Thursday, March 19, 2009
National Post vs. National Geographic
Once again, who are we to believe.
I have to agree that one sided reporting should always be suspect...
I have to agree that one sided reporting should always be suspect...
This is from an editorial in Canada's National Post:
"For instance, even though Alberta’s heavy oil deposits contain no tar, eco-crusaders love to refer to them as 'tar sands,' since tar sounds so much dirtier than oil. And it is almost impossible these days to read a news release or story about the sands without seeing their production referred to as 'dirty oil,' as though that were a statement of fact rather than opinion.
Where are the mentions of the parkland and grazing pastures that now occupy the land where early oil extraction mines once churned up the soil? The buffalo paddocks at Syncrude — the largest of the major oil sands projects — have a better than 99% success rate in live births of buffalo calves. That’s far better than the 70% rate among wild buffalo and perhaps the biggest reason why Northern Alberta’s once-dwindling herds have been able to slowly rebuild. By the early 1990s, they had been all but wiped out by disease."
