BILL MOYERS: This week on Moyers & Company…

DAVID SUZUKI: Oh, the market! Praise the market! Free the market! It’ll do -- we invented the damn thing. What’s going on here? Like, we act as if these are forces of nature. I just, I don’t get it. If it ain’t working, change the darn thing.

ANNOUNCER: Funding is provided by:

Anne Gumowitz, encouraging the renewal of democracy.

Carnegie Corporation of New York, supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security at

The Ford Foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide.

The Herb Alpert Foundation, supporting organizations whose mission is to promote compassion and creativity in our society.

The John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. More information at

Park Foundation, dedicated to heightening public awareness of critical issues.

The Kohlberg Foundation.

Barbara G. Fleischman.

And by our sole corporate sponsor, Mutual of America, designing customized individual and group retirement products. That’s why we’re your retirement company.

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. When David Suzuki was born, his Japanese-Canadian father worried that his son’s diminutive size would put him at a disadvantage in the world. So he named him after little David of the Old Testament, the young warrior who slew the mighty Philistine giant Goliath and became the King of Israel.

Suzuki’s father would live long enough to realize with pride that his son had lived up to his name. David Suzuki has become famous around the world for using science to fight the predatory giants who ravage the earth for profit.

DAVID SUZUKI in 1992: I can tell you everybody who looks at that knows in the pit of your stomach this is wrong. You do not treat Mother Earth this way.

BILL MOYERS: Now he’s in the fiercest and most urgent battle of his long life – to reverse the warming of our planet caused by the global emissions of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

It’s an uphill struggle. Just this week the White House released the latest National Climate Assessment which reports that global warming is real, that “summers are longer and hotter and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced.”

This is far from the first time David Suzuki has witnessed the worst but carried on the battle. His childhood was spent in a Canadian internment camp during World War II. Facing lingering bigotry after the war, the family was forced out of British Columbia and moved to Ontario. After getting his Ph.D. in zoology at the University of Chicago, David again encountered racial intolerance, this time in the segregated American south when he did postdoctoral work in genetics at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Undeterred, he began a 40 year teaching career in higher education.

His knack for translating difficult scientific principles into something understandable and exciting made him a natural for television – since 1979 he has been the host of the Canadian Broadcasting science series, “The Nature of Things,” seen over the decades in more than 40 countries.

DAVID SUZUKI in The Nature of Things: Welcome to the first show in a new season of “The Nature of Things.”

BILL MOYERS: His name appears on over 50 books as author or collaborator. And in a poll of his fellow Canadians last fall, Suzuki was named the country’s most admired figure.

Nonetheless, his outspoken views on climate change and the government’s collusion with the petrochemical industry in developing the country’s oil-rich tar sands have made him the target of relentless attacks from Canada’s prime minister, corporations, and right-wing ideologues.

He takes these in stride and now sees himself as an elder, like the oldest of his First Nation tribal friends in northwestern Canada. Elders, he recently wrote me, “are freed to speak the truth that comes from our hearts,” to “sift through our lives for those nuggets of experience to pass on to the generations that will inherit the world we leave.” Welcome.

DAVID SUZUKI: Thank you. It’s good to be here.

BILL MOYERS: How old are you now?


BILL MOYERS: Don't you think that we hope to grow old but dread old age?

DAVID SUZUKI: Well, yes. I mean, no one, I called myself an elder reluctantly. But having seen the role of elders in First Nations communities, it's something that I now feel very proud to say I am an elder. Elders in a First Nations community, go to a feast or an event, when an elder walks in the room they're like rock stars, you know. They're the repository of all of that long traditional knowledge that's been again hard won over thousands of years. And that is passed on.

BILL MOYERS: What would you like to pass on? I mean, what are some nuggets of experience from your own life that you think might be instructive and helpful to future generations?

DAVID SUZUKI: They're all about stories. And one that comes to mind immediately, we were doing a show, a two-hour special on forestry. And I arranged with MacMillan Bloedel, one of the big logging companies, to interview three loggers on Vancouver Island.

And so we rolled up and pulled out our camera. The loggers saw us. They were waiting and they came out of the bush, they're cussing me and saying, you XX enviros, you’re taking our jobs away. And I started arguing. And it was great television, you know, people love that. But at the end of this exchange I said, you know, I don't know a single environmentalist who's against logging. We use paper, we use lumber. We're not against logging. We just want to be sure your kids and grandchildren will be able to log forests as rich as the ones you're cutting now.

Right away one of the loggers jumped in and said, there's no way my kids are going into logging. There aren't going to be any trees left. And that's when I understood or I realized that we weren't talking to each other. They were talking about, look, I've got to put food on the plate every day, I've got to pay for my car and my mortgage.

They're looking at it in terms of immediate needs whereas what we were arguing was the long term protection of the forest that could continue to yield wood and pulp forever if we do it the right way. But we're arguing in different ways. And I think that's one of the most important lessons is when we begin a conversation, let's at least start from a common ground so that we know what we're talking about. Otherwise we're just talking past each other.

BILL MOYERS: How do you reach common ground there?

DAVID SUZUKI: If we can both agree that the health of the forest is critical. As long as those trees are healthy, that forest is healthy, loggers can make a living at it. And those forests, that forest, will provide the services that all of humanity needs which is taking carbon out of the air and putting oxygen back in and holding the soil so it doesn't erode and providing habitat, those are the kind of ecological services I'm interested in.

But if we both agree the health of the forest is the source of our wellbeing, either as a logger, see, that's where I think the story of the goose that laid the golden eggs is so relevant. You know, as long as the goose is fat and healthy and you take care of it, it would lay a golden egg every day. But you get greedy and kill the goose, there's no golden eggs to be got.

BILL MOYERS: In her forward to your book, “The Legacy,” Margaret Atwood says you have lived the life of the great prophets, “those whose messages go unheeded because they tell us things we find uncomfortable.” But there was a time when your messages were heeded. And you helped win some very important battles back there in the '70s, and the '80s. Now you’re, seems to me, you're fighting those same battles all over again. What does that tell us?

DAVID SUZUKI: That was the shock to me. We celebrated great victories in the 1970s and '80s, stopping clear cutting of these forests or drilling for oil off the coast of British Columbia, stopping big dams that were to be built in Brazil and northern British Columbia, stopped supertankers from Alaska going down to Seattle. And here we are 30, 35 years later and we're fighting the same battles.

And what I've said is that this is a signal that we as environmentalists have fundamentally failed. We've failed to shift the perceptual lenses through which we see our place on the planet. You see, we thought if we stop that dam, whoa, we've won, that's it. And we didn't point out why are we stopping the dam. What does it mean? What are the values inherent in that battle and that victory? We just saw the battle as the issue. And we never saw it as simply part of the symptoms of a greater change that's needed.

And so we failed the common expression is to shift the paradigm. And that really is the challenges of environmentalism is really about seeing our place in the world in the way that humans have always known up until very, very recently that we're part of nature and utterly dependent on the natural world for our wellbeing and survival.

You know, when I think of our evolution as an animal in Africa, when we appeared on the plains of Africa you got to admit, we weren't very impressive.

We weren't fast, we weren't big, we weren't strong. We didn't have special sensory abilities. I mean, who could have imagined that in 150 millennia we would take over the planet?

Well, of course our secret was hidden, it was the two kilogram organ buried deep in our skulls. And one of the things that brain did was it enabled us to create this concept of a future. No other animal has a sense of a future as we do. And because we invented the idea of a future, we're the only animal that understood that we could affect the future by what we do today.

BILL MOYERS: But at the same time you have said that we are a special predatory species.

DAVID SUZUKI: Well, we are very special in that we've amplified our ability way beyond any other species through technology. And--

BILL MOYERS: We used to think technology would save us in these crises, such as the one we're--

DAVID SUZUKI: Well, I think that there's no question we need technology. The problem we face is that when we go for big technology, we invariably wake up and find, oh my goodness, I didn't know that this was going to be a consequence. I mean, when DDT was found to kill insects, we thought, wow, that's great. You know, we'll spray it on fields and kill pests. The guy that discovered that, Paul Müller, won a Nobel Prize in 1948. But only years later we find hey, guess what? DDT doesn't stay in a farmer's field, and it's biomagnified up the food chain. We only discovered that--

BILL MOYERS: Into the breasts of women.

DAVID SUZUKI: Into the breasts of women, the shell glands of birds, that's why eagles were disappearing. And over and over again we get tripped up because we can invent a powerful technology, but we don't know enough to see the ramifications. So I think there's a way out. And that is if we show nature more respect. I mean, after all, every species has had the same problem we do. I mean, they're had to get rid of their waste. How do, what do you do when you get sick? Even bacteria get virus sicknesses that kill them.

