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.

[Asher]

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

I did. What are you, blind?

It's also biased, but it also makes a lot of sense from a common sense standpoint.

Now who's the one digging?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

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.

This is getting pathetic, Tingkai.

You're right. You are pathetic.

I understand now why you have your opinions. You're only getting one side of the story.

Try to understand this, and trust me, this is my area of expertise: It is a journalist's job to ensure that every news story is balanced. You can't go around saying, "Oh, today we are only printing one side of the story."

This story was propaganda for the Alberta government. It fits in perfectly with the mentality of the Calgary Herald management.

The fact that you can't admit that is a sad indication of your ability to think critically.

[Asher]

You have no clue what you're talking about, Tingkai, and you're still digging?

Do you have any concept of how lots of newspapers work? They'll have a collection of articles on the same page with different aspects.

You look at one article and start blasting it for not giving both sides of the story? Did it ever occur to you it wasn't the only article?

The story was what the Alberta government was going to do about it, Tingkai, and as Albertans I think that is VERY relevant to us and VERY important to be in a newspaper. I suppose if it was "unbiased" it wouldn't print it, right Tingkai? We'll just leave out the details like that!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Do you have any concept of how lots of newspapers work? They'll have a collection of articles on the same page with different aspects.

This is good. Please, Asher, tell me how newspapers work. You're obviously an expert compared to me. Afterall, I've only been working in newspapers for a dozen years.

Please share your expert opinion. Oh, and maybe you can tell me where you obtained your expertise. How long have you worked as a journalist? Which newspapers? Where did you get your journalism degree?

This should be good for a laugh.

[Asher]

I don't need to share an opinion on it, Tingkai.

You were making lots of assumptions and you got busted. Face it.

The Calgary Herald regularly puts a collection of articles on a page each addressing a different issue/perspective/story about a larger topic. We have sections like "War on Terrorism" to "Kyoto".

Each article tells a specific part of the story, and to get the whole story you read the whole page. Every article isn't a comparison piece between each approach. One article is about Alberta's plan to fight it, another is about how the Sierra Club thinks it's great, another is Chretien's reaction to Alberta.

But of course this must all exist only in another dimension, since you are a newspaper expert and know everything about every paper in existence and have no fear in making huge assumptions and belittling anyone who might point out otherwise.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you made some major assumptions that turned out to be false, and you're still going with it. It's amazing, it really is.

[Asher]

BTW, in the future you should refrain from bragging about a journalism degree.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't need to share an opinion on it, Tingkai.

But you will anyways.

Originally posted by Asher
You were making lots of assumptions and you got busted. Face it.

Only in your dreams, boy, only in your dreams.

Come on, if you are going to say that you should at least make an argument against my comments. Simply saying "you're wrong, you're wrong" doesn't make you right.

Fact: you posted an article that presents one side of the story. There were no comments from the federal government. There were no comments from provincial governments supporting Kyoto. There were no comments from neutral observers. The article was one-sided.

So give it up Asher. You're defending the undefensible.

Originally posted by Asher
Each article tells a specific part of the story, and to get the whole story you read the whole page.

You're grasping for straws. The article you cited was a main story on the Herald website, and five will get you 10 that it was on the front page, probably above the fold. There is no corresponding counter-viewpoint so your theory falls to peices.

What you fail to understand is that every article is expected to achieve some form of balance and fairness.

What you're putting forth is a lame excuse for a substandard newspaper.

Originally posted by Asher
You have no idea what you're talking about, you made some major assumptions that turned out to be false, and you're still going with it.

Ya, what do I know about journalism, other than having a Master of journalism and more than 10 years of newspaper experience. I bow to the great wisdom of an 18-year-old computer geek.



Admit it Asher. You're wrong. I have made no assumptions. Nothing I have said has been shown to be false.

Throughout this thread you have repeated made statements that have been proven wrong. you have posted propaganda and then tried to claim that it was balanced.

The only thing good that have done is give us all a good laugh.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
BTW, in the future you should refrain from bragging about a journalism degree.

Funny, I hadn't mentioned my journalism degree before you posted this comment.

It is, by the way, a statement of fact.

EDIT: Got to go. The field is all yours Asher.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Come on, if you are going to say that you should at least make an argument against my comments. Simply saying "you're wrong, you're wrong" doesn't make you right.

Fact: you posted an article that presents one side of the story. There were no comments from the federal government. There were no comments from provincial governments supporting Kyoto. There were no comments from neutral observers. The article was one-sided.

So give it up Asher. You're defending the undefensible.

You're grasping for straws. The article you cited was a main story on the Herald website, and five will get you 10 that it was on the front page, probably above the fold. There is no corresponding counter-viewpoint so your theory falls to peices.

Do you understand how Canada.com works? Canada.com is not the Calgary Herald website, the Canada.com staff seemingly randomly selects articles from various publications and puts them on the site.

What you fail to understand is that every article is expected to achieve some form of balance and fairness.

What you're putting forth is a lame excuse for a substandard newspaper.

