Do you agree that David Suzuki is a fraud?

Question

This article seems to say just that.What do you think?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/sad_legacy.html

Answer 1

I don't think he's a fraud. The man's education, research, and knowledge are all very credible. But the personality is what might be the problem here. Understand, he is very liberal and spends his working and social time among other liberals. So his motives are what appear to be so strange and unrealistic. Here's a little analogy to go with this. A ship of knowledge  can be of great value to many people. But if it's going the wrong way, it serves no purpose.

Answer 2

No.

Timothy Ball is an undistinguished geography professor who has claimed he was a "Professor of Climatology", when his university had no such thing.  He sued someone who pointed that out, then dropped the lawsuit.  He has about 7 publications to his name, and few citations.

On the other hand, David Suzuki is an honored scientist, with dozens of publications, 43 books, and a long list of prestigious awards.  Check out his bio:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/General...

Just a little guy trying to take down a big one.  What this article really does is expose this organization as the collection of a very few "skeptics" that it is, with utterly no credibility.

I suppose jim z thinks these guys are "socialists" too.

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

Answer 3

I would agree that SPPI is neither good for science nor public policy.  If they can't post data with peer reviewed journals and instead create their own website, they are subversive scientists. The worst kind.

Answer 4

The big deal about him seems to be triggered by this:

David Suzuki’s next ‘Nature Challenge’ is apparently challenging students to determine if there isn’t some “legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing [about climate change] is a criminal act”, to quote the National Post (Feb 7, 2008).

So how would deliberate actions by political or corporate leaders on the topic of climate change differ from holding tobacco companies responsible?

I can't imagine what the controversy would be.  People who intentionally harm others are called criminals, and are held accountable.  Bravo.

Answer 5

No, but wow, how ironic is it that the source of this article is Dr. Tim Ball?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...

"So in response to Johnson's letter that correctly pointed out that Ball had puffed up his qualifications, Ball is going to sue the paper, Johnson and, for good measure, the University of Lethbridge.

I believe it is wrong for Ball to use legal harassment to attempt to suppress the truth about his qualifications so I've republished Johnson's letter on my blog."

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/...

What a hypocrite!

Answer 6

I truly Respect Mr. Suzuki.  He is an extremely knowledgeable and accredited academic.  My concern is about his ability to be a realist.  The Earth will continue to consume HC for the next 200 years.  Economic forces will dictate global change.  When HC becomes more expensive, alternatives will rule.  Without being bias,  nuclear will once again become an economic option.  (What is the Net Present Value of a Life 10,000 years from now)  Just Joking! A complex thought.

Answer 7

A fraud? I doubt it. I don't know anything about him aside from the fact that he's an environmental activist. But I think accusations of fraud are probably a little far fetched.

Tim Ball on the other hand, I do know about. And I don't trust him a bit. He's either quite ignorant of climate science, or is being purposefully deceitful. Either way I don't put much store into anything he says.

Answer 8

I grew up listening to and admiring D. Suzuki but over time I found him to be extremely liberally biased.  I think he has completely forgotten what science is and his political views have become melded into his scientific views to the point where he no longer can recognize the difference.  I saw that article on Shapesh... earlier post but didn't read it until you posted it.  His socialism has trumped his scientific reasoning.  Since I believe that socialism is a poison on society, I completely reject many of his views.  He needs to go back to school and relearn what science is IMO.

Edit: You will notice that all Bob can ever seem to do is quote an admiral or Newt Gingrich.  I doubt if they are socialist but if you don't realize that Suzuki is, you haven't been listening or you are so biases yourself, you can't see it.  Why is it that socialists won't admit to their socialism?

I looked at septic tanks blog to find out if he is just smearing Bell or if there is something behind it.  He states that Bell is not a climatogist but has a Ph.d in geography.  Interesting that is the same as more than one of his sources which he indicated were legit climatologists.  Here is a quote from his blog regarding a legit cliamatologist (has been a Professor of Geography at the University of British Columbia).  I think this indicates that if you are a skeptic, alarmists will smear you at every opportunity.  They focus on character assassination if they disagree.