Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

[blackice]

my how bitter and displaced you get when you are wrong and or simply do not understand a simple concept.

As I said before Asher just say I do not know and learn something.
It is far less stressful then I know it all and then try to bs your way through it. Look at the way you are now...
I suppose a beer with friends was not such a bad idea after all hum?

You'll learn some day.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
my how bitter and displaced you get when you are wrong and or simply do not understand a simple concept.

As I said before Asher just say I do not know and learn something.
It is far less stressful then I know it all and then try to bs your way through it. Look at the way you are now...
I suppose a beer with friends was not such a bad idea after all hum?

You'll learn some day.

I have no idea what you're talking about, I have no idea why you're citing what you're citing, I have no idea why you're telling me these things as if to counter my argument because they certainly don't, and I have no idea why you refuse to explain them when asked.

I've told you many times now that I simply don't understand your argument or why you're saying what you're saying, and instead of actually clarifying it you're just call me thick and tell me to read it.

I'll be blunt, blackice, you have no clue how to express yourself. You need to work on it. Start by explaining in more detail WHY you're quoting stuff, WHERE they come from, and WHAT relevance they have.

Is that good? Or do you prefer to sit there and use the smilies and tell me to read more?

I'm not bitter, I'm frustrated. And beer sucks.

[blackice]

Thick as a brick, I guess the point is exactly that you have no clue. Quit pretending to know everything, you don't that is clear.

Now if you chose to read the information to get a clue great. If not at least move aside and let people who chose to be informed converse. Simple really.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Thick as a brick, I guess the point is exactly that you have no clue. Quit pretending to know everything, you don't that is clear.

Now if you chose to read the information to get a clue great. If not at least move aside and let people who chose to be informed converse. Simple really.

That is just great, you still refuse to clarify.

You tell me to read. I read it, I ask you what the point is and where you get it from, you call me thick. I ask again, you call me thick. And you do it again just for good measure.

I don't know everything, blackice, and I'd love for you to find somewhere where I said I did. I find it particularly amusing because I'm telling you I don't know why you're doing this stuff, and you've said in a couple posts in a row now about how I say I know everything.

If anything you're the one that acts like he knows everything. You act so condescending with everything you do, copying and pasting stuff randomly without any relevance then calling people thick when they don't understand it. It's poor form, it's offensive, and it's childish, and most of all it's stupid.

[Asher]

I'm done with this thread. Tingkai has shown he resorts to threadjacking and ignoring people's comments to get through a debate and blackice tries to set up smoke and mirrors to win his.

I don't have the energy to put up with it for tonight, and I'm definitely not in the mood.

Tingkai and blackice can now use the thread to circlejerk their egos about saving the planet, since that's all they're willing to see anyway.

[blackice]

My my you do lose bad

One day you too will see the grand illusion do not say you were not warned...

[DRoseDARs]

Gaa! Too much to read through just to find any prior mention of this:

Gee...maybe Alberta should petition the United States government to become the 51st State. Or would that be 52nd after Puerto Rico...?

[Tingkai]

Asher, either you still don't get it, or you refuse to admit that you're wrong.

You posted an article and I criticized the article for being one-sided and an example of poor journalism.

In response, you claim that I don't know anything about journalism and you try to defend the article saying that it is normal to print one-sided propaganda. (I would agree that this is probably true for the Herald. )

You then claim that there were other articles that provided the opposing viewpoints, but you have yet to post these mysterious articles.

Besides which, the article you posted appeared on the Calgary Herald website under the heading Front Page, and five will get you ten that this means the article was on the front page of the Herald. The article appeared on the website by itself so where is the balance that you claim exists.

What you don't realize, or refuse to accept, is that every news story is supposed to be balanced. Claiming that other news stories provide the balance doesn't wash. Any news article that only provides one side of the story is biased and an example of either lazy journalism or incompetent journalism.

You then claim that I have made assumptions about the bias in that article when in fact my comments are based on that article. In other words, my comments are based on facts not assumptions.