How do you get your food? How do you have kids and raise them safely? How do you find shelter? I mean, these are all common problems of other species. But nature's had 3.8 billion years to solve them. Could we not find ways that nature's done it, then make that our technology?

BILL MOYERS: But what those species didn't face was a tsunami of money and power arrayed against them the way you and all of us now are facing the power, greed and wealth of these big fossil fuel companies. Is it practical to think we can change the paradigm when we're up against that wall of money?

DAVID SUZUKI: Well, I keep saying that the economic system is a human invention. The idea of capitalism, free enterprise, corporations, markets, these are not forces of nature for heaven sakes. But you talk to a neo liberal and you say economy, the market and they go: oh, the market! Praise the market! Free the market! It’ll do -- we invented the damn thing. What's going on here? Like, we act as if these are forces of nature. You know, there are some things in nature we have to live with. Physics, chemistry, biology, those tell you things.

BILL MOYERS: Reality, right.

DAVID SUZUKI: But why is it we bow down before human-created ideas? We can change those things. We can't change our dependence on the biosphere for our wellbeing and survival. I just, I don't get it. If it ain't working, change the darn thing.

BILL MOYERS: Some young people in California are suing government agencies here for failing to act on climate change. They're part of an organization called Our Children's Trust. And they're invoking the public trust doctrine that says sovereign governments have a duty to safeguard public resources for the use of subsequent generations.

DAVID SUZUKI: But they just lost.

BILL MOYERS: But they're going to take it up to an appeals court--

DAVID SUZUKI: Good for them. I've been saying for years that our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness. If we are in a position of being able to act and we see something going on and we refuse to acknowledge the threat or act on it, we can be taken to court for willful blindness. I think that we are being willfully blind to the consequences for our children and grandchildren.

It's an intergenerational crime. Unfortunately there is no category for that kind of criminal act. There are over a hundred countries in the world that guarantee some kind of right to a healthy environment. So this is my last big endeavor. In Canada we're starting a campaign in September. I'm going to go on a bus and we're going to drive from the east coast of Canada, across, until November.

And we're pushing for a constitutional amendment to make the right to a healthy environment enshrined in our constitution. Now, you would think, of course, we all want a healthy environment for our children. But even though more than a hundred countries have such guarantees in their constitution, we don't in Britain, we don't in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

BILL MOYERS: Are there countries getting climate change right? Are there countries that are doing the right thing?

DAVID SUZUKI: Well, lots, lots. I mean, the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol, other than Canada which withdrew, have all met the target, which was a small target. Sweden, I hold up as this shining example, they instituted a carbon tax in the 1990s, I think it was around 1992.

They now pay $130 or $140 a ton to put carbon in the atmosphere. They've reduced the greenhouse gas emissions by more than 8 percent below 1990 levels. And during that time their economy grew by more than 40 percent. So this whole argument that a carbon tax putting a price on carbon is destructive of the economy is really bogus if we look at a country like Sweden.

But you know, Germany is well on its way to shutting down all of their nuclear plants and 50 percent renewable energy by 2020 or something. Denmark, Sweden, they're all well on their way to transitioning off fossil fuels. So Bhutan, Bhutan is this tiny country that, well, they've got 70 percent of the land is covered with forest and they're determined to keep it. And they're committed to all organic agriculture in the country. And their goal is not economic growth but gross national happiness.

BILL MOYERS: You once said, quote, all it takes is the imagination to dream it and the will to make the dream reality. But is imagination enough against our addiction to fossil fuels and the enormous wealth and power of those who feed our addiction?

DAVID SUZUKI: Yes. Well, I think this is the problem. I think, you know, in Canada we have this immense battle going on now which is the future of oil in our country. And we have a prime minister who's determined to make Canada an oil superpower.

BILL MOYERS: A petro-state.

DAVID SUZUKI: A petro-state. And the heart of his energy policy is the tar sands in Alberta. Now, unfortunately for him the tar sands are landlocked. They got to get that oil out. And the way they're going to do it is with a pipeline to the west coast of British Columbia or down south to Texas, the Keystone Pipeline.

Well, I have got, worked with the, all of the coastal First Nations communities, nine of them. We started in the 1990s going into these communities. And every one of them, the first thing they told my wife and me was, we need jobs. We need economic development.

They are desperate for jobs. The government and Enbridge, the company that wants to build the pipeline, has offered them millions of dollars just to sign on the line and let that pipe go through their territory. And yet they are absolutely adamant that there is no pipeline going through their land.

And what I keep telling, trying to tell the government is, can't you hear? They're telling us there are things more important than money and you're just not getting it.

But one of the problems we face is that so much money has been invested in building the infrastructure. You know, tens and tens of billions of dollars have been invested. The Chinese alone have invested over $20 billion. You have all that asset, you've got to get that value out. You know, it's those stranded assets business that impels you to continue on what we all know is a destructive path.

Now, I had thought triggers would be a crisis. So after Hurricane Katrina, I thought maybe that's it, you know. When 70,000 Europeans died of heatstroke, I thought maybe that's it. When Sandy occurred, I thought, that's it, but-- in 2008 with the economic meltdown, I thought that's it. I think in terms of the power of corporations, most big corporations are bigger than most governments in the world. It's going to take a massive meltdown and a lot of people are going to suffer as a result. So it's a pretty apocalyptic view of what's going to help us get on that path.

BILL MOYERS: I heard a psychology professor at the Earth Institute here in New York say that, quote, scare campaigns and visions of apocalyptic futures backfire. They only work when there's something simple you can do to remove the danger. Can you present climate change, the dangers and the threat with a--

DAVID SUZUKI: Positive--

BILL MOYERS: --simple enough, positive solution that enables people to accept, absorb and act on it?

DAVID SUZUKI: Yeah, well, it's difficult, I think. I mean, there are all kinds of positive possibilities. But the important thing is to take the challenge seriously. And that's what we seem to be having trouble getting over that hurdle now. I was starting the, my last year in college in 1957. And on October 4th, 1957 the Soviet Union electrified the world by launching Sputnik. Now, you remember what it was like.

I mean, I didn't even know there was a space program. And every time that satellite passed overhead, we heard that beep, beep, beep which was kind of like a reminder, you know, a nose up, a finger up your nose saying, look at us, how great we are. And America just said, we got to, we got to do something about this. I mean, it was a glorious time. Americans spent money like, here I was, a Canadian in the United States, and all you had to do was say, I like science. And my goodness, there were scholarships and all kinds of things.

And, you know, meanwhile the Russians launched the first animal, a dog, Laika, the first man, Yuri Gagarin, the first woman, Valentina Tereshkova. Americans didn't say, oh God, we'll never get up, catch up to them. They're too far ahead. It'll break the economy if we go after them. And when Kennedy announced the moon as a target, we just, you threw yourselves into it.

And I keep using this, think of what happened as a result of the commitment. Not only are Americans the only country to land human beings on the moon, but all of the things that happened that we couldn't have predicted, you know, 24-hour news channel, well, maybe that's not such a great thing, but GPS and cell phones and whole, more than just jobs, opened whole new areas that we didn't know were possible. And every year for 50 years when Nobel Prizes are announced in science, guess who gets most of them? Americans, because after Sputnik, America said, we've got to take the challenge and beat these guys. And I think it's un-American to say, this'll destroy the economy. This is a challenge for heaven sakes. And where is that gung-ho American, you know, that let's go and get on with it spirit?

BILL MOYERS: We’ll be back with David Suzuki next week unless we’re too busy treading water.

A new report in the journal “Nature Climate Change” says it might take a while, but if global warming melts a certain chunk of eastern Antarctica, sea levels could rise as much as 13 feet, with profound consequences for life on earth.

Look at this animated chart from CIRES, the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences. In just a minute and a half, it shows 800,000 years of carbon dioxide emissions and their sudden, dramatic jump in just the last few decades. Greenhouse gases, now burning up our planet.

Nonetheless, David Suzuki tells us on next week’s broadcast that the situation is critical, but it’s not hopeless…

DAVID SUZUKI: A lot of my colleagues have now said it's too late. We've passed too many tipping points to go back. My answer is thank you for the message of urgency. We don't know enough to say it's too late! And this isn't some kind of Pollyannaish idea. I base that notion of our ignorance on reality, and I believe that nature has many more surprises if we can pull back and give her room. And that's the basis of my hope. And that's all I'm left with. I see where the curves are all going. But I still cling to hope as the thing that we've got to grab onto if we give nature a chance.

BILL MOYERS: At our website, more from David Suzuki and a closer look at some nations that are getting climate change right.

