May 11, 2016

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore: Once “brilliant,” today David Suzuki is “ideological,” “arrogant.” What happened?

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

Greenpeace co-founder turned "sensible environmentalist" Patrick Moore joined me to look back at his university days, when he studied under David Suzuki.

Moore says Suzuki's extensive lectures on genetics were "brilliant."

But now, he says, Suzuki "is the geneticist who's against genetics, because he is against all the genetic sciences we've developed to improved our food and medicine."

Moore has a theory about why Suzuki refuses to debate him...


WATCH the rest our our conversation when you become a Premium Member of TheRebel.media. It's fast and easy to join -- just CLICK HERE and get instant, exclusive access to news, analysis and interviews the mainstream media won't show you!

 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-05-17 13:04:48 -0400
It’s been a pleasure discussing issues Mr. Kokes, but I think we’ve covered as much as we can without getting deeply into political aspects. I do hope we can discuss more topics on future articles.
commented 2016-05-17 11:07:46 -0400
“Hyacinth commented 10 hours ago
“but Daniel Smith did, leader of the Wildrose, when in Edmonton just days before the election, stated that climate change was a myth. After polling to win a majority just days before, her party was reduced to a minority.” I do not know much about Alberta’s politics, but didn’t 9 MLAs from the Wild Rose cross the floor? That would make a larger negative impact or so one would assume. "

No, the crossing occurred just before the next election when the NDP won a majority.

“Hyacinth commented 10 hours ago
But you curry more favor with honey than vinegar.”

I contend I respond in kind. And I will continue to stereotype those who believe that global warming is a myth as Neanderthals.
commented 2016-05-17 00:50:21 -0400
“A “carbon tax” should be leveled to those that produce carbon not use it.”
Unfortunately it would be passed onto the consumer. No cost or increase is entirely absorbed by a manufacturer (business) but rather it is passed onto its consumers thus one could argue that is a tax on consumers, though indirectly. Should the tax be leveled at both the producers and the consumers then the poor consumers are hit twice, once by the government and once by the producers through increased prices for goods.

“the problem is man.”
Can’t disagree with you there. Only mankind wars, only mankind pollutes. “But to think Nature is healing as we speak is merely wishful thinking.” Perhaps, but then again strange things happen in nature that cannot be fully explained rationally or scientifically, not all is gloom and doom for the sun does rise each morn.

“but Daniel Smith did, leader of the Wildrose, when in Edmonton just days before the election, stated that climate change was a myth. After polling to win a majority just days before, her party was reduced to a minority.” I do not know much about Alberta’s politics, but didn’t 9 MLAs from the Wild Rose cross the floor? That would make a larger negative impact or so one would assume.

“My point being is that if a Conservative suggests global warming is a myth, they are done before they get started.” I disagree. That would only be a major consideration to a person that environmental issues were high on their list. To most it would be responsible stewardship that is of more import (responsible management of the economy to responsible management of all aspects of Canadian resources).

“Maybe that sounds too cliche but it gives me purpose.”

I do not think it sounds too cliché, we all need some purpose, something to light a fire under us. If that is what gives you a sense of purpose then by all means have at it. Tilting at windmills can be challenging and entertaining or outright frustrating. But you curry more favor with honey than vinegar.
commented 2016-05-16 21:53:40 -0400
I don’t agree with a carbon tax on citizens. Just a politically correct way of introducing yet another tax. plain and simple. A “carbon tax” should be leveled to those that produce carbon not use it. It is in the production of carbon that causes emission problems and green house gases. Carbon also pollutes the land and water. Those that profit from such activity while contaminating the earth should bear the costs of clean up and of course pay a carbon tax.

With respect to wind turbine power. I certainly don’t agree that there placement should impede migratory bird flyways and really, Ontario does not boast many of those. Regardless, wind turbine power has the least impact comparably speaking. So what if we loose a few birds in the process. Better a few birds then a host of other wildlife and fish. But you’re right, those in a good position will line their pockets. I guess that is capitalism.

