Alternative facts from the left

[crazy canuck]

Opinion is a defence to defamation? That seems like an odd loop hole.

The legal action is in the US.  And it is very difficult there to prosecute a successful defamation claim based on opinion.  Here in Canada if the opinion is honestly but mistakenly held it is also very difficult.

[crazy canuck]

There must be a language issue here.  The news report is simply about a defence being argued in a US Court case that the comment was not defamatory because it was a statement of opinion.  The only thing that made it newsworthy is that the CEO of the Plaintiff is trying to frame the defence as the defendant changing its story now that it is being sued. Something which the Defendant denies and  judging from the scant facts actually reported in that article - justifiably.

there's a lot more to the story than this simple account.  French CBC and La Presse have made an extensive coverage of the dispute, it really didn't look good for Greenpeace.

Ok, what are the details that the story you posted omitted?

And btw, you said this was a story the Quebec media would not touch 

[viper37]

And btw, you said this was a story the Quebec media would not touch 

Today.  They won't touch it.  Yesterday was another matter.
They won't directly attack Greenpeace, it's still a taboo.  This particular story isn't covered anywhere.

The link is in French:
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/enquete/2015-2016/episodes/362452/enquete-foret-boreale-greenpeace-resolu-caribou-forestier

There were others I can't find, but here is Greenpeace position:
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/forests/boreal/Learn-about/Resolute-Forest-Products-is-destroying-endangered-forests/

All of these affirmations have been proven false.  Where Resolu is cutting wood, the caribou is not endangered.  The conflict with the indian is a conflict with the Quebec government, as confirmed by the government, Resolu is only caught in between.  The FSC certification was lost due to their conflict with the Cree.


Here is a french text (use Google translate):
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/771692/foret-boreale-resolu-greenpeace-enquete-fsc-certification-environnement-emplois

-  Greenpeace says 5% of Quebec forest is protected while in reality it is 40% since corporations are not allowed to access the forests above the set northern limit.  And global warming is pushing that frontier much more to the north now, so the forest can regenerate itself much farther than it used to.

- Greenpeace has shown images or the forest devastation after Resolu's work to show the world how nefarious they are.  The problem is they shot images of the forest after a forest fire, after Resolu went there to clean the area and pick up the wood it could.  Leaving it there all to rot would have been a waste.  They acted according to the directives by Quebec's Department of Forests.  You can't blame Resolu for respecting laws&contracts.

- Greenpace says Resolu is responsible for the forest caribou decline.  However, biologists do not recognize the forest caribou as a species, there is only one species of caribou, and all of the caribous, even those in the protected areas are in decline for reasons unknown.

- FSC standards have or will be removed to many canadian companies due to Greenpeace pressures.


As I said, Greenpeace is trying to pass opinions as facts and when all other defense fails, only then do they claim it was just an opinion.

[Berkut]

I wonder if he even realizes he is doing EXACTLY the same thing he is accusing Greenpeace of doing?

[The Minsky Moment]

"Alternative Facts" are not the same as political spin.  "Alternative facts" are provable and unequivocal falsehoods abut specific facts told knowing they are false.  E.g. Spicer's statement about 400,000 + riders on the DC metro on inauguration day when in fact there were under 200K.

[grumbler]

I wonder if he even realizes he is doing EXACTLY the same thing he is accusing Greenpeace of doing?

Viper?  Self-aware?   

[viper37]

I wonder if he even realizes he is doing EXACTLY the same thing he is accusing Greenpeace of doing?

I stated facts, something Greenpeace is incapable of.

[Berkut]

I wonder if he even realizes he is doing EXACTLY the same thing he is accusing Greenpeace of doing?

I stated facts, something Greenpeace is incapable of.

All of these affirmations have been proven false.

Affirmation in question:
"Greenpace says Resolu is responsible for the forest caribou decline.  However, biologists do not recognize the forest caribou as a species, there is only one species of caribou, and all of the caribous, even those in the protected areas are in decline for reasons unknown."

