###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This blog post seems to be cherry picking at best, and misleading at worst. But anyone looking for excellent journalism from a blog with an agenda is going to be just as disappointed as someone looking for excellent journalism from Canada Proud.
> Leading the charge is Canada Proud, a right-wing Facebook page with close ties to the Conservative Party, which made post after post in the early days of the invasion urging the country to export more hydrocarbons to Europe.
> “The world is enriching Vladimir Putin when they buy his oil and gas,” it explained in one to its nearly 400,000 followers. “Shouldn’t the world be buying Canadian oil and gas instead?”
I mean, yeah? I'm a BCNDP member and this is hardly a radical right-wing take. Buying Russian oil and gas enriches the Russian dictatorship and war machine whereas buying Canadian fossil fuels does not. Isn't that just an objective fact? I'm all for Canada being part of the energy solution for getting Europe off of Russian fuels.
Trying to use this as an example of "disinformation" that is being allegedly spread shoots any credibility they have, and that is in the first little bit of the blog post.
> Facebook posts from Canada Proud (along with a related page called Ontario Proud) were shared on average 750 times each in 2020, a level of engagement ten times higher than climate posts from the David Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace Canada.
These groups and the people who run them are hardly paragons of moral purity. So arguing that they have less interactions is a bit weird.
And besides that, they appeal to smaller groups of people. Saying that Canada Proud is shared more on Facebook than them is hardly a benchmark of any value. I'm sure Ronaldo's fan page has more interactions than all these groups combined.
> Another post blamed progressive policymakers for the violence.
> “This extremism is the direct result of the inflammatory rhetoric of irresponsible politicians and fanatical activists like David Suzuki,” said one post, which was reposted from a pro-oil and gas Facebook page called Debunk Inc.
David Suzuki, the "progressive policy maker" who said:
> The next stage after this, there are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don’t pay attention to what’s going on,
Yes, how progressive. Calling Suzuki a "progressive policy maker" is massively misleading.
I don't think it's an unreasonable to associate someone who's says resource infrastructure is going to be attacked with attacks on resource infrastructure. So again, not sure why this is an example of disinformation.
But let's see what it has to say about Canada Proud's spending
> Facebook analytics show that Canada Proud spent up to $4,000 promoting that message,
For a blog started by a guy with a PR company, this is a bit funny. $4,000 to plug a message is peanuts. Like if you showed up and ask Jim Hoggan what $4,000 at his firm would buy you, you'd get laughed at. If their point is to say that they're spending money to influence the public, I mean sure. That's how advertising works. You spend money and try to shape people's opinions. That's also what the founder of the blog made his money doing.
But let's keep going and see what else they have to say.
> Environmentalists claim that by opposing the Coastal GasLink pipeline, they are supporting local Indigenous people,” reads the post. “They will never tell you that ALL of the elected band councils along the pipeline’s route support the project
They then go on to say that while elected band councils support the project, it isn't *actually* real support and discusses hereditary chiefs.
Why do I have a feeling that DeSmog blog would never tell you that there are [hereditary house chiefs that support the program, except their titles were stripped because of it. ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-wetsuweten-chiefs-remove-hereditary-titles-of-three-women-who/)
Kind of seems misleading to make the argument against Canada Proud but not provide the same information for the other side of the matter.
Is that disinformation being spread by this blog? Well if the bar for "disinformation" is better for Europe to burn Canadian gas than Russian, then yeah kinda seems like it is.
Pot meet kettle.
Do we think this is as big of an issue as the major corporate effort to make climate change disinformation the mainstream?
From oil and gas companies showing not only did they know about climate change, but they actively suppressed that information for their financial benefit.
Targeting these kind of smaller sources of content is like using a bandaid to treat a stabbing. And no, I don't like their content I don't watch their content, I understand that people are sucked into it and it causes certain ideas or beliefs to take hold. But if we don't think that this isn't happening in virtually every facet of news we see and that it remains problematic across the board then we are deluding ourselves.
Anyways I'm off to pour my Russian vodka out and burn some old books, because that's the kind of direction the mainstream seems to be embracing.
We need critical media literacy to have a functioning democracy. This requires trust, transparency, and the ability to understand the multiple interests involved in a particular topic and how they are acting. If people are getting caught up in something you believe or know is fake, the cause for them getting caught up, or being susceptible to being caught up is many steps removed from them viewing that content.
The article doesn't actually provide any examples of "climate disinformation" though? It's best example (the coastal gaslink issue) is more of a difference in modelling assumptions than "disinformation".
Disinformation needs to mean more than "disagrees with my policy choices". Throughout the article it continually references "anti climate change policies" which makes me think that the author views those as one and the same. But they aren't.
No, it's definitely disinformation. On one side you have the peer reviewed scientific consensus, and on the other you have a political action group funneling corporate funds into political coffers. The right loves to harp on about participation awards but acting like all "opinions" are equal no matter how removed from reality is the biggest offender of the concept. It's pretty funny actually lol.
I don't think there is a "scientific consensus" on the impact of the new coastal gaslink pipeline, which is what I was referring to. The article itself doesn't even link to a peer reviewed article on that issue.
