David Suzuki is a Zoologist. He is not trained in climate science and knows better than to shoot his mouth off on topics that lay outside of his expertise as a scientist. Then again, Suzuki is a self-described activist first and this explains his actions.
He got his PhD in zoology - and worked as a geneticist. He is scientist capable of thinking through in other disciplines - more so than a lay person confronted with science in general can do. Are you a scientist? He is hardly 'shooting off his mouth' - he has considerable credentials behind him regarding his views on nature and the environment and is respected. You say that he should "not speak outside of his expertise as a scientist" - from that I am guessing you are not a scientist yourself. If you were you would understand the interdisciplinary nature of science - and that science studies straddle boundaries all the time.
Sorry, but your scare tactics and your pleas to ignorance and bandwagon effect do not effect me anymore.
What? I am not aware of doing any of this. I haven't even addressed you in a post. I am not concerned with 'effecting' you.
Not to mention the notion that you are arguing for strong-arming anyone who disagrees with you is proof that your position is so very fragile that you must restort to threats and almost outright physical attacks in order to get your way.
There is a huge disjunct here. You quoted my post - so it looks like you are addressing me - but I think you have confused me with someone else. I am far from strong-arming anyone, just posting information - and am hardly 'threatening' anyone, certainly not with 'physical attacks' to 'get my way'. Where in the world is all this coming from? A bit OTT. I think.
Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a lie, a myth spread by greed and to gain the almighty dollar. It has now reached a cult like status.
If science is a cult - sure. As for the money - you've got to ignore it - muddies the water. Anyone arguing money - or an economic slant - is going down a by-way. This is not an economic argument - that's the wrong frame.
Even a first year student in Human Geography knows that humans change where they live. Cities change the climate around them - cities in deserts with irrigation and swimming pools create humid environments - in the desert. Micro-climate changes have been observed for decades, centuries. This is not new stuff. No one is lying. What an odd thing to accuse.
Global change is not a far ways to go for the scientist in his thinking - given the intensity of industrialization across the planet. We have seen such clear evidence of micro-climate change - it doesn't take a lot to see global implications - which we are seeing in spades. You have a better idea? Other than: 'well, that's just what it does, all those cycles and stuff' - as some are fond of saying. It's because we know about all those 'cycles and stuff' - that we know we are in something very unique - with pretty good evidence as to why.
Why does the idea that humans are changing the climate create such opposition in you? We have changed the world locally for a very long time. Why does it have to be
not to do with humans? For it not to do with humans is to exempt the human from it's position in the natural world like any other organism. Upon what basis do you exempt the human being from it's connectedness and responsibility within the natural web of existence?
I would recommend that you expand your scientific reading - and not listen to politicians. The Anthropocene Epoch comes from science out of many disciplines. It's describing what is being observed. Climate Change is but one part of that changing gestalt.
If it eases you to think it's a myth - very well - but the Pacific island nations that are having to relocate their populations to other countries because of rising sea levels do not see it as a myth. Changes are afoot - and it will be the municipalities who deal with the realities of a changing natural world that will 'weather' the changes. Like Suzuki says - it's not that the world will cease to exist - it will continue to exist, but on new terms, which humans will have to deal with. If we don't the consequences appear to be fairly clear.
