Login / Register
Yes
78%
266 votes
Canadian climate-change deniers are the Neville Chamberlains of our time
Neville Chamberlain thought he could achieve peace with Adolf Hitler.
Last night, I had the misfortune to endure a dreadful editorial by right-wing talk-show host Charles Adler on the topic of climate change.
The head of Adler Nation, who's given a big soapbox every night on CKNW Radio by Corus Entertainment, compared David Suzuki to a sleazy television evangelist who was only interested in draining the pockets of naive widows. Adler also had had this to say:
Global warming “science” is nothing more than a faith-based religion with a doomsday prophecy. All those who question their faith are heretics. Thankfully they don’t yet have the power to launch an inquisition.
The faithful ignore the latest studies from their own commune that take dire global warming projections off the table. “Green” technologies have all proven both expensive and even environmentally hazardous.
The facts bear repeating. There is no proven connection between man-made CO2 and global temperatures. Their shaky system of fear can’t hold up to scrutiny.
I've heard similar rubbish from Rex Murphy, who is given a national platform by the CBC to host the Cross Country Checkup show and to appear every Thursday night on The National.
Over at the National Post, Murphy offers more of this nonsense, as do a fleet of other columnists, most notably Peter Foster.
The Globe and Mail lets Margaret Wente spew her crappy views on climate change. The Vancouver Sun's Jonathan Manthorpe has previously questioned the scientific consensus on climate change, as has Jon Ferry at the Province.
Most of them continue prattling on even though 13 of the planet's hottest years on record have occurred in the past 15 years.
For every one real scientist who questions the climate-change consensus—such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—there are likely hundreds who disagree with him.
As a result, the Canadian climate-change deniers sometimes have to rely on an economist from the University of Guelph to buttress their arguments.
I've read numerous books about climate change by such authors as Ross Gelbspan, Tim Flannery, Jeremy Leggett, Andrew Weaver, David Suzuki, Gwynne Dyer, Christian Parenti, James Hansen, and even Jeffrey Simpson (along with Marc Jaccard and Nic Rivers).
Long ago, I came to the conclusion that only a moron would deny that carbon-dioxide emissions caused by human activity are contributing to climate change.
But people like Wente, Adler, Ferry, and Murphy are clearly not morons, even though I disagree with them. They're high-functioning people who've done remarkably well in life. They're articulate and, on occasion, quite amusing commentators.
I'm perplexed why they would so steadfastly deny the reality of human-induced climate change in the face of disappearing glaciers, disappearing Arctic ice, huge droughts between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn, and massive fires in Greece, Australia, and Spain. This is not to mention the years of careful scientific work that has made the case that we're creating a potential catastrophe.
It's easy to suggest that they're bought off by the oil industry. I used to think that Murphy, for instance, might have arrived at his views because it generated hefty speaking fees from greenhouse-gas emitting industries.
But I was convinced otherwise after recently seeing Murphy taking obvious glee on CBC at poking a stick at Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who is concerned about Canada's dreadful record. Murphy truly believes what he's saying. And I think Wente, Ferry, and Adler are in the same camp.
The only explanation I can come up with is psychological. They're so full of hubris—so full of egotism—that they're incapable of admitting they're wrong. To do so would be to acknowledge their own imperfection.
All this points to a troubling degree of narcissism within the Canadian media.
One day, I'm sure, they'll be held up as complete fools by subsequent generations. They're the Neville Chamberlains of our time.
The former British prime minister tricked himself into thinking that he could negotiate with Hitler. And many Canadian commentators have deluded themselves into disbelieving something as obvious as human-induced climate change.
Maybe we should pity them because I have a hunch that history isn't going to be kind.
Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.
Ross Gelbspan, Journalist working for Hoggan, the Suzuki F. Chairman
Tim Flannery, fearmongerer who purchased million dollar waterfront properties after warning of impending sea level gloom...