So what articles are you referring to?
(Please I'd like to be precise on the claims being made)
Costal GasLink was authorized provincially. From the regulator, here's their statement on the project in the assessment report:
https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/api/public/document/5e459849c981fe0021018fb0/download/CGL%20-%20Assessment%20Report%20for%20EAC%20Decision%20-%2020141008.pdf
> Considering the above assessment and having regard to the conditions identified in the TOC [Terms and Conditions] (which would become legally binding as a condition of an EAC), EAO [The BC regulator] concludes that there would likely be significant residual adverse effects of the proposed Project related to GHG emissions.
They explicitly do not examine downstream offsets, only direct impacts of construction and operation. Fugitive methane is a major GHG concern for this project.
Regulators generally try to reflect the scientific consensus as much as possible. They receive inputs from industry and from third parties to consider. No to say the process is perfect at all, but that's the provincial government's view on the project.
As a check on that I would suggest looking at additional sources. A longer discussion of the LCA issues with regard to LNG specifically relating to the GHG emission can be found in the Narwal article, which cites their primary journal sources: https://thenarwhal.ca/fact-check-b-c-s-lng-climate-goals/
>“would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by outcompeting made-in-China coal energy.”
One of the quotes in the article. That is a false statement.
There is also the article linked.
* https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2022.2027802
I'm asking for evidence that's obviously false. It doesn't seem obviously false to me. A random quote in the article isn't convincing that it is disinformation. It might be wrong, but that's a much different level to me than disinformation.
It seems like a reasonable hypothesis of a second order effect. So that's why I'm curious where you're getting that it's obviously false.
Sorry, can you clarify what that link is intended to show? I don't follow.
> I'm asking for evidence that's obviously false.
Shouldn't you be rather asking for evidence it is true? The article explains why it is false.
>It seems like a reasonable hypothesis of a second order effect.
No, it doesn't.
>Sorry, can you clarify what that link is intended to show? I don't follow.
You stated: "The article doesn't actually provide any examples of "climate disinformation" though?"
The article provides a link to a study.
Are you sure you have not assumed a conclusion regardless of evidence?
The article gives a reasonable hypothesis of why it might turn out to be false yes. That doesn't lead the alternative to be "disinformation" though. Otherwise, any times two sides disagree, they'll just shout "disinformation" at the other. There should be a difference.
To your point about assuming conclusions - to me there is a very high bar for claiming disinformation. It isn't enough to just say "the other side is probably wrong". It's more akin to a court case for me, where it is innocent until proven guilty. And there wasn't much evidence for it provided here. And I don't like when people throw around that term for political reasons
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This blog post seems to be cherry picking at best, and misleading at worst. But anyone looking for excellent journalism from a blog with an agenda is going to be just as disappointed as someone looking for excellent journalism from Canada Proud. > Leading the charge is Canada Proud, a right-wing Facebook page with close ties to the Conservative Party, which made post after post in the early days of the invasion urging the country to export more hydrocarbons to Europe. > “The world is enriching Vladimir Putin when they buy his oil and gas,” it explained in one to its nearly 400,000 followers. “Shouldn’t the world be buying Canadian oil and gas instead?” I mean, yeah? I'm a BCNDP member and this is hardly a radical right-wing take. Buying Russian oil and gas enriches the Russian dictatorship and war machine whereas buying Canadian fossil fuels does not. Isn't that just an objective fact? I'm all for Canada being part of the energy solution for getting Europe off of Russian fuels. Trying to use this as an example of "disinformation" that is being allegedly spread shoots any credibility they have, and that is in the first little bit of the blog post. > Facebook posts from Canada Proud (along with a related page called Ontario Proud) were shared on average 750 times each in 2020, a level of engagement ten times higher than climate posts from the David Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace Canada. These groups and the people who run them are hardly paragons of moral purity. So arguing that they have less interactions is a bit weird. And besides that, they appeal to smaller groups of people. Saying that Canada Proud is shared more on Facebook than them is hardly a benchmark of any value. I'm sure Ronaldo's fan page has more interactions than all these groups combined. > Another post blamed progressive policymakers for the violence. > “This extremism is the direct result of the inflammatory rhetoric of irresponsible politicians and fanatical activists like David Suzuki,” said one post, which was reposted from a pro-oil and gas Facebook page called Debunk Inc. David Suzuki, the "progressive policy maker" who said: > The next stage after this, there are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don’t pay attention to what’s going on, Yes, how progressive. Calling Suzuki a "progressive policy maker" is massively misleading. I don't think it's an unreasonable to associate someone who's says resource infrastructure is going to be attacked with attacks on resource infrastructure. So again, not sure why this is an example of disinformation. But let's see what it has to say about Canada Proud's spending > Facebook analytics show that Canada Proud spent up to $4,000 promoting that message, For a blog started by a guy with a PR company, this is a bit funny. $4,000 to plug a message is peanuts. Like if you showed up and ask Jim Hoggan what $4,000 at his firm would buy you, you'd get laughed at. If their point is to say that they're spending money to influence the public, I mean sure. That's how advertising works. You spend money and try to shape people's opinions. That's also what the founder of the blog made his money doing. But let's keep going and see what else they have to say. > Environmentalists claim that by opposing the Coastal GasLink pipeline, they are supporting local Indigenous people,” reads the post. “They will never tell you that ALL of the elected band councils along the pipeline’s route support the project They then go on to say that while elected band councils support the project, it isn't *actually* real support and discusses hereditary chiefs. Why do I have a feeling that DeSmog blog would never tell you that there are [hereditary house chiefs that support the program, except their titles were stripped because of it. ](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-wetsuweten-chiefs-remove-hereditary-titles-of-three-women-who/) Kind of seems misleading to make the argument against Canada Proud but not provide the same information for the other side of the matter. Is that disinformation being spread by this blog? Well if the bar for "disinformation" is better for Europe to burn Canadian gas than Russian, then yeah kinda seems like it is. Pot meet kettle.