Nature is indeed resilient but even nature has it’s limits. Nature cannot curb human activity as it would like to. Nature cannot regulate industry as it would like to. Nature cannot provide the biological warfare to combat the contamination as it would like to. Nature is doing what it can to fix the problem and the problem is man. Slowly Nature will cause the oceans to rise, the forests to burn and the land to dry to slowly choke us out. Once rid of us, Nature will regenerate the earth just as it had after the ice ages, after the dinosaurs got wiped out, etc. But to think Nature is healing as we speak is merely wishful thinking. Yes, it sounds good but the scientific evidence does not support “wishful thinking”.

With respect to Conservatives versus Liberals. If Conservatives like the Republicans down south believe global warming is a myth and nothing needs to be done, then how can I in good conscience support the Conservatives if I know what they are saying is wrong. And that is the dilemma I am faced with. You on the hand have “wishful thinking” on your side and because of that, it is not a deciding factor.

And yes, Harper did not lose the election on climate change…but Daniel Smith did, leader of the Wildrose, when in Edmonton just days before the election, stated that climate change was a myth. After polling to win a majority just days before, her party was reduced to a minority. Harper’s association with many anti-climate groups have also come to light after the election. My point being is that if a Conservative suggests global warming is a myth, they are done before they get started.

Therefore, it’s time to address the elephant in the room. To call a spade a spade. And to question anyone that suggests otherwise. I can only hope that I change a few minds in the process. I’m a realist and know that many Neanderthals will continue with their misguided rhetoric. But I will continue to confront them at every opportunity to show them how wrong they are. Science is on my side, so I can’t lose. Maybe that sounds too cliche but it gives me purpose.
commented 2016-05-16 18:40:18 -0400
“Hey, I got a life too” Point taken Mr. Kokes.

“Perhaps but what are the costs to retrofit each plant and more importantly, who will regulate it.”
The costs are minimal in comparison to say building a new nuclear facility or perhaps a turbine farm, but you raise an important question “who will regulate it”. Financing would no doubt be a collaborative effort, part federal and part provincial funding so I would assume that there would be one or two measures insisted upon by the federal government but the burden would be provincial. Problem as I see it is can we trust the provincial government? Ontario’s Liberal government has not exactly instilled public confidence with their poor choices and policies over the years in regards to the energy sector.

You pose another important question (re: China – trust them to do the right thing here), but I think it is applicable to all forms of energy production as well as manufacturing. We can control and regulate Canadian facilities and production, etc., but we cannot control nor can we dictate to other countries. That is also another reason why I am against carbon taxes. It does nothing but line select pockets. From a previous article on the topic I seem to recall that there were countries trading carbon credits while still producing the same level of emissions, yet they received accolades for alleged decreased emissions. In reality the appearance of reduced emissions were due to the credits traded not an actual reduction in emission levels. The whole thing struck me as incredibly farcical. It does not make sense nor will it make much of a difference in global emissions to impose restrictions and regulations along with taxation if only one or two countries (not all) actually reduce their emissions. So far we have yet to witness China being compliant in reducing their emissions. Australia has now repealed their carbon tax –
http://www.news.com.au/national/australias-carbon-tax-has-been-axed-as-repeal-bills-clear-the-senate/news-story/238465473c063b42312f5872eeaa6767
Yet Trudeau intends to push forward with his carbon tax. Idiocy at its best for it has been tried and failed to accomplish what it was allegedly designed to do (clean up a country’s emissions).

“If a turbine was built on a migratory bird route then that is really poor planning and the turbine(s) should be removed.” I thoroughly agree, but Wynne will not do so. There are many municipalities that have signed a NO HOST list, yet she is still going ahead with her plans for even more turbine farms without thorough proper investigations etc. It is a joke in Ontario to correlate “green” energy with the turbines because in Ontario they are in reality the opposite. They are destructive to wildlife as well as ineffectual at providing a stable source of energy as well as extremely costly. Seems the only viability to them is their subsidies and that of the lining of select pockets. Perhaps this is different in other countries or perhaps even provinces where there was proper investigations prior to erecting a turbine[s], but it seems to be the trend and not just in Ontario, as several online papers and sites that report the environmental problems encountered indicate. No long term studies can be thoroughly done as of yet for it is a relatively new source of energy in comparison to say a coal plant. So saying that the damage from turbines are negligible is a gross understatement. It would be more prudent to say in the short term they appear negligible.