That’s all at I’ll see you there and I’ll see you here, next time.

Time to Get Real on Climate Change

May 9, 2014

This week, as the White House issued a landmark report detailing the frightening affects of global warming on our country and President Obama took to the airwaves to drive home that message, Bill Moyers talks with a scientist who has sounded the alarm for decades.

For nearly 35 years, David Suzuki has brought science into the homes of millions on the Canadian television series, The Nature of Things. He has become a godfather of the environmental movement, and in a poll of his fellow Canadians last fall he was named that country’s most admired figure. Nonetheless, his outspoken views on climate change and the government’s collusion with the petrochemical industry in developing Canada’s oil-rich tar sands have made him the target of relentless attacks from his nation’s prime minister, corporations and right-wing ideologues.

“Our politicians should be thrown in the slammer for willful blindness. …I think that we are being willfully blind to the consequences for our children and grandchildren. It’s an intergenerational crime,” Suzuki tells Moyers.

Producer: Candace White. Segment Producer: Robert Booth. Editor: Rob Kuhns.

  • submit to reddit
  • Aarielle Aaers

    We can hope, but maybe it’s just to keep us pacified. But i THOROUGHLY believe that David Suzuki has true hope. Nature IS remarkable… FULL of surprises. But the data is rather cataclysmic…

  • Anonymous

    Big oil, big lumber, big cotton, big pharma, big food, big paper, big textile, big corporate everything.

  • Anonymous

    Horse manure. There is like a 95% scientific consensus now after decades of research that not only climate change is taking place, but man’s activities has indeed caused it. Only crack pot fringe so-called scientists continue to disagree with the overwhelming amount of evidence – and many of them are being paid by corporations and the 1% who own them that have become sociopathic toward our society and our planetary environment.

  • mikebartnz

    99%. How pathetic to use a figure like that. Shows that honesty isn’t your strong point.

  • Anonymous

    Who are our elders ? We had a Lakota indian elder give a lecture here in Peterborough, NH at the Mariposa Museum last week and he asked the question: who are “our” elders, people we admire and listen to and trust their judgement even if it is an “inconvenient truth”?

    Does our western arrogance prevent having Elders like David Suzuki? In theory western science is our “elder” but when it is not convenient we deride and ignore it —– at our peril I believe.

  • Anonymous

    Quite a projection on your part – climate change denier.

  • mikebartnz

    Show me some proof of the 99% figure. Good luck.

  • Anonymous

    It is the alarmists who destroy the credibility of the “Climate Change” proponents. 30 years ago they said we only had 20 years left. None of the predictions come true because their computer models are flawed. There are political and economic motivations on both sides of the debate which make it only harder to find any truth. Unfortunately, the “Climate Change” movement have believers with a religious fervor which stifles debate. They are motivated by false, alarmist information such as Al Gore’s movie and fake photos of polar bears floating on broken ice. We all want clean air and water, less waste, clean, efficient energy. I question the efficacy of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on spurious projects that even its adherents cannot guarantee results within a reasonable degree of scientific certainly.

  • Marian L Shatto

    Also the blind irrationality of the so-called “War on Drugs” is much to blame. Understanding of science is so minimal among our elected officials that they can’t distinguish between industrial hemp and the plants that contain psychoactive ingredients.

  • Tom Welsh

    Great show as usual. But when Suzuki talks about our great leaps forward in science in the early 60’s as a result of the moonshot competition with the soviets, bill did not mention that that movement did not face HUGE pushback from corporations and corrupt politicians, with scads of money invested in NOT advancing science at that time. Bill should have pushed back at him on this, and as it stands, it is a poor analogy. Are you listening, Bill?

  • LInda Tisue

    The things that are believed to be causing climate change are also sources of pollution. Eutrophication, acid rain and increasing lung problems are just a few of the by products of using fossil fuels.For years the tobacco companies used doubt to maintain their markets, the oil and oil dependent companies have even more at stake. If you don’t know if your breaks will hold do you wait until half way down the hill to start breaking?

  • LInda Tisue

    NASA reports 97%. Search climate change consensus. I suspect it is a bit less in the US, but in Europe it is near 100%

  • LInda Tisue

    Fossil fuel taxes should be 100% of the cost of a barrel of fuel world wide, and use the money to fund public transportation. Part of the money the Sweden generated is used for public transportation. Even with a low population density, any village of more than 1,000 people has buses that run at least 4 times a day. Part of the reason is that kids ride public buses to school, but it makes life better for the elderly as well. My 88 year old grandmother still lives independently in a rural village in Sweden becasue she can take the bus.

  • Stephen Havel

    And if you look at the vast amount of problems associated with radioactive particulate even in minuet amounts that are “man made” – like strontium 90 for instance, you wonder why ANY level is considered SAFE in the environment yet tons are emitted by all the reactors and the spent fuel is increasingly causing major problems yet is hardly reported. Carlbad, New Mexico just had an accident for instance. However, I am all for getting off of fossil fuels, so why aren’t there gov’t subsidies for solar car development or hyrdo fuel cell development and for wind farms. And why is it that the technology has existed for decades that could filter out a great deal of carbon particulate from the smokestacks of power plants, yet are not implemented. Yes, clean up our environment, but when you have the same people who send bombs on innocent people telling me anything, I wouldn’t trust anything they say and especially in light of what I just expressed. Look at how “cancer” is still considered to be a mysterious disease to cure that rakes in millions to “search for the cure” when it’s been known for decades to be environmentally stimulated by all manner of human inventions. Special interests dominate the world which is becoming more and more obvious and because of it a revolution is building in America and it will not be based necessarily on logic and common sense any more than the powers that be seem to display “common sense”. What I am supportive of is the “truth” and we can’t learn that unless we are willing to look at EVERYTHING regardless of how far fetched it is, not necessarily believing everything we look at but nor avoiding the obvious, whether we can do something about it or not. I’ve been saying for a long time that the Sun is the biggest factor contributing to climate change and yet when I give sources they are called “quacks” with quack science as if all the so called “quacks” didn’t turn out being the most brilliant throughout history. Let’s face it though, people like Bill Moyers would lose their job if they didn’t tow the party line in some respect whether he admits that publicly or not, so kudos to him for at least bringing the subjects up. I think however that it’s up to him to be willing to risk his career and reputation for more of what’s potentially “true”. As a society we are each at this time being forced to take a stand. I’ll stand with the quacks despite the consequences because at least they are not juggling careers and reputations and profits so are more likely to hold a thread that can yield more of that often illusive “truth”, what is actually really happening on the planet.

  • Anonymous

    Awesome! Great work, I will be watching for the constitution changes!

  • John Bluespoons

    Suzuki is extremely seductive in this interview, however a real scientist can change his mind according to the recent evidence, as former climate alarmist James Lovelock has done.

    The evidence:
    No atmospheric global warming for 17 years 9 months according to satellite data, a decelerating rate of sea level rise according to NOAA’s sea level budget, and no change since the early 1900’s or a decelerating rate according to approx 10 other recent papers, an all-time satellite record for MOST sea ice extent in Antarctica in 2013 which beat out the 2012 record. None of these conform to either the AGW Theory, nor to IPCC projections.

    Suzuki is guilty of willful blindness, which is his justification for repeatedly calling to jail politicians who disagree with him.

  • JonThomas

    Hi Gene…

    To be polite… nonsense lol.

    If your food is poison… STOP EATING IT! Stop eating it immediately!

    There is other food available. You just have to work a bit harder to get it, and you’ll have to stop paying your neighbor – who is poisoning you to make a huge profit.

    Oh sure… he says: “the neighborhood is prospering from my enterprise, and yeah, it’s true that everyone in the neighborhood could quite possibly die, but let’s not go to extremes.”

  • JonThomas

    So much obstructionist propaganda and lies to refute, so little desire to continue to make deniers look foolish…

    I’ll post 1… would someone else please post another… and so on…

    We can share the load…

    Mr. Bluespoons… since you didn’t actually give references… I’ll quote directly from NOAA’s website and provide the link. You can do the requisite twisting and turning to try to fit it into your belief system…

    Again… Directly from NOAA’s website…

    “Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

    This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.”

    Darn those satellites!

  • mikebartnz

    That 97% has been thoroughly debunked and is dishonest to use it and it totally destroys your credibility. You are completely guessing about Europe.

  • JonThomas

    Speaking of Canadians… Has anyone else been enjoying “Continuum” on Scy-fy? Sonmanto!

  • Ardi Hominid

    Great show. Thanks Bill.

  • Anonymous

    OK, try to disprove it. Find a rew peer-reviewed papers in reputable scientific journals that have been published within the past 10 years and that refute AGW.