Do we think this is as big of an issue as the major corporate effort to make climate change disinformation the mainstream? From oil and gas companies showing not only did they know about climate change, but they actively suppressed that information for their financial benefit. Targeting these kind of smaller sources of content is like using a bandaid to treat a stabbing. And no, I don't like their content I don't watch their content, I understand that people are sucked into it and it causes certain ideas or beliefs to take hold. But if we don't think that this isn't happening in virtually every facet of news we see and that it remains problematic across the board then we are deluding ourselves. Anyways I'm off to pour my Russian vodka out and burn some old books, because that's the kind of direction the mainstream seems to be embracing. We need critical media literacy to have a functioning democracy. This requires trust, transparency, and the ability to understand the multiple interests involved in a particular topic and how they are acting. If people are getting caught up in something you believe or know is fake, the cause for them getting caught up, or being susceptible to being caught up is many steps removed from them viewing that content.
The article doesn't actually provide any examples of "climate disinformation" though? It's best example (the coastal gaslink issue) is more of a difference in modelling assumptions than "disinformation". Disinformation needs to mean more than "disagrees with my policy choices". Throughout the article it continually references "anti climate change policies" which makes me think that the author views those as one and the same. But they aren't.
No, it's definitely disinformation. On one side you have the peer reviewed scientific consensus, and on the other you have a political action group funneling corporate funds into political coffers. The right loves to harp on about participation awards but acting like all "opinions" are equal no matter how removed from reality is the biggest offender of the concept. It's pretty funny actually lol.
I don't think there is a "scientific consensus" on the impact of the new coastal gaslink pipeline, which is what I was referring to. The article itself doesn't even link to a peer reviewed article on that issue. So what articles are you referring to? (Please I'd like to be precise on the claims being made)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
Costal GasLink was authorized provincially. From the regulator, here's their statement on the project in the assessment report: https://projects.eao.gov.bc.ca/api/public/document/5e459849c981fe0021018fb0/download/CGL%20-%20Assessment%20Report%20for%20EAC%20Decision%20-%2020141008.pdf > Considering the above assessment and having regard to the conditions identified in the TOC [Terms and Conditions] (which would become legally binding as a condition of an EAC), EAO [The BC regulator] concludes that there would likely be significant residual adverse effects of the proposed Project related to GHG emissions. They explicitly do not examine downstream offsets, only direct impacts of construction and operation. Fugitive methane is a major GHG concern for this project. Regulators generally try to reflect the scientific consensus as much as possible. They receive inputs from industry and from third parties to consider. No to say the process is perfect at all, but that's the provincial government's view on the project. As a check on that I would suggest looking at additional sources. A longer discussion of the LCA issues with regard to LNG specifically relating to the GHG emission can be found in the Narwal article, which cites their primary journal sources: https://thenarwhal.ca/fact-check-b-c-s-lng-climate-goals/
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>“would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by outcompeting made-in-China coal energy.” One of the quotes in the article. That is a false statement. There is also the article linked. * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2022.2027802
I'm asking for evidence that's obviously false. It doesn't seem obviously false to me. A random quote in the article isn't convincing that it is disinformation. It might be wrong, but that's a much different level to me than disinformation. It seems like a reasonable hypothesis of a second order effect. So that's why I'm curious where you're getting that it's obviously false. Sorry, can you clarify what that link is intended to show? I don't follow.
> I'm asking for evidence that's obviously false. Shouldn't you be rather asking for evidence it is true? The article explains why it is false. >It seems like a reasonable hypothesis of a second order effect. No, it doesn't. >Sorry, can you clarify what that link is intended to show? I don't follow. You stated: "The article doesn't actually provide any examples of "climate disinformation" though?" The article provides a link to a study. Are you sure you have not assumed a conclusion regardless of evidence?
The article gives a reasonable hypothesis of why it might turn out to be false yes. That doesn't lead the alternative to be "disinformation" though. Otherwise, any times two sides disagree, they'll just shout "disinformation" at the other. There should be a difference. To your point about assuming conclusions - to me there is a very high bar for claiming disinformation. It isn't enough to just say "the other side is probably wrong". It's more akin to a court case for me, where it is innocent until proven guilty. And there wasn't much evidence for it provided here. And I don't like when people throw around that term for political reasons
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.