But I suppose I don't have the right to comment on this Herald article because I haven't read the Herald's sports coverage.

What's really funny is that you accuse me of being obsessed with this issue and threadjacking when you're the one who continues to talk about the Herald.

You now claim that I have slammed the entire Alberta media, and then changed to slamming only the Herald. That is a complete lie. I have only slammed the Herald, (although the Sun chain could easily be criticized). I have never, ever claimed that the Edmonton Journal was a propaganda mouthpeice for the Albertan government, nor would I because the Journal is a respected newspaper, unlike the Herald.

You continue to dig yourself further into the ground by claiming that the Calgary Herald does not have a homepage, even though I posted a link to the Herald homepage.

As for complaints about the Herald management, you are correct that the strike occurred during the Black regime, but if you paid attention to the news you would know that things have gotten worse under the Canwest regime.

And even though you claim you're "done with this thread" we all know that you'll be back.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Gaa! Too much to read through just to find any prior mention of this:

Gee...maybe Alberta should petition the United States government to become the 51st State. Or would that be 52nd after Puerto Rico...?

Actually, the plan is to turn the US into the Province of Southern Alberta.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Actually, the plan is to turn the US into the Province of Southern Alberta.

That would go along very well with the Nevada state initiative to legalize posseccion (sp?) and use of a small amount of "Mary-Joe-Wanna-Toke?" and the push up north to legalize in Canada.

Vote YES on question number...uh...hmm...dang, I'm hungry...

(A medicinal version passed in 2000, don't know if that's the same initiative...I do know that Nevada law requires initiatives to pass twice to become law)

(Vote NO NO NO on Question#2 Defence of Marriage (DoM pronounced: "dum")

No, not trying to threadjack, so if you want to respond to something in THIS post, start a new thread. Comprende?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
In response, you claim that I don't know anything about journalism

Not once did I say anything of the sort, in fact I knew you had a journalism degree. I said you didn't know anything about how that issue of the Calgary Herald was structured. There is a difference, I hope you can see it...

and you try to defend the article saying that it is normal to print one-sided propaganda. (I would agree that this is probably true for the Herald. )

It is normal for an article about something to address one side, then have it be accompanied by several other articles on the same page. Usually this page is titled something like "Kyoto". You prefer that every specific article balances both sides of the issue as a comparitive piece, and most of the time that's what should happen. Sometimes the paper does a whole page layout about the issue with "one sided" articles, each from a different perspective. That's what you don't know about, since you don't get the paper, and that's why you shouldn't be assuming things.

You then claim that there were other articles that provided the opposing viewpoints, but you have yet to post these mysterious articles.

They're Canadian Press articles. Surely you've seen them before?

Besides which, the article you posted appeared on the Calgary Herald website under the heading Front Page, and five will get you ten that this means the article was on the front page of the Herald. The article appeared on the website by itself so where is the balance that you claim exists.

You still don't understand.
Canada.com is not the Calgary Herald website. It's CanWest Global selecting a dozen stories from the entirity of the paper and putting them online. The entire paper isn't online, only a very small minority of it is, and it's selected by Canada.com, not the Calgary Herald.

You still don't understand that, apparently.

But I suppose I don't have the right to comment on this Herald article because I haven't read the Herald's sports coverage.

No, you do have a right to comment on it, it just makes you look like an idiot when you don't even know it. You still don't understand the concept of groups of article tackling an issue from a different perspective on the same page.

What's really funny is that you accuse me of being obsessed with this issue and threadjacking when you're the one who continues to talk about the Herald.

What are you doing right now?

You now claim that I have slammed the entire Alberta media, and then changed to slamming only the Herald. That is a complete lie.

So why did you say you see why I have the opinions that I did, because that's all that's printed out here?

As for complaints about the Herald management, you are correct that the strike occurred during the Black regime, but if you paid attention to the news you would know that things have gotten worse under the Canwest regime.

And CanWest is a Chretien sympathizer...what is your point?

And even though you claim you're "done with this thread" we all know that you'll be back.