  • Anonymous

    Actually the real data have been tracking quite well with the climate models’ forecasts. Bringing up ad hominem arguments only makes denier types like you look ridiculous. Try reading a science book sometime.

  • Stephen Havel

    so does that mean the relatively little bit of fossil fuel output from humans affected the sea level rise that fast?

  • mikebartnz

    I don’t have to as it has been done already as you should already know.
    As for the peer review process I have lost all faith in it.

  • Stephen Havel

    That’s right “crackpots” is who I like being around as at least they are honest cause they got nothing to lose. I don’t deny humans add everything they expell to the atmosphere and geography but then one major eruption of a volcano like that one in Indonesia in the early 1900’s and the northern world as a year without a summer and have you looked at the socipathic crackpot sources and data or are you one of those sheeple with or without the creator belief?

  • JonThomas

    Twisting, turning, twisting turning…

    Keeping on subject… So, you disagree with Mr. Bluespoons? He made a claim completely opposite from what is true.

    In ether case, it is not any claim I made. I simply presented the documented evidence which NOAA collected and reported.

    Are you attacking the evidence or the messenger?

  • Stephen Havel

    boondoggle for the corporate elite any way you slice it. But I see religious demonstrating the same closed mindedness whether their scriptures are the textbook in physics class or the bible, etc. To hear physics teachers tell me what’s not possible is near unbearable , for instance that the periodic table is final – no new elements can exist when nuclear fission and particle acceleration is proving him wrong. And these are people teaching the kids so the kids come away thinking they are “gods” because we’ve put old science on a pedestal. Considering how little control we have over the weather/environment that is as produced from the solar system’s interfaces with one another why isn’t everyone very humble about claiming to know much about what’s happening on the planet overall. A Couple volcanos could go off and cool down the entire planet for years and for those that have looked into electromagnetics of the sun and how it effect the magma under the earth’s crust to heat up like it’s attacking a virus….there it is – humans are responsible- humans are the virus, it stimulates volcanoes to output the heated magma and wall volcanic eruption. That’s why I say study the sun. Gamble with my life between what all this old science is saying and what new things the sun is doing and I’ll lay it all on the sun before humans with their moth like wing span affecting the wind hypothesis.

  • Stephen Havel

    you have zero idea what i have read and my background which tells me something about you and your other opinions

  • Anonymous

    Well, no, in fact, it hasn’t been done. Naomi Oreskes documented in her book that she looked for published papers in peer-reviewed journals that refute climate change and could not find any.

    Have you yourself ever published in peer-reviewed journals or refereed any papers for a peer-reviewed journal? I doubt it, or you wouldn’t say such foolish things about the peer review process.

  • Stephen Havel

    The problem is not knowing the methods and the degrees of inclusion of which scientists and the funding each receives that makes it profitable to tow the party line. This is reality in our world. And it’s not like NASA has not been caught lying a number of times – re: the challenger disaster cause and not too long ago by covering up the evidence that there was another object that was traveling close by as in the Hale bopp comet’s tail. it was seen by a number of amateur astronomers and the Japanese astronomical society took it’s picture and showed that this object was not oblong, just as the comet was not oblong while all the other bodies (stars) were oblong proof that there was at least two objects with the second no no longer apparent after it came out from behind the sun, except for the fact that the comet now had THREE tails which they said was rare but don’t have any other examples. They said it was rare because they assumed it could have had two nucleus (and perhaps had pics that showed that but seemed to never make it to the public perhaps). Then they said that comet ison didn’t survive it’s close encounter with the sun and there is gobs of evidence it did and in fact turned into 6-7 large objects that was tracked for a while by several of the space telescopes but was out of the news by then. Then there was the Pan Starrs comet that also had an object photographed in the comet’s coma what showed no evidence of being a break up and that photo got pulled very quickly but not before I copied it. Then there are the myriad of events that NASA doesn’t report that are amazing. It’s a wonder we have all those space telescopes and some stay glued to them and share things that are verifiable as to their sources. Like there was the object that looked like the star ship enterprise that just appeared when a solar flare’s energy passed by it. It’ lite up bright. And then there was the small object seen with two or three larger objects in orbit around it which is not normal and I am sure there is a great deal more. Having witnessed these reports because I get feeds on all stories related to these events I can’t trust anything the agencies say and especially if you are my age to where you’ve seem the lying and scheming of a dozen presidents and many of these same agencies. It’s wake up time and no it doesn’t mean everything is a lie – it’s just like the boy who cried wolf and everything isn’t a cover up or conspiracy but actually for anyone that has worked in the business world, conspiracies to make money is the norm and gov’t are really in the business of making money more than anything else.

  • mikebartnz

    It is your opinion that what I say about the peer review process is foolish but as far as I am concerned it has been corrupted.

  • Anonymous

    If you haven’t participated in the peer review process you are not entitled to have an opinion.

  • mikebartnz

    I don’t care if you like it or not but I do have an opinion and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that. It is a bit narcissistic saying that anyway.

  • Anonymous

    You just don’t get it, do you? You have an opinion about the peer-review process, but apparently you have never participated in one. How can you have a valid opinion if you have no facts on which to base it?

    I typically referee 25 – 30 papers per year. I judge each paper on its scientific merits regardless of whether or not I agree with the conclusions. I’ve also kept notes on the 1,000 or so papers I’ve refereed in my 40+ year career; my acceptance/rejection ratio is the same regardless of whether the conclusions agree with my own opinions or previous findings. Scientific objectivity is the bedrock of the review process. If you think otherwise you do a great disservice to scientists.

  • mikebartnz

    I will commend you but recently I was reading of a guy who had given up on it because when he started it was a double blind review where two people got to review the paper with the papers authors name removed and neither reviewer knowing the other but then they started leaving the authors name attached and each reviewer knew the others name. He was very disappointed in the change.
    Science lately has been a disservice to its self.

  • Anonymous

    Faith doesn’t factor into it. You confuse religious belief and disappointment, with science methodologywhich proceeds forward with data and testing.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t you all see that this man is fake? His job is to stop us from talking about important things. Ignore his posts absolutely.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, scientists change their minds based on new evidence – verifiable, well-tested evidence.

    Cherry-picking one particularly warm year – 1998 – and using that to say “no warming” (when choosing any other year would “show” something different) is not evidence, it’s a statistical parlor trick and an intellectually dishonest one at that.

    But you know that, don’t you. You just don’t care. You have a political agenda to push. That’s shown most clearly by the “evidence” you present that’s flat out wrong – as made clear by some of the commenters below.

    You are an industry tro// and everyone here with a lick of sense knows that

  • Stephen Havel

    with all due respect I am never attacking the messenger but if the message is misinformation then it is indirectly an attack of the one who delivered it. There is no way around that, though I’m not really attacking anyone but am offering a wake up to reality as we can become so entangled in our intellectual and scientific and spiritual ideas that we don’t see the forest because the trees are in the way as the saying goes. For instance the so called satelitte evidence of sea level rise has two flaws in it from a common sense viewpoint. One you reported yourself that the sea level rise was determined to be rising since 1900. Flaw one – to say that when that was only the start of industrialization can we attribute sea level rise to human fossil fuel emmisions? Then as you also reported that even the way sea levels are measured is flawed as stated by: “This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.” Our methods of data collection and their reliability and accuracy are always changing and that’s good to change of course but how many scientists will fight tooth and nail based on the old technology. My points are that there is a lot of junk science that is hiding behind “tail feathers” while those with new observations are called “quacks” and junk science for whatever willy nilly reason because they don’t have the institutional security. It’s always been this way with the leading edge thinkers being put down by the status quo as the status quo are invested in their mindsets as their peers. Meanwhile those that are questioning existing methods do so privately while in the journals that is hardly questioned. I know this is how it all works (or doesn’t work). I have experienced it personally. I had a great deal of experience with someone who was written up in wikipedia and in the wiki article whoever put it together got a lot of things outright wrong so I offered corrections from my first hand experience with that person but since I couldn’t quote a published article or journal other than my own blog and his writings that were not published except on his internet web site, since he was a contraversial figure my updates to the wiki article wasn’t permitted. I happen to know that most of the wiki articles are projects of university professors who take on the task of monitoring peoples edits and if they don’t agree those edits don’t make it. Now I understand that but the challenging process is so cumbersome unless you have published proof you are not counted even though I can prove I was with the person for years so would be considered to be an eye witness to what he said and did. So I’m writing a book so then I will become an “authority”, though still they may call me a quack because my views are not in line with whoever is doing the peer review. What this boils down to is frankly each person, gathering ALL the info they can on a subject before considering themselves an authority. So many quote this or that published work as if it’s a “god” speaking and they don’t “think about it” further as they fear seeing the pillars in the foundation of their narrow view of humanity being crumbled. The human evolutionary condition is not the highest evolutionary condition, I am confident to say but I don’t care to reveal my sources at this time but naturally they are philosophical because we can’t test them with instrumentation, yet our brains are actually quite sophisticated instruments that can often boil down a lot of data very quickly to it’s bottom line to show what’s not likley to be truthful like I have done with the fact that human constructed instrumentation is always full of limitations that are not discovered until someone comes up with a better way and then they are considered a quack until others confirm their findings. So why isn’t hardly anyone in these NPR reports and such talking in detail about all the many SUN observations that are currently being evaluated. It’s because they don’t have institutional authority or lack thereof, which is Ignoring a potential greater reality that we know is always around the corner for those who press to see it.