Again, I know little about nuclear, so I will not make comment.

“The sobering truth to all this is that I think it may be too late.”
I do not believe that. Time and time again nature corrects itself. No one ever thought life would exist in that area after the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster – but surprise, nature is slowly healing itself.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/

“What bothers me that most in all this is that many conservatives and conservative groups like this one promote the misconception of global warming. … if Conservatives hold to this false belief, they will lose yet another election.”

I do not see how you can correlate one with the other. Harper did not lose because a number of conservatives do not believe in the climate hype. I know a few Liberals that do not believe in the climate hype. One has nothing to do with the other. If it were the case then one would assume that the Green Party, being the strongest advocate of climate change/global warming, would be leading the country right now or at least be the official opposition. Some people don’t even bother to vote let alone have strong beliefs on environmental issues. Many don’t give environmental issues a thought and cast their vote solely for personal reasons. Environmental issues only concern a few greatly and thus vote for whom they think would best fulfill that role and we see May has only 1 seat.
commented 2016-05-16 10:59:00 -0400
Hey, I got a life too and I was busy on the weekend. So don’t get your panties in a knot Hyacinth.

“Hyacinth commented 1 day ago
Coal plants, if properly maintained with high efficiency scrubbers are a viable energy solution, though hydro-electric generation where possible should be the focus for it is the least damaging in my opinion.”

Perhaps but what are the costs to retrofit each plant and more importantly, who will regulate it. I’m sure here in Canada that will not be much of a problem but what about China. China closed down 7,250 mines in the last 5 year and still has around 11,000 in operation. Yes they intend to close another 1000 but that still leaves 10,000. I doubt anyone can trust them to do the right thing here.

Nuclear is the best alternative and then Hydro despite the negative effects of a reservoir, etc. (If we kept bison that are an arid species unlike cattle who love the water, we would not have required the large water diversion schemes we have now). Furthermore, I believe wind power is purposely being perceived as being bad by those who have most too loose with the shift. If a turbine was built on a migratory bird route then that is really poor planning and the turbine(s) should be removed. I would hate to think that any democratic government in conducting even a rudimentary environmental assessment would not have identified the issue. Hence, why some information is suspect. Still, losing a few birds in nothings. If fish walked on land, we would be outraged at the deformities that have been generated and prevalent in the Athabasca river.

“Hyacinth commented 1 day ago
As you say I have no dog in the race either so my opinion matters little, but I am curious as to your take on it seeing that you do have some educational background. What do you think is the most viable solution long term Mr. Kokes?”

The sobering truth to all this is that I think it may be too late. If 2016 is going to be another record hot year then things are moving much faster than I had originally thought. And if the trend continues then I fear there is nothing we can really do at this point. The UN is funneling money into adaptive management schemes but you can do so much to build up land in Miami and still the oceans will inundate the area with a projected rise of 27 feet in sea water.

Most scholars see the correlation with bees to global warming. West Nile and Zika viruses are gaining momentum as increased temperatures spawn the proliferation of such viruses.

What bothers me that most in all this is that many conservatives and conservative groups like this one promote the misconception of global warming. They have contributors like David Ball and promote the likes of Moore and others, who have been completely discredited within the scientific community. A Neanderthal might be fooled by the rhetoric but the educated and the young, who even know better, are not buying it. And if Conservatives hold to this false belief, they will lose yet another election.
commented 2016-05-14 21:17:36 -0400
All bluster and no substance Mr. Kokes? It appears so. Can’t or won’t discuss? I think it is cannot therefore will not.
commented 2016-05-13 16:36:21 -0400
Apologies for the delay in responding Mr. Kokes, been a busy day.

“You really do have a high standard of yourself don’t you” Not the wording I would use but I do set the bar high, always have, but then again I will try my best as well for the other person[s] even if diametrically opposed in view. I miss the old days of “navel gazing” as one of my profs liked to call it. We’d debate a topic to death, metaphorically speaking that is. But that is neither here nor there, back to the topic at hand.