You know it, I can't stand you spreading misinformation.

Face it, Tingkai: Canada.com is not the Calgary Herald, it doesn't have the same layout and is staffed by Canada.com employees, not the Calgary Herald. You are assuming things when you blast an article for being one sided. Deal with it.

[Asher]

yay, Tingkai, there's more horribly biased news from the Herald

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/story.asp?id={05FE2F1D-822D-4CE2-B3B9-2ADFAAA3C73A}

Credit demand threatens Kyoto

Herald News Services

The future of the Kyoto accord was thrown into chaos Thursday after Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal confirmed Canada has no intention of meeting the conditions of the treaty on greenhouse gases.

The government's position flabbergasted other signatories to the 1997 accord, appalled environmentalists, puzzled opponents and left some Liberals scratching their heads.

Dhaliwal was backed up by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who said Canada should ratify now and worry about implementation later.

"We have a goal, it's to ratify Kyoto and the goal is 2012," Chretien said following a cabinet meeting. "So we have the time to manoeuvre in a solution that will permit Canada to meet its international obligations."

The manoeuvring has already begun.

Dhaliwal said an implementation plan would be presented at a joint federal-provincial energy and environment ministers meeting in Halifax on Oct. 21.

That plan, he said, will start from the premise that Canada's emission reduction targets for 2012 are now almost 30 per cent less onerous than those laid out in the accord Canada signed.

That's because Canada wants credit for its sale of relatively clean natural gas to the United States, a demand that has been explicitly and repeatedly rejected in negotiations with the other Kyoto signatories.

"Canada will include clean energy exports in our obligations under Kyoto," Dhaliwal said. "Our program will be based on (reducing annual emissions by) 170 megatonnes, not 240."

However, a spokesman for the European Union delegation in Canada said Thursday the accord "is not open for renegotiation."

Roy Christiensen said Canada's position will fail as a negotiating ploy and threatens to undermine the protocol.

"Either you're ratifying the accord or you're not. . . . If Canada does this, others may follow Canada's lead and then we no longer have one international agreement."

But Dhaliwal was intransigent about the clean energy credits.

"They can say no, but we've put it on the table and it will continue to stay there," he said.

The contradiction left many questioning whether Canada has any semblance of a plan for implementation or even any expectation the accord will ever be brought into force.

"The only conclusion I can come to . . . is they're convinced Kyoto will never be implemented, that they'll never get the 50 per cent of countries (representing) 50 per cent of emissions, so it will never come into effect," said Dave Chatters, the Canadian Alliance natural resources critic.

"We're going to ratify it but we have no intention of meeting our commitments? That doesn't give you a lot of credibility in the eyes of the world, does it?"

Chretien surprised observers on Monday when he unexpectedly announced in Johannesburg that Canada would ratify the accord by the end of this year. He made no mention of clean energy credits.

The prime minister compared implementing Kyoto with slaying the federal deficit. The Liberals couldn't say in 1993 exactly how they would reverse the $40-billion budget shortfall, only that it would happen.

"We didn't have a precise plan," Chretien said Thursday. "The government took a series of decisions. This is exactly the same thing."

Premier Ralph Klein says he sees some hope in Ottawa's demand for credits, but said far more information is needed before Alberta softens its opposition to Kyoto.

Klein said the federal government's position on the accord has degenerated into a ball of confusion, but standing firm on the credit demand could be a tiny step toward bringing national consensus on a strategy to combat global warming.

"Maybe it's a starting point, but I'd like to know exactly what it is they would like to achieve, and how. And what these environmental credits are all about," said Klein.

The kyoto accord gives Canada until 2012 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels, a real-term reduction of 240 megatonnes.

Alberta has crafted an alternative plan, setting similar targets, but doubling the timeline to meeting them.

Klein acknowledged Chretien could conceivably use the credits demand as a way to bow out of Kyoto, but said the whole matter has become impossibly murky.

"I guess he could, but again, I don't know what it is he's talking about," said Klein.

