Age, there is a regular alternation between glacials (each one lasting about 130,000 years approx.) and interglacials (each one lasting about 13,000 years) and we are at the very end of a warm interglacial called the Holocene.

When the Holocene started, this planet suddenly became very warm, melting the ice in North America and on the Tibetan Plateau, etc, causing big floods everywhere and raising the sea level, which sank Atlantis.

Within the Holocene, there are regular rises in temperature in about 1,000 years or so, although the overall trend is cooling toward a new glacial. Going back three thousand years, there was a warm period and population increased in Central Asia and Siberia but when this warm period ended, many of these people were forced to move south; thus the invasion of the Indian subcontinent by Aryans and invasion of China by nomadic tribes from the north.

About 2,000 years ago, the planet warmed up again and the Phoeniecians sailed up and down the coasts of the Atlantic, while the Celts reached North America, because the seas were relatively calm. The Romans colonized Britain, growing grapes for wine there. In the Far East, there was much traffic between the Japanese islands and the mainland as well. When this warm period ended, there were shortages of food, there was much upheaval and Germanic tribes invaded the Roman Empire, Attila the Hun from Central Asia invaded Europe.

About a thousand years ago, the planet warmed up again, and the Vikings settled in Iceland (which had been previously settled by Celts) and Greenland which was literally green, where the Vikings conducted agriculture for hundreds of years. After generations, these Scandinavians were forced to move back to Norway, as the climate cooled.

Toward the end of the 20th century, the planet warmed up again, but only slightly. Nothing like 2,000 years or even 1,000 years ago. This was the very last of the warming and it ended in 1996 and the planet has steadily been cooling, and the very cold Ice Age glacial is just around the corner.

The elite know it, and yet they want to avoid mass panic, and install the New World Order quietly, so they started a disinfo campaign of "global warming" by using their paid agents. The elite are hard at work to reduce the world population to the level of 500 million so that the planet will be "sustainable" in a glacial period.

In an Ice Age glacial, new lands will appear which are now called continental shelves, isolating the Mediterranean Sea, and Sea of Japan, while connecting Australia with Tasmania and New Guinea. So it's not all doom and gloom.

Holy deflection, Batman!! ... yes we all know the earth has changed over millions of years and weather patterns sometimes have longer term cycles ...