^^Blaming the victim. Posting information from the one of many foreign funded anti Canadian oil blogs and sites?Quote from: "seoulbro"
That part of Alberta has planted tens of millions of trees. Save for the new clear cuts where cities now exist, it is has more trees today than a century ago. I will let you in on a little secret Canadians already know; when you see the inaccurate term "tarsands", you are reading propaganda. Our other heavy industries and workers are facing similar big money smear campaigns. Keep this in mind before you post Tom Steyer and Rockefeller financed dishonesty.
The term "tar sands" has been in general use for well over a century. While it isn't technically accurate, it's hardly enough different from "bitumen sands" to be a valid revelator of the user's opinions on ecological issues. I've seen it used here and there by people in the extraction business, the emissions business, and virtually any other sort of resources-oriented business one might think of.
Please advise me how I am to find Tom Steyer's money trail, or the Rockefellers' money trail, to this blog article, and then I may consider your ad hominems (and other efforts to impeach the source) as something other than the fulminations of someone who seems to have an unstated agenda.
As to the article itself, I'm already aware that forest fires are a natural balancing mechanism in many instances -- and this ought to provide a grain of salt for anyone reading the article.
But altogether...if you seek to educate an educable man, you can do it more effectively than by smearing my motives for posting a piece which you seem to be rejecting without any clear proof of its dishonesty. However, if your only aim is to prescribe to me what I'm to be allowed to post on this forum, I'm afraid you're wasting your time.