“I think some members in those organizations are too radical to be taken serious. I on the other hand am a realist. I believe there needs to be a balance between economic viability, environmental sustainability and social values/needs. My philosophy is that we did not inherit this land from our parents but are borrowing the land from our children.”

We are on the same page there. What bothers me is the hypocrisy of activists, their activism (action) is usually limited to a specific cause or date then nothing the remainder of the year (ergo not a constant), and yes too extreme for my taste as well. We try in our own small way to (truly) be green. Never litter, we compost, recycle, reuse what can be, walk if possible instead of driving. If everyone did small things like that it would have an impact for small things do add up.

“Yes, solar panels and wind turbines do have an impact on the environment. However, comparatively speaking, the impact caused by fossil fuels is far more detrimental and concerning. The impacts caused by panels or turbines are minor in nature and quite negligible. In other words, we can live with the collateral damage caused by them. The same cannot be said for global warming.”

Coal plants, if properly maintained with high efficiency scrubbers are a viable energy solution, though hydro-electric generation where possible should be the focus for it is the least damaging in my opinion. Nuclear, I admit I do not know much except that in Ontario stupidity is reigning for they intend to build a nuclear waste facility too close to the lake. Ontario, the hotbed of turbine debate and hatred. I witnessed first hand dead birds, then less birds, then almost no birds for many of the turbines were built in the direct migration path of many species. It galled me when they cut down an eagle’s nest to pave the way for another turbine. City dwellers don’t realize the size of these turbines until they get to see one up close. Several wind farms in different parts of Canada, States, and Europe are not as large (height and girth). Larger is not always better or more efficient but in Ontario seems they believe that bigger is better. I am against turbines, but no qualms about solar panels only solar farms, farmland should be used for food production. Similar to the fact they use corn for the production of ethanol, they could manufacture it from seaweed but instead they use a food source. Small solar panels would be a viable partial solution but cost is a major factor plus it is not efficient enough to replace the total electrical household consumption. I do not believe one can effectively argue which has the worst or best carbon footprint, opinion wise yes but factually no for too many variables come into play.

“minor in nature and quite negligible”. Not so I think, look at wild life and nature. There are reports in the UK (where turbines have been around for a number of years) the effects are now starting to show, i.e,: earth worms are the first to vanish on farmland where a turbine has been situated (and their turbines are smaller in size than Ontario’s) due to the vibration, if there are no earth worms to aerate the soil plant life suffers then withers. Turbines in the long term effects farming capabilities which effects the ability to feed people. There are reports, again from the UK, where the constant vibration and sound are effecting the animals, their sheep are suffering from miscarriages and deformed births. and so on. Then there is the rare earth mineral needed for turbines, that opens a host of immediate problems for the people living near the mines where this is extracted (China). So there is an impact, perhaps not as noticeable in the short term as some other forms of energy production but definitely noticeable in the long term.

I don’t dispute some changes over the decades, we’d probably find some common ground here. However, a carbon tax does nothing to fix the global carbon foot print, it is a money grab only to line select pockets. What of personal carbon footprints? Activists such as Suzuki preach conservation and reduction of Canadians’ personal carbon footprint yet his carbon footprint is much larger than the average Canadian’s and enormously larger than people who actually are trying to reduce their usage and waste. These activists are great at jumping up and shouting "climate change, global warming, doom gloom, etc. yet these same people jetted or drove to their protest, use items made from oil and or dependent on oil, toss trash on the ground, and so on. Average Canadians look at this then laugh, why should they care when the so-called experts and activists are such shining examples of the ultimate hypocrisy “preaching one thing then doing the exact opposite with their lifestyle”.

“bees disappearing at alarming rates (42% last year)” that was a hot debate where I lived before we moved. The bees were really disappearing from the area, even our garden seemed effected (not so many bees and they were smaller). Some blamed it on the pesticides, some blamed it on the turbines, some said simply nature running through a cycle, others the effects of climate change. Everyone had an opinion but no answer.

