• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kilo_302 said:
George you do understand who David Frum is right? Did he interview the dozens and dozens of academics, scientists, statisticians, librarians for this opinion piece?
Click to expand...

Did you?  Did Stephen Marche who wrote the original op-ed that David Frum replied to? 

 
SeaKingTacco said:
Gee....if I can't vote Conservative or Liberal, who would that leave left? Let me think....
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing. I don't like the NDP either. But C-51 is a serious enough issue that I can discount the other two right off the bat.
 
Kilo_302 said:
Well that's the thing. I don't like the NDP either. But C-51 is a serious enough issue that I can discount the other two right off the bat.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you won't vote Conservative, Liberal or NDP.  Are we to assume you'll be voting Green in this year's election?  If not, then who will you vote for?
 
Kilo_302 said:
I'm not sure how to address this outside of asking if you read the article. It's well sourced and many of the citations are in link format (so you can read those too). I'm not going to argue the point the author is making, you can read it for yourself (and the sources) and decide if your point about algorithms still makes any sense.
Click to expand...

That is your MO, accuse people of not having read the article.  I have, others have --  the author does not provide proof that any such destruction has taken place.

In her article, Anne Kingston uses, by way of example, Dr. Raymond Hoff, as proof of PM Harper's policy of records destruction.  She quotes Dr. Hoff as stating, "Nothing comes up when I type my name into the search engine on [Environment Canada’s] website.”  Environment Canada's search engine does not specifically list authors of its reports because the reports are produced by The Crown.  If Dr. Hoff provided titles of his reports, one could then refute or support Ms. Kingston's Maclean's investigative assertions. 

By way of my own example to see what destruction of records had taken place under PM Harper's mandate (and, because unlike your questioning my integrity of having actually read the article, I did read it; in fact, I read it several times), I searched Environment Canada's website publication search page for a term of interest: "polychlorinated biphenyls report" also known as PCBs.

https://www.ec.gc.ca/rs-mn/default.asp?lang=En&n=0525D4AD-1

So, from a quick perusing of the 215 reports and documents listed, I picked one: Determination of Level of Quantification for Measuring PCBs in stack Emission and Ash Samples (2001).  Hmm, first of all, it should have, by Ms. Kingston's reckoning, been expunged in Harper's 'Fahrenheit 451-like' records burning. A 2001 report still available to the public?  :o  Anyway, I read the selected report and referred to the Environment Canada author's name, "Chung Chiu," then re-searched the EnviroCan publication search site for Chung Chiu under the 'Author' field, and no links came up.  I attribute that to my earlier point about Government documents being authored by "The Crown" or "Her Majesty, in Right of Canada."  What would Chung Chiu say?  That his name has been expunged from EvironCan's records?  Or any of the reports he authored?  Clearly that is not the case.  If I spent enough time reading through each of the 215 results for "polychlorinated biphenyls report" I may even come upon Dr. Hoff's name.

Not satisfied with you/Ms. Kingston/other conspiratorialists accusations, I wondered to myself if EviroCan would at least refer to externally published and refereed publications, providing credit to its scientist in the process, particularly in regard to Dr. Hoff's work at EnviroCanada?

Ah-ha! After an EnviroCan site search for "peer reviewed publications" I get to this page:
Home>Air>Air Science and Research>Monitoring Networks and Data>Monitoring Networks>IADN>Research Publications and I scroll down to find 35 (of approximately 100) matches for Dr. R. Hoff in a multitude of EnviroCan-linked peer-reivewed publications. 


Kilo_302 said:
To your second point, that author wasn't explaining our downfall in international standing so much as trying to explain some of the stranger policies from this government (including the hostility to science and the purging of records and data). What's so curious about these policies in particular is that they don't reflect traditional conservative values. Conservative governments in the past have championed research and science etc as tools to help us economically. I've made this point several times, but is it not strange that our government wants LESS information rather than more upon which to base policy? It follows that such a government will make BAD policy. The problem here is that the Conservatives have gone so far, they're also hobbling future governments in their attempts to make sound policy based on sound data.
Click to expand...

Pure drivel.  Dr. Hoff is indeed is referred to by Environment Canada's website, where contributor-specific involvement is provided.  I noted in my investigative research that records still exist of hundreds of EnviroCan reports, and that its indexing system is such that credit of such reports is retained by The Crown, to wit Mr. Chung Chiu's particular case.