Tingkai, do you know how pathethic this makes you look?
Not all newspapers are structured the same way, and I quite like the way they structure theirs.

Admit it Asher. You're wrong. I have made no assumptions. Nothing I have said has been shown to be false.

Oh my God, Tingkai...
That article was one of 3 for that one day, for the Kyoto issue.

Gagh, you know what? Nevermind. This is lost on you.

You are so convinced you're right that you fail to understand much of anything, and the sad thing is you're probably sitting there thinking I'm the one not getting it.

You just don't know what the Calgary Herald was that day, you saw ONE article that Canada.com selected from it, and you're off in a big huff about how it's a substandard paper. You ASSUME many things, mainly about how we only hear that one side of the story, then when I tell you it's actually not the case, you plug your ears and keep going on and on about how all articles should be "balanced".

Why don't you just drop it and get over it? You don't know what the paper looked like, everything you're basing this off is assumptions, and you don't even have the balls to admit it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Funny, I hadn't mentioned my journalism degree before you posted this comment.

It is, by the way, a statement of fact.

You've mentioned it before in other threads, and hinted at it again strongly here.

Social science degrees are a joke.

They're for people who are afraid of failure in the real degrees, for people who have failed out of the real degrees, or for pinky commies (who are, in fact, communist because they know they don't have job skills for a decent job! ).

[notyoueither]

Hey! I resemble that comment.

History is supreme.

Only so we can tell you all how fvcked up you've got things.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Ya, what do I know about journalism, other than having a Master of journalism and more than 10 years of newspaper experience. I bow to the great wisdom of an 18-year-old computer geek.

Good old Glonkie is a font of wisdom.

He always knows better about a subject that he argues in than everybody else, dispite the fact that he neither has the formal education or professional experience in those fields.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Good old Glonkie is a font of wisdom.

He always knows better about a subject that he argues in than everybody else, dispite the fact that he neither has the formal education or professional experience in those fields.

Unfortunately this entire point is moot.

Why do I need a degree in journalism to see that they split up the issue into a bunch of different articles on the same page? Tingkai sees one posted online and goes off on a tangent about how badly written it is since it doesn't talk about Chretien's reaction, when that was in another article. He then goes on and cites his experience as a journalist, as if this somehow makes a difference in the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about since he hasn't read the damn paper.

And then UR comes in and takes a cheap shot because he feels the need to always do that to me because he JUST doesn't like it that a little 18 year old kid can know more about some stuff than he does.

Unbelievable, you two are two peas in a pod.

Come to think of it, I'm beginning to suspect you're DLs.

And BTW, I don't always know more than anyone else. Just in the computer threads with you, since you've displayed many times that it is true. In this case I also know far more about how the Calgary Herald structures its newspaper than Tingkai, despite his qualifications it doesn't change the fact that he didn't see the damn paper and thought he'd assume a bunch of stuff and make an ass out of himself anyway.

[blackice]

Smog draining the health care system and economy of more than $1-billion says the Ontario Medical Association. That yellow halo surrounding large cities such as Toronto - commonly known as smog - contains harmful sulphur and nitrogen oxide, according to York University Environmental Studies Professor Grant Sheng. He says increased vehicle use and coal-fired electric generation plants are among the root causes of our air pollution problems. "If this chemical soup can peel paint and erode concrete, think of what it is doing to our lungs," he says.

Canada is well positioned as a world-leader in environmental technologies. As a country, we have the right economic conditions, world-class skill sets, technology and increasing numbers of leading-edge companies poised to take advantage of expanding world markets. The government is committed to working in partnership with all stakeholders to enable the Canadian environmental technology sector to be one of the leading pathways to economic growth and social well-being in the knowledge-based economy.

International trade and capital flows have significant potential to influence growth and development in more sustainable directions worldwide. Government has a role to play by ensuring that these flows are reconciled with important environmental and social policy objectives. Such reconciliation could also increase support for international efforts to liberalise trade and investment.

On November 14, 2001, Canada and the 143 other members of the World Trade Organization agreed to launch a new round of global trade negotiations. All countries have agreed to negotiate the reduction or elimination of tariffs and other barriers to trade in environmental goods and services. Canada has strong export strengths and world-class environmental technologies, so both the global environment and our businesses stand to gain.

Environmental technologies, if properly deployed, represents a win-win proposition and can make a significant contribution to improving our environment, while improving our collective standard of living. By acting in partnership with all stakeholders, the government can support the development of this critical sector of our economy while enhancing the well-being of all Canadians.

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/pg00019e.html

Strategy man with combine this with carbon sinks etc. Canada will only have to reduce GHG's by one third. At the same time invest heavly into Environmental technologies and corporations that impliment these plans.
You do have a win win situation and very little impact on the economy, in fact my guess is our economy will get better because of it.

[blackice]

Oh big news here

Ok Calgary Herald like most other major papers have unwritten agreements with the governments of the day.
It goes like this, you print what we ask and we give you the first crack at breaking news and exclusives.

Think about what they don't print and won't print to give you some clue to that.