In Germany Merkel is phasing out nuclear plants but replacing them with coal plants, plus their alternative energy production subsidies are now causing financial problems, seems they have no answer, but are trying everything.
examples:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-14/coal-rises-vampire-like-as-german-utilities-seek-survival
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html
As you say I have no dog in the race either so my opinion matters little, but I am curious as to your take on it seeing that you do have some educational background. What do you think is the most viable solution long term Mr. Kokes?
commented 2016-05-13 10:07:28 -0400
Oh so gracious of you Hyacinth to enter into a debate with me. You really do have a high standard of yourself don’t you. And I don’t use tactics to deliver the truth.

Firstly, I don’t belong to any organizations including Greenpeace. Even I think some members in those organizations are too radical to be taken serious. I on the other hand am a realist. I believe there needs to be a balance between economic viability, environmental sustainability and social values/needs. My philosophy is that we did not inherit this land from our parents but are borrowing the land from our children. A safe environment for them is my primary concern and motivation.

Yes, solar panels and wind turbines do have an impact on the environment. However, comparatively speaking, the impact caused by fossil fuels is far more detrimental and concerning. The impacts caused by panels or turbines are minor in nature and quite negligible. In other words, we can live with the collateral damage caused by them. The same cannot be said for global warming.

Within a hundred years we will see many detrimental effects of global warming. We are already seeing the effects now. The droughts, the rising oceans, the raging fires, the hotter than usual El Ninos, the advent of the zika virus, bees disappearing at alarming rates (42% last year), hottest years in history in the last 15 years with 2014 and 2015 being the hottest. And I could go on. One only has to look to the “settled” and creditable science to know this is the reality. One only has to find the facts to know this to be true. Yes, I know when I say this I risk being called an dooms dayer, a crack pot or an environmental nut. But I have no dog in the race, can speak freely and have the scholastic background to know what I’m talking about.
commented 2016-05-13 09:25:14 -0400
I read the “official” Greenpeace statement on Patrick Moore. What I read is the equivalent of bombastic damage control along with requests for donations,“Break Free From Fossil Fuels”, to becoming a member of their organization. Perhaps Mr. Kokes is a member of said organization? would explain the attitude. Interesting that how on a couple of related links (though not referenced by them) they advocate alternatives such as solar panels and turbines but neglect the negative impacts of such and concentrate on the negative impact of fossil fuel. One would think they would be have concern on alternative replacements as well because of the rare mineral needed in its construction along with the environmental impact of wildlife (birds, bats, insects). Oh well, interesting to read but that is about the extent.
commented 2016-05-13 02:06:54 -0400
At least you are changing your tactic Mr. Kokes, more amusing than outright insulting. Good for you, you are progressing towards the point that we could have a civil conversation or debate about the article. However, I would not be tossing a quote about judgment because I would have to toss back the quip “take the plank from your own eye first” for it is you who keeps bringing up “morality” not I. I made reference to your insults which makes any debate (or conversation) impossible/ends the possibility before started. Also never assume for odds are you will assume incorrectly, as you have already.

If you truly want to debate or converse about the article as you have claimed then my suggestion is drop all insults from your vocab. If you are willing to do so then I would be willing to debate or converse about the article with you. The choice is yours.
commented 2016-05-12 22:52:40 -0400
Contrary to what you would have people believe, I made no wrong assumption. One would have to be blind to not know where your allegiance lies. And I got you pecked right. Thou protests too much while saying very little.

