Why can't liberal eco-nazi David Suzuki tolerate other ideas?

Question

David Suzuki stormed out of the studio of 640 AM radio in Toronto this morning when someone wanted to discuss global warming as a theory and not a proven fact.

Why do liberals tend to behave like this when confronted with ideas that they do not like?

Peter - you must be very old - you've been around to see the crops grown in Greenland 1000 years ago when the climate was WARMER that it is today. So, how does your global warming theory work? Did the cold air affect your memory, or is your old, old age having an effect?

Answer 1

It really irritates me that otherwise intelligent people like David Suzuki and Haysoos2 seem to completely lose their objectivity. They scream "global warming is a fact, we are warming" So what, we are a degree warmer than we were a century ago. That temperature a century ago may have been a degree warmer or colder than the previous century. What utter nonsense. The underlying lie is that we know it is cause by humans, because in spite of what they say, we don't know what portion if any human activity influences global warming. These are the gullible people that bring us countless scare after scare from global cooling, to we have run out of food and were all going to starve as they tried to say in the 1970 Club of Rome, or to Eugenics which was the popular theory in the 1920s that led to Adolf Hiter. Why do these people always have to have a cause. Why can't they just look at the world objectively and scientifically. Sometimes I really feel sorry for them. Sometimes they simply anger me for their arrogance and ignorance.

Answer 2

As long as you never make a coherent argument, you are never going to get a straight answer. You presented a fallacy of association.
Presuppositions:
David Suzuki storms out of a studio when presented with an idea he did not like.
David Suzuki is a liberal.
Illogical conclusion:
Therefore, liberals behave like David Suzuki.

I'm sorry. You will never make a good argument against anthropogenic global warming if you keep presenting your opinion as such. Not to mention that you lowered yourself to using the term "eco-nazi"; that is as pathetic as people who decry Bush is a Nazi. Again, another fallacy, Reductio ad absurdum.
PS: Do you have a Ph. D and 19 honorary degrees like D. Suzuki?
PSS: D. Suzuki has promoted the ideas of the Green Party of British Columbia and Canadian New Democratic Party. Therefore you can assume his political ideology is not as a liberal, but as a social democrat.

Answer 3

Peter K. Define fact. Global warming (being caused by human activity) is a theory. An idea being widely accepted does not make it a fact. Global warming is certainly a debatable topic, though it has become quite unfashionable to do so.

Answer 4

Why do idiots like you not understand the difference between scientific definitions of theory and lay definitions? I would storm out too.

Such ignorance is frustrating. A theory is not a guess. A theory is a model explaining phenomena we observe.

Science does not go about proving anything. Proof is for mathematics and liquor. No theories are ever proven. All theories are tentative reflecting the iterative nature of science.

Answer 5

Some people are so arrogant that what they think they believe is correct even when they are proven wrong or it's to early for an educated conclusion. Today it's a political bankroll to push global warming and how dare you to question them. Information is only as true and good as its imput and discussions from all schools of thought even if you don't always agree with it.

Answer 6

I think that you are not being impartial given the rude way that you phrased your question and I suspect that you don't like global warming being given airtime.

Global warming is a fact so why would anyone want to treat it as a theory? What is theoretical is why this is happening. This is still being examined.

Answer 7

Because global warming is a proven fact. Unless you don't count, you know, actual hard, scientific data as evidence and prefer to go by anecdote.

The consensus of all satellite, weather and other climatological records all show a definitive increase in global temperatures over the past hundred years.

Now, you could argue about whether those changes are primarily or even partially caused by human activity. That's a legitimate arena of contention.

But anyone who refuses to accept that global warming is occurring is obviously someone who is not willing to listen to rational thought, logic, or accept any physical evidence that counters their world view.

There is no point debating with someone who is unwilling to accept facts as evidence, so there's not much point in continuing a discussion with them.

I don't know the story about Suzuki storming out of the studio, but I'm going to have to assume that the radio hosts were probably total d*cks who refused to accept hard physical data that contradicts the non-scientific conclusion they have already decided upon.

EDIT: Yes, climates were indeed warmer in the past than they are today. At times, much much warmer. There were once large trees, flying lemurs and tapirs on Ellesmere Island (back in the Paleocene). That doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening now. In fact, it provides some pretty darned good evidence that global climate can change drastically.

Regardless of whether or not global climate change is man-made or not, it's definitely, absolutely going to affect us, and simply ignoring the problem is not going to help. You know what happened to the people who lived in Greenland when the climate changed? They died.

Coastal areas will see rising sea levels. In the past, this simply meant moving the village a ways inland. Hard to do that with New York City, Hong Kong and Tokyo. We might want to start planning for that.

Weather patterns are going to see more extreme weather conditions - huge snowfalls in some areas, hurricanes and typhoons in others. We might want to start planning for that.

Climate change will also affect where and how crops will grow. Areas that couldn't grow fruit trees may now be able to. Areas that used to grow fruit trees might not be able to anymore. We might want to start planning for that. It's going to change our entire trade and transportation infrastructure.

Insects and other organisms that couldn't survive in cold climates may be able to move into areas they haven't been seen in for hundreds, or thousands of years. A major barrier to colonization in the Ohio river valley in the 17th century was malaria. Cooler climates forced the malaria carrying mosquitoes south. Warming may bring them back. We might want to start planning for that.

Regardless of whether or not it's man-made, climate change is definitely going to affect all of us, and simply claiming it's a 'liberal conspiracy' is not going to help.

FURTHER EDIT: I don't see how it's a loss of objectivity to actually use scientific evidence to form a conclusion. I remain unconvinced that human activity is the primary source of climate change, although it seems probable that the quantities of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere are going have SOME effect.

I also don't think that all of the changes that may occur through global climate change are going to be bad. Many regions may experience longer growing season, and useful crops may be able to grow in areas where they cannot now.

The Kyoto protocols were useless before they were ever signed. They are simply a political tool tied to international trade, and in some cases, one-up-manship as nations try to make themselves look more 'environmentally friendly' than others.

And a one-degree change in average temperature may not seem significant, but it doesn't tell the whole story. It's the extreme effects that are going to have a major impact, as well as the shifts in such things as the Gulf Stream and ocean currents that are going to be the big stories.

Simply standing firm and 'staying the course' isn't going to help when the climate changes. It's going to change. It always has. It always will. Regardless of whether it's human caused or not, the climate's gonna change. Failing to plan for what happens when it does is going to get people killed. In my books, that's something we should avoid if we can.

I don't understand why people are so resistant to even accepting the fact that we can't keep doing the same things we've always done just because that's where and when we've always done them.

Answer 8

Because he's a fool that won't believe anything that isn't put in his head by another liberal.