So right here you admit that Greenpeace conclusions have not been proven false - the reasons are unknown. Yet you state it as a FACT that Greenpeace is wrong.

You are doing the exact same thing you claim they are doing. Expressing an opinion, then claiming that said opinion is a FACT.

Heck, even your response to me is an example of the same thing. You know for a FACT that Greenpeace is incapable of stating FACTS? Really?

Nothing you say is hyperbole? Even just a little bit?

[viper37]

Affirmation in question:
"Greenpace says Resolu is responsible for the forest caribou decline.  However, biologists do not recognize the forest caribou as a species, there is only one species of caribou, and all of the caribous, even those in the protected areas are in decline for reasons unknown."

So right here you admit that Greenpeace conclusions have not been proven false - the reasons are unknown. Yet you state it as a FACT that Greenpeace is wrong.

If I say "the US economy is declining and it's Berkut's fault".  I cannot be proven wrong, but we know it is untrue.
If you analyse a situation and you believe the variable X is the cause of change in variable Y, yet you remove X entirely from the equation and Y is still moving in the same direction, unaffected, than your hypothesis is invalid.

If you know your hypothesis is invalid because everyone has proof of it, but you still maintain it to be the absolute truth, than it becomes something Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway would say.

If I say the sun causes global warming, it ain't untrue.  Without a sun, there would be no global warming after all...  That's still a falsehood (and a stupidity) to claim it is responsible for the change in global temperature we are observing when no studies have detected any change in the sun over the last 150 years.  Imho, that goes beyond the realm of opinion, just as with Greenpeace statements in this case.

You are doing the exact same thing you claim they are doing. Expressing an opinion, then claiming that said opinion is a FACT.

Nope.

Heck, even your response to me is an example of the same thing. You know for a FACT that Greenpeace is incapable of stating FACTS? Really?

In this case, yes.  In other cases I followed, like seal hunting, yes.  In the case of nuclear energy, yes.  In all other cases, I don't know, I haven't followed them as closely.

Nothing you say is hyperbole? Even just a little bit?

Hyperbole, yes.  Falsehoods, no.
If I take a picture of your house after a fire and say it's proof you destroy everything you touch, that's not hyperbole, that's not even an opinion, that's a blatant lie.
If I take a picture of your wife with a blackeye knowing full well she was in a car accident and claim it as proof you are a violent husband, that's not an hyperbole either.  It's a blatant lie.

[Berkut]

Affirmation in question:
"Greenpace says Resolu is responsible for the forest caribou decline.  However, biologists do not recognize the forest caribou as a species, there is only one species of caribou, and all of the caribous, even those in the protected areas are in decline for reasons unknown."

So right here you admit that Greenpeace conclusions have not been proven false - the reasons are unknown. Yet you state it as a FACT that Greenpeace is wrong.

If I say "the US economy is declining and it's Berkut's fault".  I cannot be proven wrong, but we know it is untrue.
If you analyse a situation and you believe the variable X is the cause of change in variable Y, yet you remove X entirely from the equation and Y is still moving in the same direction, unaffected, than your hypothesis is invalid.

Except you ahven't done that.

GP says that the decline in a particular population of caribou is the result of logging.

You respond that the population of caribou that includes those in question AND other caribou is declining. OK. That does not disprove their hypothesis at all. It could still be the case that logging is causing it to decline, and if you take that particular logging out of the equation and note that there is still a decline, that suggests that logging is clearly not the ONLY cause for decline, but it does not at all disprove the hypothesis that logging is causing a decline.

I would suspect that GP would respond that there are a lot of things that are causing the decline, and the destruction of habitat is a pretty reasonable thing to include in that, and in fact it is very difficult to separate out the various causes. I do know this is a standard tactic of those who resist any kind of environmental regulation. Claim that any particular variable cnanot possibly account for the problem, and hence should not be controlled, and simply repeat that for all variables that contribute. Why does the overall problem persist? Gosh, we have no idea!

If the only evidence they provide for their hypothesis is the decline in the forest population, and you show that there is an overall decline, it certainly does remove that support for their claim, but it does not at all disprove it.