So I ask again, what debate are you referring to? You keep eluding to one but have yet to manifest one. But rather continue to speak to the issue of morality. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
commented 2016-05-12 21:40:08 -0400
Mr. Kokes,
You cannot respond to another person without insulting. You assumed I agreed with Moore and piled on more insults instead of asking, thus effectively shutting off any chance of debate to begin with which clearly indicated that you had zero intent to debate. Now you pull the victim card and have the audacity to blame me that I have changed this into a debate about morality when it is you who shut down the debate with your first insult. It is not about morality though interesting you seem to think that this is what it equates to. You pat yourself on the back undeservedly. You should heed your own advice and talk to your hand until you learn how to speak to someone instead of down to someone.
commented 2016-05-12 21:19:42 -0400
What exactly are you trying to debate here Hyacinth? Morality? I came into this debate to criticizing Moore’s conduct, his credentials and his affiliation as I have done so in the past. Quite convincingly I might add. And I contend that those who believe Moore’s ulterior motives, like those affiliated with Friends of the phony Science, are Neanderthals. Simply incapable of a cognitive thought among themselves to seek the real truth in what is being said. Then you waltz in changing the topic to one of morality. Yet you have no problem in calling me a “liar”. What a childish reaction! Go play in the sandbox in front of your cave and when you are ready to talk like a grown up about Moore or others that think like him, we can continue this debate. Until then, you can talk to my hand.
commented 2016-05-12 21:04:40 -0400
Again you prove my point Mr. Kokes, your posts are not with the intent of debate but rather insult only. You prove yet again what a liar you are.
commented 2016-05-12 20:55:58 -0400
“Hyacinth commented 1 hour ago
Mr. Kokes,
You have, without a doubt, proven that you are a liar, “I see the Neanderthals have gathered once again to support Patrick Moore.”, is the first line of your post which was an unwarranted and unprovoked attack on ALL readers of this site yet you now claim “I don’t insult anyone but rather question their opinions and more importantly, ask where they get their information from.” If that is merely asking then you have a lot to learn about manners.”

I contend that the “Neanderthals” know who they are in this group. Simple put, they are those in support of Patrick Moore. Not all readers here support Patrick Moore just the Neanderthals. And since you apparently support Moore’s assertions, you too fall into the Neanderthal camp.

So don’t play the righteous hypocrite in suggesting civility and implying that those with a contrary view are rude or narcissistic. We have had debates on climate change before and instead of presenting any real evidence you opt to play the victim. I must admit you do that well. Takes quite the nerve to stand before all as you do on your podium and preach morality when only your sensitive feelings are being bruised. You know what they say, if you can’t take the heat get out of the cave you dwell in.
commented 2016-05-12 19:10:13 -0400
Mr. Kokes,
Since you will not avail yourself to civility do not expect any from me now or in the future.

You have, without a doubt, proven that you are a liar, “I see the Neanderthals have gathered once again to support Patrick Moore.”, is the first line of your post which was an unwarranted and unprovoked attack on ALL readers of this site yet you now claim “I don’t insult anyone but rather question their opinions and more importantly, ask where they get their information from.” If that is merely asking then you have a lot to learn about manners.

“Secondly, I respond in kind. If you would look to those I addressed with an open mind, you will note that their comments were insulting and contemptuous. And I see your comments to me are no different.”

You insulted ALL of the readers with your opening post which did not allow for debate period. Thus you are lying as to your intent with your postings and feigning innocence where none exists.

“wipe the tears from your eyes and go whine elsewhere, but spare me your indignation”
“but should someone have another point of view your panties get tied in a knot.”
Proves my original posting to you. From your first post on this article to your last nothing but insults.

Jay and I rarely if at all agree but both of us are civil to each other. You have tunnel vision in more aspects than one if you insist on your fallacy that “should someone have another point of view your panties get tied in a knot”. As to my coming to his defense he is not a child and does need me to defend his honor, I am not his mother. I spoke up against you for you insulted me when you insulted ALL of the readers.

What you posted originally was not a retort to some other poster but rather an outright unsolicited attack on ALL of the readers. – “I see the Neanderthals have gathered once again to support Patrick Moore.” “BTW, and you Neanderthals should sit for this,”

Following your posts I see no open mind on your part at all as you claim nor a wish to have open debate. I see a shallow narcissistic hypocritical person whose sole intent in posting is to be rude and disruptive.
commented 2016-05-12 17:59:12 -0400
Furthermore, I am surprised your high mighty self did not speak up sooner when your cohorts were blasting Jay Kelly with their remarks. As long as folks are speaking your language you are okay wiht that but should someone have another point of view your panties get tied in a knot. You are the worst kind of hypocrite – a righteous one!
commented 2016-05-12 17:49:46 -0400
What happened?

Cash and greed changed him.

Made him an ugly person inside and out
commented 2016-05-12 17:48:49 -0400
Thanks for paying attention to me and heeding my words Hyacinth. Firstly, I don’t insult anyone but rather question their opinions and more importantly, ask where they get their information from. Yes I do refer to the collective borg of anti-climate haters as Neanderthals because in this day and age, anyone who thinks such a phenomenon is not real, hasn’t advanced up the evolutionary scale.

