Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

[blackice]

Well i'm off to listen to thick as a brick by Jethro Tull, at least that makes some sense. The resident thick as a brick ( nO Names ) has just become boring. Same old tripe same old non sense.

Good night all.

Lots to read there Asher if you can take down the wall er bricks...

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/PolicyBriefingEng.pdf

They are not the only ones saying this.

David Suzuki said it, it must be true. He knows everything about economics.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai, you do know that CanWest Global owns the Calgary Herald, which is headed up by the family friend of Chretien?

Ah, the world according to Asher: an article that contains only the viewpoint of the Alberta government is fair and balanced because the owner of the newspaper is a Liberal supporter.

The article only demonstrates that the Calgary Herald continues to produce sub-par journalism. No editor that I know would ever have allowed such a one-sided article to be printed. It's just poor journalism.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Ah, the world according to Asher: an article that contains only the viewpoint of the Alberta government is fair and balanced because the owner of the newspaper is a Liberal supporter.

I especially like the parts of the article that talk about how it's unlikely they'd win a court appeal. That's also the viewpoint of the Alberta government, isn't it?

[notyoueither]

No. they usually fire the editor who gets so uppity.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

David Suzuki said it, it must be true. He knows everything about economics.

If you had bothered to glance at the article before you criticized it, you would have seen that it was produced by the World Wildlife Fund and the David Suzuki Foundation, not David Suzuki. The two organizations hired the US-based Tellus Institute to conduct the study.

Among the study's conclusions are:
- A cumulative net economic savings of $4 billion across the economy reaching
- $1.6 billion per year, or $47 per capita, in 2012.
- The net addition of 52,000 jobs in the economy generally, due to the redirection of consumer spending away from fuel and electricity and toward other goods,
services, activities and investments.
- A $135 average annual gain in household wages and salaries; and a $2 billion increase in the national GDP beyond that projected in the business as usual
scenario.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If you had bothered to glance at the article before you criticized it, you would have seen that it was produced by the World Wildlife Fund and the David Suzuki Foundation, not David Suzuki. The two organizations hired the US-based Tellus Institute to conduct the study.

The World Wildlife Fund and David Suzuki Foundation -- THE unbiased source for information for political issues regarding the environment...

Give me a break.

Their conclusions are what they want to conclude. Perhaps I should start linking to the Canadian Petroleum Association's studies. But no, you'd dismiss that outright, but here you are arguing about the David Suzuki Foundation's report on it.

Laughable.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

I especially like the parts of the article that talk about how it's unlikely they'd win a court appeal. That's also the viewpoint of the Alberta government, isn't it?

You mean the quote from a lawyer who previously worked for the Alberta government? Yup, that's great balance.

[Asher]

BTW, do either of you seriously believe Kyoto would create 52,000 jobs? You seriously believe Kyoto's going to increase everyone's wages? INCREASE in GDP?

That's so outrageous. Just THINK about it...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You mean the quote from a lawyer who previously worked for the Alberta government? Yup, that's great balance.

Tingkai, look at the title of the article. The article is about what the Alberta government's position on the issue is, and what they're going to do about it, and suddenly you think it's a big comparitive piece?

You either don't know how to read, or you're just digging for excuses to exclude any articles that disagree with you.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Their conclusions are what they want to conclude. Perhaps I should start linking to the Canadian Petroleum Association's studies. But no, you'd dismiss that outright, but here you are arguing about the David Suzuki Foundation's report on it.

Wrong. I never claimed that these estimates are correct. I merely provided the info.

You're the one saying that a study by environmentalists is biased, while you trumpet the stuff from business organizations.

And again, you missed the point which is you condemned a study without even reading it.

[Asher]

And again, you missed the point which is you condemned a study without even reading it.

I openly admit to ignoring studies from foundations with a clear interest in the matter. And we've all heard their claims about job creation due to Kyoto (I've mentioned them earlier), it's not a new study to me in the first place.

The point is it's outrageous, ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone is buying it.

The business organization's study was based upon real world figures and estimations. Assuming our largest trade partners and only neighbors wouldn't ratify it, it looked at all of the business we'd lose. It's also biased, but it also makes a lot of sense from a common sense standpoint.

Canada and the US are so close, it's hard enough to give incentive to a lot of businesses to stay in Canada, Kyoto will compound the problems. Job creation my ass.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai, look at the title of the article. The article is about what the Alberta government's position on the issue is, and what they're going to do about it, and suddenly you think it's a big comparitive piece?

You either don't know how to read, or you're just digging for excuses to exclude any articles that disagree with you.

Here's a news flash: newspapers are not supposed to be PR outlets for governments. The first rule in journalism is to always strive for fairness and balance. There is no such thing as a good article that only presents one side of the story. It is simple. Really.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Here's a news flash: newspapers are not supposed to be PR outlets for governments. The first rule in journalism is to always strive for fairness and balance. There is no such thing as a good article that only presents one side of the story. It is simple. Really.

Newspapers report the news. That was the news for this article. We've also had articles on the Suzuki Foundation's reports, we've also had articles on Chretien's rationale behind it.

You're acting like this is all the paper prints, when it's certainly not.

It's an article about Klein's reaction. That's what the news was for the day, deal with it. If you really do care the paper had other articles on Chretien's reaction as well. You see, it was under a section that took up an entire page called "Kyoto" with a bunch of articles about different aspects of the issue.

But I'm not going to let that get in the way of your righteous rant about something you have no clue about. It's too funny.

This is getting pathetic, Tingkai.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

I openly admit to ignoring studies from foundations with a clear interest in the matter. And we've all heard their claims about job creation due to Kyoto (I've mentioned them earlier), it's not a new study to me in the first place.

The business organization's study was based upon real world figures and estimations.

So the environmental foundation has a "clear interest" while the business organization produces real information.



You are digging yourself deeper into the ground.

I mean come on, you must be able to admit that both groups are biased.