Furthermore, if I had the time, I would even consider doing an ATI request to Environment Canada for all reports written by, or contributed to by, Dr. Raymond Hoff, while he was a scientist on staff at AES (Atmospheric Environmental Services) or any other Government of Canada element of what is now Environment Canada.  Did Ms. Kingston conduct any such ATI requests in her research?  If she did and received declination or refusal, that would serve to reinforce her story.  If not, then I would question the depth to which she researched the issue, other than in taking purported facts of convenience, without the rigour that one should reasonably expect to be taken by a truly investigative reporter...

I await your rebuttal asking me once again if I actually read the article.  ::)


QED.

 
Data are just data.  Most of the complaints are not about data loss.  Other than the long firearms registry - which is supposed to be truly purged - there does not seem to be any genuine data loss by intention of policy.    If data are lost because of passive-aggressive resistance to change (dumb insolence), that's a problem with the people managing the data.  Some organizations have a "make it happen" ethic, and some do not.

Most of the complaints are:
1) Fewer data are being collected.
2) It isn't as easy to access data as it used to be.  (A methodology change doesn't erase data, but it does force the consumer to do his own homework if he wants a consistent measurement across a change.)
 
Good2Golf said:
That is your MO, accuse people of not having read the article.  I have, others have --  the author does not provide proof that any such destruction has taken place.

In her article, Anne Kingston uses, by way of example, Dr. Raymond Hoff, as proof of PM Harper's policy of records destruction.  She quotes Dr. Hoff as stating, "Nothing comes up when I type my name into the search engine on [Environment Canada’s] website.”  Environment Canada's search engine does not specifically list authors of its reports because the reports are produced by The Crown.  If Dr. Hoff provided titles of his reports, one could then refute or support Ms. Kingston's Maclean's investigative assertions. 

By way of my own example to see what destruction of records had taken place under PM Harper's mandate (and, because unlike your questioning my integrity of having actually read the article, I did read it; in fact, I read it several times), I searched Environment Canada's website publication search page for a term of interest: "polychlorinated biphenyls report" also known as PCBs.

https://www.ec.gc.ca/rs-mn/default.asp?lang=En&n=0525D4AD-1

So, from a quick perusing of the 215 reports and documents listed, I picked one: Determination of Level of Quantification for Measuring PCBs in stack Emission and Ash Samples (2001).  Hmm, first of all, it should have, by Ms. Kingston's reckoning, been expunged in Harper's 'Fahrenheit 451-like' records burning. A 2001 report still available to the public?  :o  Anyway, I read the selected report and referred to the Environment Canada author's name, "Chung Chiu," then re-searched the EnviroCan publication search site for Chung Chiu under the 'Author' field, and no links came up.  I attribute that to my earlier point about Government documents being authored by "The Crown" or "Her Majesty, in Right of Canada."  What would Chung Chiu say?  That his name has been expunged from EvironCan's records?  Or any of the reports he authored?  Clearly that is not the case.  If I spent enough time reading through each of the 215 results for "polychlorinated biphenyls report" I may even come upon Dr. Hoff's name.

Not satisfied with you/Ms. Kingston/other conspiratorialists accusations, I wondered to myself if EviroCan would at least refer to externally published and refereed publications, providing credit to its scientist in the process, particularly in regard to Dr. Hoff's work at EnviroCanada?

Ah-ha! After an EnviroCan site search for "peer reviewed publications" I get to this page:
Home>Air>Air Science and Research>Monitoring Networks and Data>Monitoring Networks>IADN>Research Publications and I scroll down to find 35 (of approximately 100) matches for Dr. R. Hoff in a multitude of EnviroCan-linked peer-reivewed publications. 


Pure drivel.  Dr. Hoff is indeed is referred to by Environment Canada's website, where contributor-specific involvement is provided.  I noted in my investigative research that records still exist of hundreds of EnviroCan reports, and that its indexing system is such that credit of such reports is retained by The Crown, to wit Mr. Chung Chiu's particular case.

Furthermore, if I had the time, I would even consider doing an ATI request to Environment Canada for all reports written by, or contributed to by, Dr. Raymond Hoff, while he was a scientist on staff at AES (Atmospheric Environmental Services) or any other Government of Canada element of what is now Environment Canada.  Did Ms. Kingston conduct any such ATI requests in her research?  If she did and received declination or refusal, that would serve to reinforce her story.  If not, then I would question the depth to which she researched the issue, other than in taking purported facts of convenience, without the rigour that one should reasonably expect to be taken by a truly investigative reporter...