Secondly, I respond in kind. If you would look to those I addressed with an open mind, you will note that their comments were insulting and contemptuous. And I see your comments to me are no different.

So if you don’t want to have an intellectual debate on the issues at hand, wipe the tears from your eyes and go whine elsewhere, but spare me your indignation. I know this might be a shock to you but there is a thing called freedom of speech and I just want to make sure all here have the correct information to make an informed decision. My hope is that eventually you will all become a bit wiser from it.
commented 2016-05-12 14:30:29 -0400
Mr. Kokes,
It is you who is behaving like a knuckle dragging Neanderthal by insulting ALL of the people that come to this site. You come to this site not wanting debate or discussion but rather just to dis people, the site, etc.. Why should anyone pay you any heed if or should you post what you perceive as pertinent links? There are Liberals, NDP, as well as Green that occasion the site and debate has and can be held between all political stripes, but that cannot nor will not happen when you rush in like a bull in a China Shop breaking all of the crystal with your name calling and arrogance. Civility is a courtesy that you apparently believe should be one-sided – in other words we should be civil to you and pay attention to your links but you can act like an asshole toward us. Rather lopsided and closed minded wouldn’t you say? The exact attitude you accuse the people that frequent The Rebel of. Hypocritical to say the least.
commented 2016-05-12 12:40:46 -0400
Tell me White, how bad are your callaces at the back of your hands from dragging them through your cave?

What ice age? Why don’t you put the comic book down and get informed. You owe it to your children and your grandchildren.
commented 2016-05-12 12:30:32 -0400
Mr. Kokes: Are you on coke?? Please inform me where Saint Suzuki’s ice age is, or did mans use of fossil fuels negate it in the meantime. Stick up for the real phony moron, I’ll stand behind Patrick Moore.
commented 2016-05-12 12:24:15 -0400
“sensible environmentalist” What a joke! I love the how the Neanderthal establishment throws out such powerful word symbols in order to provide the false perception that their intent it good when their motives suggest otherwise.

Friends of phony Science is another good example who purposely misinforms the public at large and pretends the opposite. Shameful to say the least.
commented 2016-05-12 12:11:35 -0400
BTW, and you Neanderthals should sit for this, but Moore was not the co-founder of Greenpeace. It just sounds good to give this heretic false credence.
commented 2016-05-12 12:09:11 -0400
I see the Neanderthals have gathered once again to support Patrick Moore. If some of you recall, I provided “several” scathing and credible reports on Moore, in terms of his links to fossil fuel corporations which has motivated him to speak with a devil’s tongue.

I am not saying I support Suzuki as none of us are without our faults, but Moore is a money grubbing hypocrite of hypocrites. So I ask, what happened to HIM? Of course I ask that sarcastically as his bank account will provide that answer.
commented 2016-05-12 10:22:13 -0400
Jay Kelly commented – More importantly, respect your elders.

Heh, is that sarcasm Jay? I mean this feigned ethic coming from a guy who routinely spits out insults to older posters here.

Does this bogus respect for elders extend to elder misanthropic demagogues?
commented 2016-05-12 05:58:57 -0400
Suzuki serves no useful or beneficial purpose to society, wasting donation money operating as mere government opponents, and do not deserve charity tax-exempt statuses. Suzuki exists for one reason and one only … and that is TO MAKE ENVIRO-PROFIT. http://wp.me/P1jq40-1IE Suzuki’s non-profit charity status is being investigated and may be revoked. We need a NEW Suzuki that cares more than the human race, which he has referred to as maggots. http://wp.me/p1jq40-Mn http://wp.me/p1jq40-mL
commented 2016-05-12 05:52:51 -0400
If you want to collect money or subsidies , you must find something wrong with the climate and the environment , then our obese government are with you on this control eco-environment scam, the pyramid of extortion at his best, and Suzuki is just a part of the scheme.
commented 2016-05-12 02:12:06 -0400
Hey Drew, I’m pretty sure Jay Kelly is Gordo Steele. Same style, same idiocy, same hypocrisy, it sure looks like him. It would explain a lot.