Zeihan

[dmlfarmer]

Why not mention those on the other side that tried to sway the election? The bullshit story from Buffalo Chronicle that many of you were happy to share - absolutely no basis in fact - from an American "media outlet" that has a track record of running pro or anti candidate stories for cash reward? Who paid them on this occasion CPC, Jazz or the Republican party?

And you know full well that Canadian media did not get paid to run a pro Trudeau campaign - come on you're smarter than that. The money was put in place to prevent undue election influence by false information spreading, primarily through social media by either foreign or domestic players. Unfortunately this did not work as there were clearly influences applied from both sides. We need a better solution in future or we will never again have an election based on issues - merely social media fed lies about the leaders of all the parties.

According to most posters on here there is no "other side." It is all fake news, the MSM are all biased, all climate scientists are on the take, George Soros/Al Gore are funding the liberal agenda etc. And the primary "proof" provided in such arguments are conspiracy theories, unsourced media social media posts and youtube videos. It really does make you wonder are believers of such conspiracies really that ignorant or are they actually trolls intent on spreading propaganda.

There was an interesting study about 5 years ago that looked at who was funding the climate change deniers. It found nearly Conservative foundations are funding climate change denials to the tune of a billion dollars a year. Here is MSM coverage of conservative funding of climate change denial and a link to 2 studies that found right wing funding of climate change denial. For your Sunday evening reading pleasure:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05P1W7oN5zujxcgOG3cpTpyheOdIAioQ5TWFmi jrwxGXmPDDCSKsMVqsg#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05P1W7oN5zujxcgOG3cpTpyheOdIAioQ5TWFmi jrwxGXmPDDCSKsMVqsg#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7

https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v149y2018i3d10.1007_s10584-018-2241-z.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v149y2018i3d10.1007_s10584-018-2241-z.html

[macdon02]

Is there a law that media must tell the truth? Wouldn't it have been 600 million cheaper just to regulate them? If regulation is so good, why not for media? Could add some penalties and fines and maybe pull their license if they are lying.

[jazz]

For your Sunday evening reading pleasure:

Well if the Guardian said its true then its just got to be. I am sure Cathy McKenna has a subscription.

Next you are going to say I have to believe the Huffington Post.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/24/media-outlets-guardian-reconsider-language-climate Guardian spurs media outlets to consider stronger climate language

Use of terms ‘climate crisis’ and ‘global heating’ prompts reviews in other newsrooms

Along with the revised use of “climate change”, the Guardian’s style guide also now favours “global heating” instead of “global warming”. Meanwhile, the term “biodiversity” is discouraged in certain instances to instead emphasise “wildlife”.
Advertisement

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.

[dmlfarmer]

Well if the Guardian said its true then its just got to be. I am sure Cathy McKenna has a subscription.

Next you are going to say I have to believe the Huffington Post.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/24/media-outlets-guardian-reconsider-language-climate Guardian spurs media outlets to consider stronger climate language

Use of terms ‘climate crisis’ and ‘global heating’ prompts reviews in other newsrooms

Along with the revised use of “climate change”, the Guardian’s style guide also now favours “global heating” instead of “global warming”. Meanwhile, the term “biodiversity” is discouraged in certain instances to instead emphasise “wildlife”.
Advertisement

“We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,” said the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner. “The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.

typical Troll reply. Attack the messenger rather than the message. Ignore the study which documents 1 billion dollar funding of climate change denial by conservative foundations and instead try to make the rebuttal about the media outlet that carried it. And furthermore, make sure if there are 2 media sources you only attack one and not both.

[furrowtickler]

According to most posters on here there is no "other side." It is all fake news, the MSM are all biased, all climate scientists are on the take, George Soros/Al Gore are funding the liberal agenda etc. And the primary "proof" provided in such arguments are conspiracy theories, unsourced media social media posts and youtube videos. It really does make you wonder are believers of such conspiracies really that ignorant or are they actually trolls intent on spreading propaganda.

There was an interesting study about 5 years ago that looked at who was funding the climate change deniers. It found nearly Conservative foundations are funding climate change denials to the tune of a billion dollars a year. Here is MSM coverage of conservative funding of climate change denial and a link to 2 studies that found right wing funding of climate change denial. For your Sunday evening reading pleasure:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05P1W7oN5zujxcgOG3cpTpyheOdIAioQ5TWFmi jrwxGXmPDDCSKsMVqsg#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/?fbclid=IwAR05P1W7oN5zujxcgOG3cpTpyheOdIAioQ5TWFmi jrwxGXmPDDCSKsMVqsg#yhiBukAYcJPDfIUC.01

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7

https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v149y2018i3d10.1007_s10584-018-2241-z.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v149y2018i3d10.1007_s10584-018-2241-z.html

Is Al Gore not on the IPCC?

[jazz]

typical Troll reply. Attack the messenger rather than the message. Ignore the study which documents 1 billion dollar funding of climate change denial by conservative foundations and instead try to make the rebuttal about the media outlet that carried it. And furthermore, make sure if there are 2 media sources you only attack one and not both.

I have already destroyed the climate change hoax many times on here, and I have exposed the fraud behind the scam, the IPCC. I have even exposed their partners in crime NASA and NOAA.

Any media outlet that quotes them as their source is complicit in a scam and unworthy of serious consideration in any capacity.

[blackpowder]

So I listened to the entire broadcast.
Interesting.
Question.
If coal is being priced out of electrical production. Why did our govt have to lie and tell us it was to buy social license.
He's likely right on the Wests economic future if we don't start saying NO.

[blackpowder]

Also, he said our industry would be history if keystone not built by 16.
Just takes longer I guess.

[Oliver88]

So I listened to the entire broadcast.
Interesting.
Question.
If coal is being priced out of electrical production. Why did our govt have to lie and tell us it was to buy social license.
He's likely right on the Wests economic future if we don't start saying NO.

The only issue is natural gas is the replacement for coal.

He says in the US, the switch is due to a free supply. In Canada clean natural gas is evil to the snobby Laurentian elite law makers and even has a carbon tax applied.

[chuckChuck]

I have already destroyed the climate change hoax many times on here, and I have exposed the fraud behind the scam, the IPCC. I have even exposed their partners in crime NASA and NOAA.

Any media outlet that quotes them as their source is complicit in a scam and unworthy of serious consideration in any capacity.

Yikes! Jazz is never short of over confidence and sweeping generalizations!

You left out just about every other major world class scientific organization which all support the science that proves human caused climate change is real. You better add them all onto the fraud list!

Also Steven Harper (Econmist!), as Prime Minister he signed a G7 agreement that Canada would stop using fossil sources of energy by the year 2100. But aren't you the one who said economist are all wrong as well! He is a fraud too, apparently.

You better add Preston Manning who supports a carbon tax. Along with Scott Moe, Jason Kenney, and Doug Ford who as premiers all have some type of plan to reduce carbon emissions.

Its going to be a long list! But don't let that stop you.

I would be willing to bet that you likely believe everyone else is wrong on every subject. And only you know the truth about everything! LMAO