I await your rebuttal asking me once again if I actually read the article.  ::)


QED.
Click to expand...


So just to be clear, you're suggesting that all the sources quoted in the article are "conspiracy theorists"? None of this happened?

The fact that you can find "hundreds" of EnviroCan reports doesn't mean anything beyond that hundreds of reports still exist. The author, and her sources never claimed everything was gone.

The reason I feel it necessary to ask if people have read the article is that they so rarely address the content, or make points that make it obvious they did not. You have, and I appreciate that.

But you've taken two examples, and seemingly arrived a conclusion that goes something like "I can find some articles online, therefore the government hasn't destroyed anything." This doesn't make sense.

 
>But you've taken two examples, and seemingly arrived a conclusion that goes something like "I can find some articles online, therefore the government hasn't destroyed anything." This doesn't make sense.

Fine.  Burden of proof lies with accusers.  Let the people making the accusations identify all the reports, data, whatever, that have been destroyed (no longer exist in any form).
 
Good2Golf said:
..."Nothing comes up when I type my name into the search engine on [Environment Canada’s] website.”  Environment Canada's search engine does not specifically list authors of its reports because the reports are produced by The Crown.
Click to expand...

G2G  apropos of little perhaps but once upon a time policemen didn't have names they only had numbers.  In public the Crown would be represented by "A. Spokesman", identified at the podium with a placard stating such instead of presenting "Timmy MacPherson".

Civil Service was not a profession for those that sought fame although it often resulted in a lot of public exposure.

RCMP-730x265.jpg


 
Kilo_302 said:
So just to be clear, you're suggesting that all the sources quoted in the article are "conspiracy theorists"? None of this happened?

The fact that you can find "hundreds" of EnviroCan reports doesn't mean anything beyond that hundreds of reports still exist. The author, and her sources never claimed everything was gone.

The reason I feel it necessary to ask if people have read the article is that they so rarely address the content, or make points that make it obvious they did not. You have, and I appreciate that.

But you've taken two examples, and seemingly arrived a conclusion that goes something like "I can find some articles online, therefore the government hasn't destroyed anything." This doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

...and this is the other half of your modus operandi -- when your personal position, or your proponency for someone else's position that aligns closely or perfectly with yours, is questioned, you back-track with a "I/they/it never said 100%......[insert issue at hand here]" and try to pick holes in a logical and factually reference rebuttal. 

Weak. :not-again:

Specifically, you 'fake-quote' me above saying that I said the government hasn't destroyed anything. 

I said nothing of the sort, only that the one of the specific persons that the author referred to in her article as having all their material destroyed and no longer identified by his previous employer is patently false.  Did you actually follow the links I provided?  It seems not. Otherwise, you would have seen Dr. Hoff's referred papers there, categorically contradicting what Ms. Kingston writes in her article.

Hey, I'll make this even easier...you don't even have to click on the link I provided: https://www.ec.gc.ca/rs-mn/default.asp?lang=En&n=0525D4AD-1#2.  Here are a few examples (where Hoff is the lead author, there are others he co-wrote or supported) of the 'feeling-underappreciated" Dr. Hoff, from the ENVIRONMENT CANADA PEER REVIEW LINKS PAGE. (I'll be somewhat lazy and not copy over the hyperlinks for each of Dr. Hoff's referenced publications...they're still at the aforementioned link.)

Hoff, R. M.; Muir, D. C. G.; Grift, N. B. 1992. The annual cycle of PCBs and organohalogen pesticides in air in southern Ontario: I. Air concentration data, Environmental Science and Technology 26, 266-275.

Hoff, R. M.; Muir, D. C. G.; Grift, N. B. 1992.The annual cycle of PCBs and organohalogen pesticides in air in southern Ontario: II. Atmospheric transport and sources, Environmental Science and Technology, 26, 276-283.

Hoff, R. M.; Muir, D. C. G.; Grift, N. B.; Brice, K. A. 1993. Measurement of PCCs [toxaphene] in air in southern Ontario, Chemosphere,27:2057-2062.

Hoff, R. M.; Bidleman, T. F.; Eisenreich, S. J. 1993. Estimation of PCC [toxaphene] loadings from the atmosphere to the Great Lakes, Chemosphere, 27:2047-2055.