  • JonThomas

    I did scan and see that you are writing a book.

    I have an extremely difficult time reading anything without paragraph breaks… I get headaches from the effort.

    Good luck with your book.

  • JC

    Finally, a person (Suzuki) who can put a historical perspective on all of this. He is amongst 97% of scientists, worldwide, who now agree that Climate Change is a matter of fact and not pseudo science. Suzuki does not need to “cherry pick” examples where ‘there’s not proof’ as some have done. The evidence is compelling that there are consistent (maybe not year to year) averages of climate extremes: hot getting hotter and wet getting wetter in areas where these extremes were not happening or happened very infrequently.
    Some of these same naysayers are supporting the fund raising, on the backs of 4 dead Americans who died in Benghazi, in order to push their political agendas in the coming elections. Some are also calling for the rejection of the Affordable Health Care initiative(mostly campaigned against by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries). Maybe they need to look north of this country to see a health care system that works fairly well. Sure, we need to “tweek” this new system to work out the bugs, but it seems the overall system is set up to provide health care for anyone able to seek it. A healthy nation is a successful nation. Then we can employ more people in transitional industries such as “clean” coal gasification, building hybrid vehicles, sustainable resources, recycling more items into “green” building materials, rebuilding the nations infrastructure, helping pass and bring into effect laws that allow patents for generic and affordable drugs to enter the market, and lead the world in these endeavors.
    As citizens we can have a direct influence by getting out and voting in every election. Then, a strong message will be given that we are a government “of the people and by the people” instead of a government influenced by the few (read 1%er billionaires) who seem to influence everything we do, see, read, feel, hear, smell, think, eat, watch, and believe. Freedom is earned; it is not a privlage

  • JC

    Excellent show. Suzuki is a historical earmark to our future on the planet. He agrees with 97% of the scientific community who have been studying climate change for many decades. Too bad that there are people who disagree with him. Maybe they should move to Canada where the air is fresher and allows the brain to get enough oxygen in order to think more clearly.
    We need to get off the corporate tit in this country. We have been letting the 1%ers (read: billionaires) dictate what we see, feel, hear, read, eat, smell, think, and believe for way too long. It’s time to wake up and educate ourselves as to what is really going on in this country. Our freedoms are being marginalized every day. We can choose to sit back and let it happen (as we are doing with climate change in some sectors) or, we can vote the corporate-anti-climate change politicians out of office. Hope coupled with action is a movable force. Our history is full of examples. Vote: use it or lose it.

  • hoxie

    Of course a volcano, astroid could cause a major disruption, but how does that change the fact that our activities are having major impacts globally? Just because a volcano or astroid could wipe most life out does that mean we should get it done first?

  • pointofgrille


  • mikebartnz

    Trust you to bring religion into it.

  • mikebartnz

    I think you need to learn what the word fake means.

  • John Bluespoons

    Interestingly, James Lovelock says that
    the reason he used to be an alarmist, is because it wasn’t considered back then that the ocean can absorb 1000 times the atmosphere. Everyone made this mistake, not only him, he said in a recent interview.

  • Gary Williams

    Seriously? David Suzuki had clearly illustrated that he has very little grasp of climate science. His embarrassing showing in Australia should have convinced him to go back to playing with fruit flies.
    He still thinks CO2 is a pollutant for goodness sake.
    He still thinks global temperatures are still rising when all credible climate scientists have acknowledged that it stopped nearly two decades ago…
    Wow is all I can say… Suzuki is so out of date with his climate alarmism he is now merely a joke…
    Perhaps you should get with the times and update your presentations.

  • JC

    “it ain’t what ya don’t know that’ll get ya into trouble…’s what ya think ya know for sure……that just ain’t so.” (Mark Twain).

  • JonThomas

    Wow, very dismissive of the man instead of the information. Sounds like you take this subject personally. You straight away attacked the messenger. A bad sign for civil discussion there Mr. Williams.

    I noticed that you also did not provide any documentation to back up your claims. Another bad sign.

    I get curious when I read things that are so flagrantly dismissive (your comments were abusive even) of the person instead of an honest debate over the facts. So I just did a quick look up of a few terms and their relevance.

    Pollution: the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.

    Yep, CO2 is a pollutant. So far… a pretty smart guy that Suzuki.

    As far as global warming… I’m not sure what your definition of ‘credible’ is… if it’s akin to your definition of CO2 as a pollutant, then I suppose the rest of us can continue on with a real discussion. But, by all means, please provide a scientific resource containing data that backs up your claims.

    I quickly looked up this bit of data that shows you may not be correct…

    That set of graphs was included on this discussion page…

    Here’s also an interactive that seems fairly straight forward…

  • Bob

    On the contrary, sir. It is you who have no grasp of climate science whatsoever.
    1. The overwhelming (97%) peer reviewed consensus of climate scientists is that anthropogenic atmospheric deterioration is real and life-threatening. This means unequivocally that you do not know what the hell you’re talking about.
    2. The dip in global warming has to do with the ocean’s capacity to absorb heat and thereby mask the ambient surface temperature of the planet. Just be patient. Your death from this will come soon enough.
    3. He does not think that CO2 is a pollutant. He does accurately report that CO2 in the quantities pumped into the atmosphere as a direct result of 150 years of industrial activity is an assault on the ecosystem from which it will take about 100-300,000 years to recover.

    Turn off FOX news as your source of misinformation and avoid right wing web sites.

  • Stephen Havel

    I’ll buy anything with a mark twain quote, so I’m sold.

  • Stephen Havel

    harp is another of the delusions that humans are responsible for everything that the Earth/Sun solar system is dishing out…earthquakes, etc., (though I suspect there is something to what humans are doing underground like fracing and tunneling and pulling all those substances out of the ground leaving massive caverns that in certain areas seem to be related to sink holes and landslides but even those are probably exacerbating the situation more than creating it. Now mantle plumes is something to look at but few do.

  • Stephen Havel

    I know I’m a terrible writer and if you think this is bad, you should have seen my writing a year ago. My title will even give some people headaches…I assure you, yet I don’t have one yet.

  • Stephen Havel

    I was kinda joking based on this last winter that was very long, very cold, very snowy noticeably so compared to the previous 12 years I’ve been in Vermont. But I grew up on Long Island in the 1960’s when this year’s winter would have been a norm and that’s what the local old timers said too about vermont, that it was a return to what used to be a normal winter. I don’t doubt climate change – that’s always happening with or without humans. It’s become a new form of “religion” whose scriptures are based on ever changing scientific models, political footballs and profiteering that may end up building into a war mentality – we’re all gonna die unless we do something…anything – just make sure we profit from it or at least get the public off our backs on the things we can change but don’t want to admit to – like the toxification of our environment by the chemicalization of the alchemist witch doctors of big pharma who would have you believe that the real witches are the ones using herbal therapies, etc. Of course now we are becoming more and more dependent on the alchemist concoctions. Let’s face it, from a sociological perspective, when everything becomes a hot headed debate, where there is proven misinformation and propaganda at every turn related to every subject, we can’t help but be “corn-fused” while thinking the opposite. That’s part of why I say…okay if we are getting warmer and we have technology to observe the sun and can see things we hadn’t been able to see and even see correlations we hadn’t been willing to consider before and given there is no greater source of heat known to humankind on earth as best I can tell, can we at least concede there might really be something to that simple prospect. But that’s just not profitable in any way shape or form as we are pretty sure we can’t do nothin to change that.

  • Roger Priddle

    I’m sorry – please do NOT sent the deniers this way. Ok, fresh air and exercise are good but really – we already have a federal governement that wants “tar sands for all”. Ugh.