Jeremy Legett, Geologist, Greenpeace and solar businessman
Andrew Weaver, mathematician and activist
David Suzuki, geneticist and propagandist
Gwynne Dyer, journalist
Christian Parenti, journalist
James Hansen, NASA activist
Jeffrey Simpson (along with Marc Jaccard and Nic Rivers), political pundit, economists proud lobbyists of the imposed Carbon Tax without any electoral consultation. BC Hydro paid "consultants" bringing out big green billion dollar smart meters control in our homes.
Woaw Charlie with this many climatologists no surprise you need to reference Hitler in your little number! LOL
That's probably too nice. I have a hunch that they will want their remains cremated so future generations aren't defecating on their graves.
Every time a credible scientist is interviewed, the media races around to find someone who disagrees ... failing to recognize, of course, that one-for-one balance is inherently UNBALANCED when the vast majority of experts sit firmly on one side of the fence.
The other thing I don't understand is why the climate change deniers think it's just fine to spew trillions of tons of toxic pollutants into the atmosphere. Even if they refuse to accept that such pollutants are contributing to accelerating global warming, wouldn't it make just a wee bit of sense to stop poisoning our air?
The conclusion I came to long ago is that climate change deniers simply don't want to know. If they DID know, they might feel compelled to do something. And doing something is much, much harder than doing nothing.
David H, LOL you should read emails of the"credible scientists" none of them read by Charlie, and see for yourself how corrupt they all are. Finally you also need an education before being so sure of your opinion: Tutu may have an opinion about space travel but his competence on the subject is zero.
Mark, young people are gullible and indoctrinated by Suzuki with the help of our taxes and the NFB. Is this informed democracy to you or propaganda you wish to young generations?
Ahhh the beautiful democrats we have here!!!
Suzuki and Hoggan and all those associated with them, are tainted by that same measure and of course those two have been sleeping in the very same ego softened bed for years now.
As for Hoggan, his transparency starts just below the surface. A BC Liberal supporter in the PR business who starts a blog called "desmogblog" and writes a book about climate change. He is so skilled at PR, that people actually believe his spin.
Making a case for Climate Change is not hard, but placing the right amount of doubt in our minds is even easier and the likes of James Hoggan & company know how to play that game and are winning that battle of the minds.
I believe though, that we can win too, but we must continue to educate the public with the facts that make a difference and your Neville Chamberlain example is a good start in showing how truly naive the likes of Hoggan & Suzuki really are, just as history has shown that Chamberlain was.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing when the person trying to absorb the knowledge (you, for example) has scarcely progressed beyond mystical belief systems.
By the way, did you take your use name from a really bad comic book? lol. I rest my case.
I used to put it down to some sort of fundamentalist Christian influence, but after all the work done on analyzing low information Tea party types the psychology or more accurately the pathology is well understood.
The real crime here is how the mainstream media give these wack jobs the airwaves and print space to publish the nonsense.
Following the money as all journalists learn in journalism 101 leads us as expected to Big Oil which provides the advertising funding and originates the junk science that keeps the wacko's in the face of the public.
That influence is detailed here
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
seth
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/mass-extinction-carbon-dioxide/
When will David Suzuki be launching his campaign to stamp out volcanoes?
Really save the planet, hold your breath!
I'm sorry that you think I've engaged in hubris, but the simple reality is that some people are smarter than other people. I don't think I should have to apologize for the fact that I'm smarter and better informed than you - isn't that more your problem than mine?
@ Save Vancouver: Thank you for pointing out that something other than "natural cycles" can contribute significantly to climate change. Hilarious. Are you really that ... dim??
The evidence is clear and easy enough to find, which makes it hard to comprehend why people with the supposed sense of their many years on this planet are either unable or unwilling to see what is as evident as the arrogance and contempt of their views. I say 'their' views, but these are really just the views of the corporate classes they shill for. When it's our turn to face the kind of devastation Thailand recently endured (and make no mistake about it, we will!), when Richmond and the valley are besieged by the Fraser river, and our over-logged mountains start sliding into the sea, the patina of respectability their positions confer upon them will not be enough to save the boorish Mr Murphy and his ilk from massive public approbation. Run out of town on a rail, comes to mind ... and the sooner the better!
