David Suzuki another global warming scammer

[garfield]

nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/31/suzuki-money-doesnt-matter-heres-my-30k-invoice/


According to the newspaper, Suzuki told students that society suffers from an unsustainable fixation with money and consumption. “Money isn’t what matters,” he said. According to the reporter, he also said that money is “not what makes him happy.”
If that’s true why did he send the college a $30,000 bill a week earlier?
According to Statistics Canada, in 2010 the median annual income in this country was $29,250. In other words, a man who goes around proclaiming that money doesn’t matter charged more for a day’s work than half of us earn in an entire year.
Those dollars didn’t come from a wealthy corporation. They came from a school. Which means that John Abbott College now has $30,000 less to spend on its students.
And the man who says he doesn’t care about money has $30,000 more in his own bank account.

[Deleted]

If one doesn't report all the facts it is merely deceitful insane rubbish for the mentally ill., then truth is not the point for you is it sunshine, more keeping the sceptic dream alive that climate change is a communist plot,
and deluding the masses.

Suzuki accepts donations for his foundation that does substantive environmental work....it doesn't go into his pocket as the no doubt lard arse bloke who wrote the article infers..

www.davidsuzuki.org/donate/how-we-use-your-donations/

Our work depends entirely on donations from supporters who share our concern for the state of the environment and we are committed to effective use of their contributions to achieve our goal of sustainability within a generation.



Our total operating budget spending in 2010/11 was $8,606,758:
•71% on environmental programs and campaigns
•6% on administration
•23% on fundraising

[garfield]

The guys a peddler of bullshit, theres never been so many polar bears around.

[Deleted]

Where I haven't seen any here...what I have seen is beche de mer on my beach, never seen these creatures before so far south, tropic marine species are moving south....as far as Tasmania.

Are polar bear populations increasing: in fact, booming?

Answered by Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years.

Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren't their populations increasing: in fact, booming?

A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*

One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear's range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then.

We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.

Back then, the sea ice was solid and not noticeably in retreat. With stable habitat, polar bears were a renewable resource that could be harvested on a sustainable basis.

But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn't matter if polar bears don't have the required habitat.

Polar bears depend on the sea ice surface for catching their prey. A shorter duration of ice cover over their productive hunting areas means less opportunity to hunt. A reduction in sea ice has been statistically linked to reduced stature and weight in polar bears and to lower survival rates of cubs. So,it doesn't really matter that hunting is now largely under control or that we know a lot about other impacts people might have on bears. Without habitat, polar bears will disappear no matter what else we do. If a farmer has 100 cows out in a pasture, and every year he goes out and paves over some of his pasture, pretty soon he won't have enough habitat to support 100 cows. And, each time he paves over a little more land, his remaining land will hold fewer cattle. There may be some short-term enhancements of the remaining habitat that will forestall the inevitable. But, when his whole pasture is paved there will be no cows! Declining habitat now and the assurance it will decline in the future is why polar bears were listed as a threatened species. Discussions about how many bears may have lived in the past before and after hunting quotas have no bearing on this new situation.

Planetary physics require the world to warm as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so without greenhouse gas mitigation, the ice will continue to melt. For an animal dependent on sea ice to survive, the prospects are not good. As the ice decline continues, the plight of the polar bear only can worsen.

[garfield]

Sorry I should have clarified ... polar bear populations in the real world are increasing ... polar bears in the lefty global warming cult of death world are in dire straights and only by giving millions of dollars to that fat honey charlatan Al Gore can we save them


Got to allow for Spinout and Early that are living in a parallel universe ;D

[Deleted]

Howz it goin black knight ?

[garfield]

Fine thanks, just settling in for a night of stomping useless lefties like the cockroaches they are ;D

[Deleted]

Ah, so it's just a flesh wound

[garfield]

Not in your case, more like irreparable trauma.

[garfield]

[garfield]

Al Gore, David Spewzuki, they kind of remind me of our own carbon warrior Dickhead Smith that wants us to turn off the AC and light candles while he floats around in his personal helicopter lecturing us all and using 100X the energy of a normal person instead of just taking the bus ;D

[Deleted]

Obvious you didn't read the article on polar bears,.. some one creates some unfounded hyperbole bullshit on polar bears and you believe that Garflunkal.....nothing new there is it, just a simple primate swallowing bullshit banana's.

[garfield]

Depend which "expert" you ask, and until they can all agree one must remain very sceptical

[pim]

I hate to do this but I have to agree with Garfield about Dickhead Smith. Apparently he's produced some sort of alarmist doco about population growth in Australia which shows Uluru - or Ayers Rock for Garfield's benefit - in the middle of suburban sprawl.

[Deleted]

Dick Smith is a great Australian and his arguments on sustainable population levels for Oz has it's merits...perhaps Pim you should have a look at Dick Smiths acheivements before calling him a dickhead...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Smith_(entrepreneur)