  • Stephen Havel

    The danger is in what is considered the priority and the impositions that would be justified by those often manufactured priorities. A case in point…if everything gets boiled down to each individuals carbon footprint based on the predominant mindset then some would make a case for taxing those that don’t comply which will come down to only really affecting those who are least able to make ends meet because the others will either absorb fines, pass them on to others with higher prices on necessities and polarize people further against a government that is so wrought with corruption it will only stimulate further revolutionary mindsets and rebellion from all forms of authority justified or not. If anyone thinks we have problems with militia movements now, wait a few years and we will see in this land a return to blatant anarchy that will take any willy nilly reason to make into a mini war. People are so aware of how much we have been herded that even if it really was for our own best interests they would distrust it and fight against it. I’m afraid this is what the future entails. In a few years time the unrest will magnify so that we will look back on this time and think it was a most civil time in comparison. I have a lot to say about all this but it’s anything but easy to consider so I try not to impose it but I am like a chicken little though I don’t like to be, but I would suggest people have a plan to migrate out of the big cities and away from the coastal flat and desert areas as nothing humans will do will stop or even slow down the warming and earth changes that are sure to come and the social unrest and even havoc from all the confusing, propaganda and corruptions that are increasingly a new norm.

  • LInda Tisue

    Nope he doesn’t get it, and I think we may have been feeding the jötnar

  • LInda Tisue

    I am a agricultural researcher in Sweden, In 5 years here I’ve had to just shake my head when I have been asked about US climate deniers.

  • Earl Shaff

    This is proof that the Sun is
    absolutely in control of the heating and cooling of Planet Earth.
    The lies and fraudulent claims that have been made were leading to a
    World Socio-economic disaster. These actual numbers are basic
    Physics and applied Thermodynamics. This does not even consider that
    CO2 is a fraction of crude when consumed.

    Consumed Crude Fuel Energy per Day
    = 87,000,000 Barrel/Day X 5,800,000 Btu/Barrel X
    1055Joule/Btu = 5.32 X 1017 Joule/Day

    Sun Energy/ Day
    = 1.279 X 1014m2
    X 1400watts/m2
    X 60sec/ min X
    60min/hr X 24hr/day

    = 1.547 X 1022

    1.547 X 1022
    / 5.32 X 1017
    = 29,078.9 as the ratio of the Suns Energy to the consumed daily
    crude World Wide.

  • Earl Shaff

    Americans consume only 20,000,000 Barrels of oil per day.

  • Roger Priddle

    There has been a lot of “speculative fiction” written about this dystopic vision of the future, but I choose to view it as warning, not prediction.

    Yeah, I can envision the bumper sticker (on the back of an e-bike, I guess ) that says, “I have solar panels and a gun. Any questions?” but, with very few exceptions, I think humans are better than that.

    Suppose we added a 50% surcharge to auto fuel and used all the money to subsidise the development and distribution of E-“everything”s? E-bikes for urban use, E-scooters for suburban, electric cars for commutes, etc.

    Suppose we added a 50% surcharge for heating fuel (and cooling, I suppose) and used the funds to subsidise makeing everything more efficient?

    Is the world as we know it going to change? Of course it is. We had a one-time patrimony of fossil fuels. We used it (wasted it?) and now it’s mostly gone, with the remainder dirtier and more expensive.

    Deal with it. We’re doing it – we can fix it, or at least stop doing it and mitigate the effects.

    But not alone. We will all need to cooperate. First by education, later by coercion and shaming (maybe) but together.

    “No man is an island … Therefore, send not to ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”

  • JonThomas

    Can you explain what that means?

    For example…. In control? Does the sun wake up in the morning and make Jimmy Deans? Can I ask if he has a veggie option?

    There is no doubt that the sun is the source of heat, but considering the dynamic, it is a fairly static source of energy.

    However, the reflective properties of CO2 (and other gases) is also a factor, and because of human and natural actions, not static.

    For example… the sun’s energy emission is a one way proposition. The reflected radiating heat, when encountering the reflective properties of greenhouse gases, is not.That reflected heat continually bounces around the atmosphere, some to be absorbed by the land and oceans, and some to encounter the emptiness of space.

  • Roger Priddle

    “Only”? That’s very close to 1/4 of the whole world’s oil consumption, isn’t it? Doesn’t that mean that “Americans” are disproportionally responsible for the rapid depletion of a scarce resource, and all the attendent consequences?

    Hmmm. Not sure I would want to advertise that too loudly.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah – I should have stated 97.1%. I couldn’t remember at the time I wrote it. Pathetic being off by 2% eh?

  • Anonymous

    Thoroughly debunked – that’s a good one.

  • mikebartnz

    I don’t live in the USA so carry on shaking your head.

  • Gary Williams

    I rest my case… So many uninformed people completely absorbed in the propaganda. As Faithful Cult members you will of course never question any of the dogma.
    This Folks is what the term “useful idiots” was coined for.
    I think they illustrate pretty conclusively the religious nature of the AGW movement.
    Even now that the Science has moved on, their Fervor is impenetrable.
    Sigh…. They walk among us folks…

  • Gary Williams

    OK… I got as far as the 97% lie and just can’t bring myself to read further.
    Anyone that still spews that nonsense clearly has no grasp of the topic and is not worth wasting time on.
    Repeating clear Fraud does not make you credible.

  • Gary Williams

    It would be so nice if even a few of these religious zealots would read some recent information from the climate science community rather than just regurgitation old debunked nonsense over and over and over.
    Really make me worry about the IQ level of our society… :(

  • NotARedneck

    So true. After the gravy train from denying the cancerous effects of cigarettes dried up, these “scientists” sold their credentials to the fossil fuel industry.

    It is a shame that the quality of education is so low in the US and the influence of fundamentalist cretins is so great that they can find a ready market for this dreck.

    Intelligent. educated Americans are (or should be) embarrassed daily by the rantings of these morons and their fellow travelers. It is really pointless to argue with the latter – they are far too stupid and likely only post what they are instructed to cut an paste.

  • Stephen Havel

    So you are accusing me of not questioning dogma. If so, you certainly don’t know anything about who you are talking to. And what is the AGW movement?

  • Stephen Havel

    this mindset, “solar panels and a gun”, is certainly alive and well and with MANY. Do you remember the 3 mile island nuke meltdown in PA many years ago during the Carter admin? People loaded up their trucks and guns and were driving over fences to get out of that area. I know people that have guns and are prepared to defend what they have from the expected hords from the city looking for food. Imagine killing people so they don’t get your tiny food supply rather than trying to share it for as long as possible and working together to find more. When it comes down to it, most humans are barbarians. After all humans are simply mammals with a more sophisticated firmware (brain) that includes the “choice” to know better than to act out their mammalian instincts in all cases. Look at the wars in Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq to start. For those countries americans were largely a brutal hord. There was NOTHING HUMANITARIAN in those ugly wars that MANY americans were convinced were just to fight and give their lives to. I could list hundreds of examples. It’s just that the propoganda machines are very thorough and quite in bed with the directors who always – ALWAYS have alternate agenda’s behind what they propogandize but the books don’t get written and published until long after the dust has settled and things just can’t be proved.

  • Wyojimmy

    A huge majority of experts have often told us what to do for our health, medicines, skin care, economy and then years later said,’ OOPS! ‘ The weather and climate are extremely sensitive systems that act chaotically. No one can prove what will happen to the weather or the climate.
    However, the Earth is way different than it was 100 years ago. Nations all over the Earth have bulldozed, drilled, mined and exploded it into a different planet. This was done to make bigger and better houses, buildings, factories, shopping malls, cars, airplanes, trains, rockets, weapons, infrastructures, medical equipment and now it is being done to make wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, nuclear power plants, cell tower, large screen TVs, computers, satellites, etc.
    Materialism is clearly a problem; as is seen in all the environmentalists and global warmers jetting around in their large airplanes to go to meetings and to go on vacations at luxury resorts. The native Americans fought to the death to maintain their simplistic lifestyle. Jesus told us to live like the sparrows; simple and enjoying what the Creator has provided us. We killed him and distort His Message regularly.
    Unless, we all agree to live simpler (especially the wealthy environmentalists and global warmers) things will get worse.

  • Gary Williams

    LOL… No Stephen. I accuse you of nothing actually. I simply get tired of comments by people that never bother to inform themselves on current science and then repeat talking points they do not even understand…
    AGW is Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Failed theory of climate science from last decade and before.
    The dogma reference is because many never bother to question the propaganda yet believe so fervently that they can only be called religious zealots.
    Anyone that bothers to dig in and get informed will of course question all of it.
    Suzuki has not. He is still working with information that was out of date 10 years ago.
    I really think he is senile now.
    Poor man…

  • Roger Priddle

    Unfortunately, the reality is that hungry people will kill for food. And hungry parents will do almost anything to feed their kids.