Biking to work when it's nice out isn't going to offset all of this. So tell me, guys: Who's going to be the first to sell all his possessions, and go live in a tree somewhere? I'd ask rural folk to do the same, but for some reason those guys, who actually live closer and more intimately to the land than city dwellers, aren't big believers in global warming. I wonder why that is?
Thirty some years ago, there was the same hooopla!
Remember ACID RAIN!!
Remember the dire warnings by Suzuki and Co, then, that by the year 2000, if the Americans do nothing, the acid rain will burn all the forrests in the USA, the lakes will be poisoned and dry, no more salmon in the rivers,
Canada will be a black area like Sahara!!
Reagan deceided that it was phony science, and did not buy the Canadian and European arguments.
Guess what? I travel around the North American continent quite often, The forrests are green, the lakes are blue and full of fish, the salmon comes in increasing numbers, and even here in Vamcouver, there is green everywhere.
Even around the six-million plus mansion David Suzuki lives in Point Gray.
And next to his chalets where he relaxes after charging $50,000 for a two hours speech, when invited.
If he would have stayed, like others, as a professor at UBC, he would now live on a pension of $50,000 PER YEAR!!
Nowadays, he "earns" the same in one evening!
Not bad a return for his activism!!! Just ask him to disclose his annual income!!
Now, lets the "disagree" buttons flood the website!!
I would say we Skeptics are more like Churchill- not listened to until (almost) too late… and probably to be discarded, once we have won the day.
Here's some underlying reasons why Joe Public might disbelieve climate scientists' consensus that recent global warming is attributable mainly to human activities:
1. Fear of bad news. Similar to being told that you have terminal cancer, some people don't want to hear it, so they try to ignore it or deny it or pretend it's not real as a sort of coping mechanism.
2. Fear of change. Any prospective change in the status-quo of a cushy lifestyle is inconvenient and unwelcome. Change implies at least temporary uncertainty and the unknown, and those are scary concepts to many people.
3. Fear of hardship. An extension of point # 2, people will oppose a reduction in consumption, mobility, or any other comfort they've become accustomed to. If discomfort is involved, they want none of it.
4. Fear of rip-off. Lots of people are suspicious of corporations and governments whose carbon trading schemes or other types of shady agreements could result in a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
5. Herd behaviour. If your loyalty is to a political party whose members are predominantly climate change deniers, such as the Conservatives or -- in the US -- Republicans, you will most likely bow to peer pressure in order to fit in with the crowd.
All of the above behaviours are symptoms of an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility. People who have such a mindset will go to any length to avoid getting involved. They will refuse to help or cooperate in any collective effort, they will blame the problem on anything or anyone except themselves, and the most anti-social members of the group will attempt to obstruct or undermine the activities of people who are trying to improve the situation.
The rest of us will have to battle climate change and the deniers at the same time. It won't be an easy fight, but the first rule of battle is "know your opponent". This is a start.
No one on either side of this debate will argue that pumping pollutants out will do us any good. And I think that's the bigger issue.
The good news is, apart from our planet being blown to pieces or the sun burning out, life on earth will never die off. It may be different than it is now, but that's the point of life... to die, change, adapt, evolve, etc.
This isn't to say that polar bears drowning is a comforting thought, but simply that every species on earth is not meant to stay there indefinitely, if history has been any indication... well unless you think the world is 5000 years old that is.
As a scientist who has dedicated years working and volunteering in many facets of these issues, it really disappoints me to see such a self-righteous uproar from people that do little more than complain about these things online (computers and internet servers do use electricity, after all) and buy 'Green' laundry detergent. For the people that have taken serious measures to quell their consumption and output, thank you. But for the rest, please stop laying guilt on me.
Pages