Hoff, R. M.1994.An error budget for the determination of the atmospheric mass loading of toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes, Journal of Great Lakes Research, 20:229-239.

Hoff, R. M.; Strachan, W. M. J.; Sweet, C. W.; Chan, C. H.; Shackleton, M.; Bidleman, T. F.; Brice, K. A.; Burniston, D. A.; Cussion, S.; Gatz, D.; Schroeder, W. H. 1996. Atmospheric deposition of toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes: Review of data through 1994. Atmospheric Environment,30:3505-3527.

Hoff, R. M.; Brice, K. A.; Halsall, C. 1998. Nonlinearity in the Slopes of Clausius-Clapeyron Plots for SVOCs, Environmental Science and Technology 32, 1793-1798.

Hoff, R. M. 1999. Impact of airborne contaminants on the Great Lakes, in Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective, W. W. Taylor, ed. Michigan State University Press, Lansing, MI.
Click to expand...


So what is it Kilo?  Good enough for you that a few publications may no longer be available directly, instead referred to on sites for associations that support peer review?  Your treasured reporter said in part that Harper and his direction over the Government had caused "a systematic erosion of government records far deeper than most realize, with the data and data-gathering capability we do have severely compromised as a result." 

Heck, three very specific search words and I found over two hundred publications from the very period that the Maclean's investigative reporter said Harper and his acolytes had, as portrayed above, destroyed so many records.


So, you have repeatedly demonstrated the habit of:
- throwing out a link to a reference that conveniently fulfils all your desires,
- people fact check your references and point out contradictions,
- you accuse them of not having read the reference,
- then when they provide even greater detail to their analysis of said reference,
- you then say they are taking the rebuttal far further than you made the original case for consideration to be.

As I said before, weak...

QED
 
:bravo:G2G, and, Kilo_302, I haven't put you on  :ignore:  yet, because I think you represent a significant point of view in Canada.

I understand that a great many Canadians hate Prime Minister Harper; I think Heather Mallick and Lawrence Martin, whose work I have posted here, represent that faction well. Other Canadians, some of whom are members here, still believe that Prime Minister Harper is a very good PM. Many of us are disappointed in the prime minister, on many different levels, but we cannot, on balance, find any leader or any party that is any better not worse.
 
Good2Golf said:
...and this is the other half of your modus operandi -- when your personal position, or your proponency for someone else's position that aligns closely or perfectly with yours, is questioned, you back-track with a "I/they/it never said 100%......[insert issue at hand here]" and try to pick holes in a logical and factually reference rebuttal. 

Weak. :not-again:

Specifically, you 'fake-quote' me above saying that I said the government hasn't destroyed anything. 

I said nothing of the sort, only that the one of the specific persons that the author referred to in her article as having all their material destroyed and no longer identified by his previous employer is patently false.  Did you actually follow the links I provided?  It seems not. Otherwise, you would have seen Dr. Hoff's referred papers there, categorically contradicting what Ms. Kingston writes in her article.

Hey, I'll make this even easier...you don't even have to click on the link I provided: https://www.ec.gc.ca/rs-mn/default.asp?lang=En&n=0525D4AD-1#2.  Here are a few examples (where Hoff is the lead author, there are others he co-wrote or supported) of the 'feeling-underappreciated" Dr. Hoff, from the ENVIRONMENT CANADA PEER REVIEW LINKS PAGE. (I'll be somewhat lazy and not copy over the hyperlinks for each of Dr. Hoff's referenced publications...they're still at the aforementioned link.)


So what is it Kilo?  Good enough for you that a few publications may no longer be available directly, instead referred to on sites for associations that support peer review?  Your treasured reporter said in part that Harper and his direction over the Government had caused "a systematic erosion of government records far deeper than most realize, with the data and data-gathering capability we do have severely compromised as a result." 

Heck, three very specific search words and I found over two hundred publications from the very period that the Maclean's investigative reporter said Harper and his acolytes had, as portrayed above, destroyed so many records.


So, you have repeatedly demonstrated the habit of:
- throwing out a link to a reference that conveniently fulfils all your desires,
- people fact check your references and point out contradictions,
- you accuse them of not having read the reference,
- then when they provide even greater detail to their analysis of said reference,
- you then say they are taking the rebuttal far further than you made the original case for consideration to be.

As I said before, weak...

QED
Click to expand...

You're focusing on this one specific example involving the one scientist. I replicated your search results, and yes there are many publications with his name attached (I found 36). That still does not explain the numerous other cases the author mentions. Nor does it explain the statements of the US and Australian statisticians lamenting Canada's approach to data under this government.