    If you have the last bull for miles around, what will you do when someone comes along wanting a steak? If you protect the bull, then in a few years, we can all have lots more cows, but if you let a hungry father shoot the bull to feed his child, within a few years, not only is there no more beef, but there won’t be milk for your grandkids.

    I don’t see people as “barbarians” but the “selfish gene” says I will protect mine from you and yours. Cooperation is a great concept once everyone has eaten, and certainly I will share any surplus once my “family”s needs are met, BUT…

    Wish I truly believed that “we” would behave better.

  • mikebartnz

    1 : That 97% is just totally untrue.

    2 : At the moment the data is not conclusive about what the oceans are absorbing. It is just a calculated guess from a couple of Aussie scientists.

    3 : Co2 is not a pollutant. It has been far higher in the past and life survived.
    In actual fact plant life does a lot better when it is higher than it is now that is why some glasshouse growers increase it.

  • Bob

    1. It’s 97%. And you know it. Go to the IPCC website, among others, and see it confirmed. You asserting that it is not true, without one shred of evidence that you do not have anyway, is absolutely meaningless.

    2. That the oceans are absorbing heat is a function of physics. (Maybe you’ve heard of physics.) Measured and conclusive.

    3. CO2 is not a pollutant. True. But when CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere in quantities too great for biological processes (such as trees) to render into oxygen, then that excess CO2 “hangs” there in the atmosphere acting as a blanket exacerbating planetary warming. (The physical process is actually more complex, but at your dismal state of knowledge, that’s all I think you can handle.) Moreover, the 5 previous planetary extinctions, of which the Permian was the worst, were due precisely to this phenomenon of sudden massive CO2 production to which the planetary atmosphere could not quickly adapt. Your example of horticultural CO2 use is not of the scale of the CO2 overload caused by human (industrial) activity. Your example is breathtakingly meaningless.

    Finally, a political note. You right wingers who come to this site and disrespect science: what’s the point of your presence here? Certainly you must realize that we who respect science in general, and the overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic atmospheric deterioration in particular, see you for what you are, and properly dismiss every unscientific utterance you make. Your presence here is pointless.

  • mikebartnz

    You really are pathetic using that 97%.
    Margaret Zimmerman was one of the first to come up with 97%.
    Margaret Zimmerman polled 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions with two questions. 3146 of them responded of which she chose 77 with 75 agreeing.
    Even the two questions were poorly formed and had a lot of scientists irate. You would have to be insane to take anything from that.
    You say I don’t respect scientists. Another assumption that is totally wrong. I just don’t respect scientist that don’t abide by the proper scientific method and it becomes more politics than science as the East Anglia emails show and the stupid hockey stick graph.

    I know Co2 can be dangerous as some local inhabitants close by a lake in Africa found out when the lake had a sudden belch of it killing them.

  • Stephen Havel

    In vermont it’s certainly not the religious leading the propoganda of human cause of global warming. One of the leaders of that movement is a professor at middlebury college – gary mcclintas (or some such spelling) – a popular organization featured on democracy now, etc. who are also big in the NYC crowd. In a sense you might be right about the “religious connection” though but it’s not the traditional relgionists, it’s the new age atheistic religionists that are largely of a buddhist/hindu americanized version or are strict atheistic non-belief believers, another of the many delusions in the recognition of reality, like the religionists. I do compare these to religionists but the way I think about religion is that they are a bastardization of real events and persons that are their founders, because if you look at them, the religions they no longer resemble their founders at all, except by the usage of a name and some basic rules to follow that are today common sense civility but only came to being common sense following the instigators according to the records that is and I’m talking about all the records. I know my view is not popular and offends someone but the truth hurts. For instance I can’t conceive of an automobile coming about by random environmental conditions that caused cells to mutate and decide to take shape in very specific ways to cooperate in systems to become a functioning, in a sense living breathing “being” without conscious directed effort by more evolved beings. Of course an automobile is not a being but the logic is just the same in reference to human beings who are very much like programatically (genes) designed devices that even have adaptability (to a degree) built in.

  • Stephen Havel

    That selfish gene to me is that animal in mammal. How many selfless animals do we see. But there have been people that would rather die than behave in animalistic ways of doing anything to survive. These people don’t make sense to the “survival of the fittest models”. In that model the predators all survive and should have wiped out selflessness long ago as there would be no one with the selfless mindset living to provide that thinking to others and offspring. But who can deny that with cooperation and self sacrifice there is actually a better shot at community survival instead of just the survival of those with the bigger muscles and weaponry. The predators end up feeding off of one another which actually brings us to the current human condition that is to date reaching the U.S. again, (not since the civil war, that is) to where people are being polarized into one of two camps – those who “believe in” the existing systems – institutions, etc. verse those who can’t justify supporting those systems. Those with the systems have more power in one way, but will be turning more and more on themselves as they are predatory – conquering countries for their resources, etc. that brings more hatred to them for a vicious cycle while the “gentle or kind mammals who would rather be hungry than steal or kill another for what they want, flee to the mountains, out of the cities, so learn to survive by hunting and gathering again. I believe this is the direction of the future and that this civilization as we see it now will experience a type of recycling that has occurred many times past attibuted to beings that have evolved above the human evolutionary condition who design planetary systems for their purposes which is where civility actually comes from as they seek to bring us out of our mammalian mindset/programming.

  • Mike Wicks

    Anyone who studies and understands dynamic equilibrium as applied to our ecosystem, recognizes the fact that we may have gone beyond the point of no return. Consider one simple fact. The outgassing of methane from thawing tundra now exceeds the production of man made greenhouse gasses. How sad!

  • Matt

    “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” I pray that Lincoln’s observation applies to the climate crisis and debate.

  • JJ042804

    David Susuki is right, “all” life on this Planet is depended on it’s health. If all Tree’s are gone, there will be nothing left that can produce Oxygen, at least not in the amount we need. And the CO2 will dominate our atmosphere! Just think how long we will be able to survive that?! And then think of our Drinking Water resources, which is being diminished by Oil spills, Coal sludge spills, Fracking…..etc. How long do you think we can survive without Water? And we are risking all that for Corporate profits!

  • Stephen Havel

    Absolutely predatory capitalist humans that I’d venture to say most who use the benefits from the corptocracy if that’s a word contribute to though are not responsible to the degree in which it has come to exist and not responsible for the negative to life ramifications are increasingly kiiling our environment and that is frustrating to anyone with a conscience and consciousness BUT whether we want to take notice or not, it’s not the greater way in which the human evolutionary kingdom is being destroyed. For millenium our mindset has become more and more distorted from reality to where many who are educated in the system are near totally unaware of what we are as a mammalian species, full of themselves so much so that they can’t bear to imagine realistically that we are not the most evolved creatures in the universe and that nothing comes from nothing and that there are grander plans afoot than most can imagine. However, part of what I am saying is that there is a great deal going on that is under the radar of the mainstream public airways, except as relegated to the wierd and superstitious and fringes of thought, which is why you will rarely see Mr. Moyers report on certain points of view as it would not be long before he lost his podium, which I don’t blame him for wanting to hold onto, just like Samuel Clemmons did by not publishing at least one work under his popularist name of Mark Twain. Thus the real truth about this subject can only be found by seeking and searching and sifting through gobs of gobbly gook through our internet. But the truth you will find is that in our society conspiracies are the rule not the exception though are mixed in with disinformation campaigns that render the truth near impossible to discern. Surprisingly, at how obvious this is, though took me time to digest as well, the Sun is by far the biggest cause of climate change and most if not all of the global changes, not humans but that is not profitable to teach and is relatively new from a scientific perspective because of the increasing ability to monitor the sun and observe the Earth and human responses. One base of data that next to no scientists can explain with the claim that humans are causing the global warming trend has to do with Earthquakes and Volcanic activity that is especially predominantly increasing in leaps and bounds in this 21st century compared to the 20th century. Of course to anything we observe someone will have something to say to try to discount it and those are often the ones who get the biggest podium if it is more in line with the powers over human thinking/acting that have the most media at their disposal, with claims that it’s Haarp that’s affecting the weather systems and/or contrails and/or underground drilling/fracing, most of which certainly do have ramifications that are detrimental to life on the planet as you noted but in comparison to the changes the sun is stimulating like the way a moth affects the wind. Because of these clear observations I believe the best way anyone can help themselves and their loved ones and society as a whole is to help them recognize this “truth” and compel them to seek a rural mountain habitat to at least flee to if they can’t move and meanwhile to the degree they can work locally to try to preserve clean water, healthy nutritious foods grown with health as the number one priority not shelf life or profitability and air quality, sun and exercise availability which again all of which mountainous regions most provide. I believe there is still time for people to see the “handwriting on the wall”. The times where protesting might have much affect to change the current momentum of the human powers that be is past and legislation on a federal level is useless to fight for. I’m not a proponent of the latest trend to horde food and accumulate weapons to protect our food from others. That has become another commercial enterprise wrought with trigger happy alarmists. I’d rather perish sharing food than live another couple weeks or months because I was able to fight against hungry people. People are going to die in much greater numbers from natural disasters and the United State will not be preserved the way it has been in the previous century, which is another topic altogether that if you want more information about I will suggest additional sources to examine and consider.

