I'm going to follow up on The Jurist's post over here, where he jumps on the important point that the oh-so-suspicious pollution data we've been talking about is presented "as reported by facilities," which makes its value questionable at best.
In fact, if you check out the CEC's page here, this paragraph says pretty much the same thing (emphasis added):
Taking Stock analyzes comparable data from industrial facilities in Canada and the United States that report their releases and transfers of toxic chemicals to the air, land and water. Mexico has previously announced a mandatory and publicly accessible pollutant release and transfer register (PRTR) and has recently confirmed a list of 104 chemicals and will begin reporting data publicly in 2006.
Yeah -- "that report their releases." At this point, I don't know that there's much more research you can do into this and still come up with meaningful conclusions.
(Feel free to check out the CEC's main page here that leads into the page above as well, if you're feeling ambitious.)
P.S. Shall we all check in occasionally on America's Dumbest Wanker to see if he ever stops bearing false witness? I mean, it's not like he hasn't figured it out by now.
P.P.S. Nope, false witness continues:
Cue CanadianCynic to attempt to dismiss this by liberal use of swears and the word "wanker." BTW, CC, here's lots more people you need to call "wankers:" lots of Canadians reporting failure of Canada's pollution reduction.
Of course, none of my several posts questioned Canada's record on pollution. The issue, as most sentient people would have noticed, was the bogus comparison to America's alleged massive reduction of pollution emissions.
(In fact, if I wanted to be truly snarky, I could simply refer back to this post of mine, in which I'm not even trying to dispute the Canadian data:
As a starting point, let's review the Yahoo article in question, which claims that Canadian air pollution dropped by 2 per cent (OK, let's just accept that for the sake of argument), while the American drop was a whopping 45 per cent!
If we take this claim at face value, we can, for the sake of argument, just accept the Canadian figure -- I don't even want to argue about it. Let's just accept it as accurate, ...
Now, who among you is so fucking stupid that you don't understand that I'm agreeing to the Canadian data just for the sake of argument? Yeah, I thought as much.)
I doubt any of this is worth it. Trying to explain something to Weasel Boy is like trying to teach a mentally retarded cocker spaniel not to piss on the expensive carpet. It doesn't matter what approach you take -- nothing's going to sink in, is it?
BY THE WAY, just so you recognize the next time it happens anywhere, WB's dodging and weaving is what those of us who have functioning brain stems refer to as "moving the goalposts", to wit:
Weasel Boy: Canads's record on pollution reductions fucking sucks compared to the United States.
Response: Um, that figure of a 45% reduction for the U.S. is highly questionable, and appears nowhere in the very web site you mentioned.
Weasel Boy: Yeah, well ... Canada's record on pollution reduction sucks.
Response: Um ... but I wasn't arguing that point.
Weasel Boy: Shut up! Just shut up! You're a dirty, stinking liar and a big meanie and I hate you!
Needless to say, this goalpost moving occurred without a single attempt to address any of the issues raised in my earlier five posts on the subject. I'm sure you're just shocked.