Again, being able to find a few hundred articles online does not mean there is not a problem. I don't know how to make this more clear.

I would add that Maclean's is a right of center publication, you seem to be suggesting that this author and her sources have created some sort of hack job by not accepting that the story has any veracity whatsoever. That notion simply does not fit with the political leanings of the Maclean's editorial board.

I would be curious to get your take on the other examples, the other scientists interviewed, the fellow from QED Information System and so on.

I'll ask you again, do you think this entire piece is a fabrication? The Maclean's editorial board just accepted it? That seems to be what you're suggesting.
 
Kilo_302 said:
You're focusing on this one specific example involving the one scientist. I replicated your search results, and yes there are many publications with his name attached (I found 36). That still does not explain the numerous other cases the author mentions. Nor does it explain the statements of the US and Australian statisticians lamenting Canada's approach to data under this government.

Again, being able to find a few hundred articles online does not mean there is not a problem. I don't know how to make this more clear.

I would add that Maclean's is a right of center publication, you seem to be suggesting that this author and her sources have created some sort of hack job by not accepting that the story has any veracity whatsoever. That notion simply does not fit with the political leanings of the Maclean's editorial board.

I would be curious to get your take on the other examples, the other scientists interviewed, the fellow from QED Information System and so on.

I'll ask you again, do you think this entire piece is a fabrication? The Maclean's editorial board just accepted it? That seems to be what you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

You say Maclean's is a right-of-center publication so that means we shouldn't question the veracity of the reporter?  ???  You accuse me and others of not making sense? 

I would say that the Maclean's editorial board needs to do a better job, as does Ms. Kingston with their fact checking.  The premise of one entire portion of her story is faulty.  I will consider that 'fabrication' is a strong word, so I'll graciously provide her writing with a characterization of "poor and lacklustre quality."

That was the only section of her op-ed piece I fact-checked and it failed.

I would consider fact-checking the rest of it, but it is clear that no matter how much principled fact-checking people conduct, you have a convenient excuse and dismiss it without logical foundation, and apply a parochial evasive method to redirect away from the fundamental fault of the argument.  MY further efforts would be wasted.

Bring on the next issue and carefully-selected article(s), please...
 
Kilo_302 said:
You're focusing on this one specific example involving the one scientist. I replicated your search results, and yes there are many publications with his name attached (I found 36). That still does not explain the numerous other cases the author mentions. Nor does it explain the statements of the US and Australian statisticians lamenting Canada's approach to data under this government.

Again, being able to find a few hundred articles online does not mean there is not a problem. I don't know how to make this more clear.

I would add that Maclean's is a right of center publication, you seem to be suggesting that this author and her sources have created some sort of hack job by not accepting that the story has any veracity whatsoever. That notion simply does not fit with the political leanings of the Maclean's editorial board.

I would be curious to get your take on the other examples, the other scientists interviewed, the fellow from QED Information System and so on.

I'll ask you again, do you think this entire piece is a fabrication? The Maclean's editorial board just accepted it? That seems to be what you're suggesting.
Click to expand...


Once again. 
tumblr_mi1me64v9d1rqfhi2o1_250.gif


Back peddle.  Ignore.  Call BS to anything that is not of your beliefs.  Your MO is so predictable and frankly very tiring.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
On the celebrity endorsement front, Prime Minister Harper has the Great One on his side but Pamela Anderson says she would never vote for him because he's wriong on climate change. Even Stephen, I guess ...  ;)
Click to expand...

Gretzky has turned out to be a fair businessman....but the opinion of someone who's claim to fame is flaunting her T & A, I'll pass.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Edward Campbell
    • Like
    • Insightful
The Next Canadian Government
18 19 20
Replies
394
Views
18K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
daftandbarmy
    • Like
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly—government budgets in 2024
Replies
0
Views
792
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Edward Campbell
    • Wow
    • Like
    • Sad
PAK National Arrested in QC Plotting Attack in NYC
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Haggis
Haggis
RangerRay
    • Like
    • Insightful
2024 BC Election
22 23 24
Replies
467
Views
38K
Retired AF Guy
Retired AF Guy
Kirkhill
    • Like
    • Insightful
Chretien as Defender of Parliamentary Supremacy and the Notwithstanding Clause.
Replies
5
Views
566
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Back
Top