  • Anonymous

    Er…..catastrophic climate change of the sort described by Suzuki et al is an hypothesis, and an increasingly failing one at that. Empirical evidence and observed data are causing some embarrassment for the warmist camp, as their models failed to predict the 17 year pause in temperatures, and move farther away from reality as time goes on. Facts, not alarmist predictions. That is proper science, not climastrology.

  • Anonymous

    When will the world end exactly?

  • Anonymous

    Who’s taking the trees, and is there a reward for their return?

  • Anonymous

    ‘an intergenerational crime’?
    Bonkers and fascistic in one neat phrase.

  • JJ042804

    All who think CO2 is “not” a pollutant should sit in a room and we pump CO2 in the Room! I seriously doubt that they will survive long enough to change their minds!

  • JJ042804

    1st. CO2 has not been higher in the past and 2nd. Corporations have since cut down most of the Worlds Forests, which job it is to convert CO2 into Oxygen and therefor causing current chrisis!

  • Anonymous

    Rather than make it an ‘all or nothing’ game that comes down to winning or losing regarding climate change, at the very very least everyone should be doing a great deal to clean up the soil, water, and air on the planet. No one can argue humans haven’t greatly harmed those things with their waste products, chemicals, and pollution. Why do I feel that a lot of people don’t lift a finger (except maybe pay lip service) to actively help the environment. I view them as monkeys sitting up in trees, thinking they are ‘safe’, throwing coconuts down at the tiger prowling around beneath them.

    You can only get away individually and collectively without taking responsibility for yourself and the planet for so long…….then the proverbial you-know-what will hit the fan.

  • Stephen Havel

    also I now have a hold on my comments. I wonder if that is because I make too many or some have complained or called me a spamer or what. Please let me know bill, why this is happening. Perhaps just a mistake or I didn’t notice it before.

  • savagenation

    Locking people up because they don’t agree with YOU!
    Absolutely disgusting Facism from leftist so-called “Journalist” and TV Sci-Fientists like Suzuki…anyone who uses to code words “Settled Science” isn’t a Scientist, they are ascribing to a dogma.

  • Kathy Thornton

    I look at climate denyers like Aesops Fable of the Ants and the Grasshopper. While the ants got ready for winter the grasshopper did nothing but play around and in the end he was not ready. Just like the grasshopper the denyers won’t do anything until it hits them in the face

  • Invasive Evasion

    I’m always impressed with the creativity that denialists use in coming up with fallacies “proving” global warming is not real. The false logic of this argument is that the planet receives far more energy from the sun than it does from the burning of crude oil, therefore the burning of oil cannot be a significant factor of global warming. Whether the numbers given here are correct is irrelevant because the logic of this argument is completely invalid. The thermal energy released from the burning of fossil fuels is not the cause of global warming. Burning fossil fuels increases the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which alters the balance between incoming solar energy absorbed by the planet, and outgoing energy reradiated back into space. It is this trapping of solar energy, not the release of thermal energy, which is responsible for global warming. Nice try though.

  • Brother Cambly

    Your guest is the biggest fraud ever to hit the stage. His teaching background is biology not a geneticst. Ask him about how he colludes with industries that destroy the environment by accepting their millions of dollars a year. He now has to work at arms length from his own foundation. Suzuki is the man who told a group of university students that anybody who disagrees with him on environmental matters should be thrown in jail. His popularity grew from a show he did on the CBC although he says he never takes government money. The CBC is only funded by the 1.6 billion a year from the Government of Canada. His lies are as intolerable as those of Bush and Cheney.

  • Anonymous

    Your personal attack on the guest completely ignores the content of the interview. No surprise there.

  • Anonymous

    Depressing how easily people are fooled by free on line newsletters. The basic physics of Global Warming has been known since the end of the 19th century. All the rest has been filling in the details and increasing the precision of the measurements. The America Physics Association has a nice summary of the intellectual history of Global Warming on its web site. No need or resort to questionable free online “newsletters.”

  • Anonymous

    When the sun’s corona expands to absorb the earth. But don’t worry, you and yours will be long gone before that happens. As David Suzuki points out, there are more immediate problems to deal with.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for a succinct, correct answer.

  • Anonymous

    Just how many years do you think it will take for that heat energy to escape the oceans and be radiated out into space if we get CO2 back to its pre-industrial revolution level? Did it occur to you that we are stacking the heat deck for thousands of years. Naturally you are also ignoring the impacts of falling Ph in the oceans due to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

  • Anonymous

    Bill does raise the issue. The only point Suzuki is making, is that amazing things can happen when a wealthy society is willing to spend the resources. Unfortunately, right wingers are mostly focused on next year’s tax bill, not the market + externalized cost of this and next year’s energy bill.

  • Stephen Havel

    A s usual, the leading edge thought and SCIENCE is ignored because people are brainwashed to put all their respect into behind the times physics that doesn’t take into account what’s happening now. Plus if you actually want to talk about the start of global warming…it was long, long before human industrialization as there is gobs of evidence planetary cycles have brought both huge heat surges and huge cold surges to various parts of the planet, certainly well before the current civilization according to all the leading archaeologists, etc.but then you won’t find much in the text books on that as few want to admit what they don’t know while teaching what they don’t know as if they did know. Lots of people in respectable positions don’t really have a clue but when something happens like those two huge objects over the Sun filmed by LASCO a couple weeks ago and then as usual replaced by NASA saying they were glitches in their equipment, the same things they said about the object(s) with Hale Bopp Comet and Pan Starrs Comet and ISON comet and MANY other things spotted and documented by the space satellites that are all very hush hush except in the nothing to lose leading edge scientists that mostly keep quite or if they say something it’s that it was a glitch and all their sheep follow in step fearing what they don’t know and don’t really want to know.

  • Anonymous

    You of course have personal acquaintances with these scientists that give you the inside scoop? Have you actually ever worked with data from NASA instruments?

    Has anyone ever suggested you might be a bit paranoid about NASA?

    Have you ever checked out this web site:

    or do you think they are in on the conspiracy too?

  • Anonymous

    You need to get out of the blogs and read some of the actual science. If you do, you will see 17 year pause is not quite accurate. Here is a blog that references a real scientific paper:

    Enjoy :-)

  • friedrichvondeitsch

    I see only one detractor that feels Doctor Suzuki is not a credible source of information. Out of all here who feel otherwise, it seems this individual reflects the national numbers of those who refuse to accept the natural world on it’s own terms.

    Only a very small minority of professional agitators and uninformed students of life are able to report, with a straight face, beliefs that are so obviously contrary to the facts.

    Not accepting global climate changes is the equivalent to not accepting gravity as a real force of nature to be reckoned with.

  • Anonymous

    and it is incorrect and nothing more than noise making

  • Anonymous

    “strange that it hasn’t come to pass”

    ….and where has your head been residing in the last decade?

    Obviously not looking at hard evidence. Always easy to call something drivel to cover up your ignorance isn’t it? But it’s all about what you believe and if it doesn’t fit your personal cosmology then attack it and use as much noise as possible to prevent yourself from expanding your own universe of knowledge. Do your homework!

  • Anonymous

    But of course you have no real evidence for your claim expect from those who are heavily financed by the folks who want us to burn the oil and gas, a most precious resource, as fast as we can. It was the same with the logging companies on the Pacific coast, blame the environmentalists and owls for the reduction in jobs and the closing of mills and not over harvesting.

    Why is it that every year in the US record high temperatures occur and why given the evidence are you denying that CO2 levels have increased by 25%? Imagine if nitrogen or oxygen in our atmosphere increased by the same amount. What do you think would occur? Think, read and learn rather than believe.

  • Anonymous

    Trees are important oxygen generators but so is most plant life including phytoplankton in the oceans which generate 90% of the earth’s oxygen. Oceans also absorb CO2 however too much CO2 in the oceans increases the acid in the ocean which could in turn kill ocean phyto and zooplankton as well as other larger ocean creatures.