"I'm not saying the Alberta plan is the end-all and the be-all. I'm saying the federal government should consider all plans and all options, and there should be full consultation with industry, with environmental groups, with scientific groups, that they examine in detail the kinds of technology being developed to achieve cleaner burning coal, to obtain emissions efficiencies relative to the development of fossil fuels."

Meanwhile, former premier Peter Lougheed said the wording of Chretien's demands over credits will be key to whether it qualifies as an exit strategy for Ottawa.

Lougheed said asking for credits is one thing; it's quite another to hold a hard line if the answer is no.

"I call it condition-precedent," said Lougheed. "The Canadian government says we will not ratify Kyoto unless you at least let us count our natural gas exports.

"But then you have the other element. If they make it a condition-precedent, and the Europeans say, 'No way,' then they have an out. The question is whether the prime minister will take that out."

Even with the reduced targets, Lougheed said Canada shouldn't touch Kyoto. And he said no global warming strategy should be adopted -- including the made-in-Alberta strategy -- until a clearer scientific picture has emerged on potential economic and other costs.

"It's my opinion the science is clearly mixed. I think the most important thing is to find a mechanism where the science can be assessed more closely."

© Copyright 2002 Calgary Herald

[Asher]

And with that, let the misinformation begin.
This time I'm seriously gonna stop posting in here. I realize Tingkai and blackice will post followups with more misinformation to try to lure me back, but I can't be arsed anymore.

Think what you like, say what you will, Kyoto isn't the only way to reduce emissions, and there are other alternatives to it. Personally, I honestly don't care anymore because by the time it does get implemented in Canada, I won't be here.

[blackice]

Silly wabit tricks are for hookers, lets do some fishing.

Misinformation heh that's the governments for you
Can't get a straight arrow out of the lot.
On the other hand makes for some good typing practice.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
It is normal for an article about something to address one side, then have it be accompanied by several other articles on the same page. Blah, blah blah... (Asher repeats his previous misconceptions of the news and once again tries to prove that he is the media expert, but just digs himself deeper into the ground.)

Asher, try to understand something simple. There is no such thing in the news business as a "comparitive piece." Every news story should be balanced and fair.

This story was on the front page, right. So your crazy theory about other articles providing balance doesn't hold water.

Why don't you just admit the fact that you're full of it on this one.

Originally posted by Asher
You still don't understand.
Canada.com is not the Calgary Herald website. It's CanWest Global selecting a dozen stories from the entirity of the paper and putting them online. The entire paper isn't online, only a very small minority of it is, and it's selected by Canada.com, not the Calgary Herald.
[AND AGAIN]
Face it, Tingkai: Canada.com is not the Calgary Herald, it doesn't have the same layout and is staffed by Canada.com employees, not the Calgary Herald. You are assuming things when you blast an article for being one sided.

Absolutely unbelievable. You're actually trying to defend your this rubbish.

The funniest comment is the one where you write "it doesn't have the same layout."

No kidding. Wow, a website with a different layout than a newspaper. Next you'll be telling us that newspapers are printed on paper and websites are on the Internet.

Here's the Calgary Herald website:

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/

You will notice that the address says Calgary Herald. If you go to that webpage and click on "about us" it will tell you about the Calgary Herald. The Letters to The Editor are written to the Herald. The columnists are the ones who work for the Herald. The advertising is for the Herald.

This is the one and only Calgary Herald homepage.

Yes, for efficiency reasons, the website is operated by CanWest Interactive (Calgary Division), whose offices are located in the Calgary Herald building. However, the editor and publisher of the Herald determine the content of the website just as they do the with the paper. The website staff are not independent of the Herald publisher and editor.

Why in the world are you trying to claim that the Herald website is not a part of the Herald? This is the most ridiculous thing you have ever tried to say, well one of the most ridiculous.

Originally posted by Asher
Blah, blah, blah... You still don't understand the concept of groups of article tackling an issue from a different perspective on the same page.

Cut the crap. It is really getting tiresome. That story was not part of a "Kyoto package" and you know it. It was a single story on the frontpage.