Hence, you cannot claim they are lying. It is not a FACT that they are wrong.

They may very well BE wrong. But you haven't proven it. And claiming that YOU have proven it because you really, really, really want it to be the case is exactly what GP is doing.

If you know your hypothesis is invalid because everyone has proof of it, but you still maintain it to be the absolute truth, than it becomes something Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway would say.

If you think your hypotheis is valid, and think you are trying to protect the environment from people who don't give a shit about it, it makes perfect sense to stick to your guns since no proof has been provided that it is actually invalid.


You are doing a fine Spicer impression though, so kudos there.

If I say the sun causes global warming, it ain't untrue.  Without a sun, there would be no global warming after all...

That is not what the word "cause" means.


Is this an "alternative" definition you are using, Kelly?

That's still a falsehood (and a stupidity) to claim it is responsible for the change in global temperature we are observing when no studies have detected any change in the sun over the last 150 years.  Imho, that goes beyond the realm of opinion, just as with Greenpeace statements in this case.

You are doing the exact same thing you claim they are doing. Expressing an opinion, then claiming that said opinion is a FACT.
Nope.


Yep.

Heck, even your response to me is an example of the same thing. You know for a FACT that Greenpeace is incapable of stating FACTS? Really?

In this case, yes.

Thanks for proving my point.

Greenpeace is not capable of stating a fact. Even if they had one, they could not state it, because their mission statement forbids the statement of facts.

Your opposition to them is religion or dogma, not rational reasoning.

[crazy canuck]

And btw, you said this was a story the Quebec media would not touch 

Today.  They won't touch it.  Yesterday was another matter.
They won't directly attack Greenpeace, it's still a taboo.  This particular story isn't covered anywhere.

The link is in French:
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/enquete/2015-2016/episodes/362452/enquete-foret-boreale-greenpeace-resolu-caribou-forestier

There were others I can't find, but here is Greenpeace position:
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/forests/boreal/Learn-about/Resolute-Forest-Products-is-destroying-endangered-forests/

All of these affirmations have been proven false.  Where Resolu is cutting wood, the caribou is not endangered.  The conflict with the indian is a conflict with the Quebec government, as confirmed by the government, Resolu is only caught in between.  The FSC certification was lost due to their conflict with the Cree.


Here is a french text (use Google translate):
http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/771692/foret-boreale-resolu-greenpeace-enquete-fsc-certification-environnement-emplois

-  Greenpeace says 5% of Quebec forest is protected while in reality it is 40% since corporations are not allowed to access the forests above the set northern limit.  And global warming is pushing that frontier much more to the north now, so the forest can regenerate itself much farther than it used to.

- Greenpeace has shown images or the forest devastation after Resolu's work to show the world how nefarious they are.  The problem is they shot images of the forest after a forest fire, after Resolu went there to clean the area and pick up the wood it could.  Leaving it there all to rot would have been a waste.  They acted according to the directives by Quebec's Department of Forests.  You can't blame Resolu for respecting laws&contracts.

- Greenpace says Resolu is responsible for the forest caribou decline.  However, biologists do not recognize the forest caribou as a species, there is only one species of caribou, and all of the caribous, even those in the protected areas are in decline for reasons unknown.

- FSC standards have or will be removed to many canadian companies due to Greenpeace pressures.


As I said, Greenpeace is trying to pass opinions as facts and when all other defense fails, only then do they claim it was just an opinion.

I don't think you read the Greenpeace position you posted. 

to pick one easy example you have misstated:

- Greenpace says Resolu is responsible for the forest caribou decline.

No, they didn't say that.  What they did claim is that the Company is degrading the habitat of the Caribou which puts the herd at risk, mainly because the habitat is already in poor condition.  There is a big difference between claiming the the company is responsible for all of the decline and saying the company's activities put the Caribou at risk.

Berkut is correct.  You have come to us with alternative facts to make the argument that Greenpeace is using alternative facts.  No wonder this isn't actually a news story