ReeferMadness

This is not the first global threat, it won't be the last and it's not even close to being the worst. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, climate alteration, cyber threats, all of these and more are or are becoming accessible to small, unstable states. As time goes on and technology improves, it becomes easier and cheaper to cause massive casualties and economic damage. You think a suitcase nuke is scary? Wait for the day when it's feasible to carry a suitcase anti-matter bomb. One kilogram of anti-matter would pack the equivalent power of a 43 megaton nuclear warhead. It isn't feasible today but it's only a matter of time. The bottom line is that focusing solely on military measures and counter-measures ensures that sooner or later, things are going to end badly. In the wake of WWII and the invention of the atomic bomb, there was a world federalist movement that looked to grow some meaningful measure of world governance. Unfortunately, the ideological divide between the east and west coupled with American triumphalism resulted in distrust that was too great to bridge. So, instead what we have is world plutocracy, through mechanisms like the United Nations, WTO, IMF and the WEF.

Look at the link I posted. They've already had wetbulb temperatures of 34 C. Air conditioning only works as long as you stay inside and as far as people being nocturnal, give your head a shake. And since nobody lives there, the cost of adaptation is zero. Contrast that with the cost of adaptation of places where millions of people live. As I've already explained, you can't get reliable statistics on this from poor countries that lack decent healthcare. And those poor countries tend to lie in the hottest parts of the earth. That would be relevant if we walked around naked. (if you do, please don't tell us - nobody needs that image). As I already said, it's easier and cheaper for people to accommodate colder weather than warmer weather. Honestly. Do you think your inane argument makes more sense if you repeat it?

Nonsense. NG is only very cheap because there is an oversupply and we don't charge for air pollution. It's not very clean, particularly when you account for methane that escapes into the air. By some estimates, fracked gas is as bad as coal in terms of GHG's when you account for all sources. And nobody understands the long term consequences of blasting rock and injecting toxic chemicals into geologic structures. We know that fracking causes earthquakes and no doubt we will find other consequences of this reckless behavior long after it's too late. We're a net exporter of oil now and we'd still be a net exporter of oil And here's the kicker. We're a net importer of refined petroleum products and that wouldn't change either.

Bitumen is oil with more carbon than hydrogen. It also tends to contain more impurities like nitrogen and heavy metals. I wouldn't eat it if I were you. There are a lot of things we dig out the ground - lead, asbestos, arsenic, mercury, uranium. Just because it occurs naturally in the ground, doesn't mean it's a good idea to dig it up and tamper with it. Two points. First, that bitumen is bound in a tightly packed aggregate designed to be highly resistant to water (otherwise our roads would wash away). Used aggregate must be disposed of properly and nobody dumps bitumen into a waterway (or they're not supposed to anyway). Second, the fact that we do something doesn't make it good. Countries around the world have been operating nuclear power plants for decades despite the fact that most of them don't have a viable long term plan for dealing with the waste. That's daft but there you have it. Unless you're proposing to cull humanity, I'm not sure of your point. So, Harper's claim to making Canada an energy superpower was just hot air? Find a reputable economist who will say that the correlation between the gyrations of the dollar and the price of oil was just a cosmic coincidence and then we'll talk. If a pipeline is built in 2 years, it will be divine intervention. The construction phase will take 9 years so this turkey is at least 10 years out. So linking it to Alberta's and Saskatchewan's current economic problems is complete nonsense. But, hey. Brad Wall has a constituency to manipulate. Agreed. This has nothing to do with environmental standards because no matter what they do, spills are going to happen. And dilbit is nasty when it hits the environment. Instead, it has to local communities. Do they have control over what oil companies do in their area or not? And it has to do with science. Are we willing to face up to the reality that we need to get off of fossil fuels or are we just going to keep dancing around it? Did this Enbridge environmental video cover the Kalamazoo River oil spill? Did they mention that the spill contaminated 37 miles of river? Did they say that despite an alarm that went off around 6 PM, it wasn't until the next day when someone told them their oil was flowing down the river than they bothered to respond? Close to 18 hours. Did they tell you that the fine that they received for this gross malfeasance was a paltry $3.7 million? But please. Do tell us all about how private companies are held responsible. You mean how does one become and oil company executive? idk.

Also, when these claims are trotted out, people neglect to mention that reckless development in the oil sands caused the dollar to go up, which in turn caused economic issues in Canada as a whole. Workers in oil producing provinces capture much less of the GDP than in other provinces, due to massive purchases of heavy equipment, little of which is manufactured in Canada.

And he was able to surrender without incident. But nobody else left the truck. Why not? I didn't see any flashes, not even when Finicum was shot. And I would hardly consider the testimony of the girl as proof. She's hardly objective, she wouldn't have any training in this and she would be scared. It's interesting but proof of nothing. They scanned back to the jeep - IDK why. It seems like you think the FBI and OSP colluded to shoot Finicum - is that what you're saying? Why only Finicum? Why not the Bundy's? And more to the point, if you wanted to shoot someone and make it look like it was justified, are you telling me this is the way you'd do it? It makes no sense.

If Finicum really wanted to surrender, he would have shut off the truck and followed orders to get out. LEO's are not going to approach a vehicle carrying a bunch of armed people who've publicly sworn to not be taken alive. And what proof do you have that they were being shot at?

Focusing on one tiny portion of my argument doesn't really constitute honest debate but I've come to expect no less. And your outright dismissal of scientific work based on some other completely unrelated work and your impugning of the motives of these scientists is frankly unworthy of comment. But again, I've come to expect no less. Carry on.

The FBI reported he had a loaded 9mm in his jacket pocket. You can believe that or not. At some point this whole discussion gets a little silly. All it proves is that when people look at a few seconds of distant, not-all-that-clear video, they see what they're inclined to see. The fact is that the FBI gave these guys plenty of time to walk away and even then only acted when the state governor started making public statements. And they still haven't taken any action against the 4 or 5 guys still occupying the reserve. If you stand back and look at this end to end, the theory that the FBI wanted to execute Finicum (or anyone else) doesn't hold water. If they really wanted to kill people, Finicum gave them enough reason to open fire by failing to stop and then trying to run the roadblock. They could have opened fire and made sure that nobody walked away from that truck. They had ample reason to believe the group would be armed and they had lots of public statements to the effect that people wouldn't be taken alive. They didn't need to take or release the video - it would have been their word against nobody's. And if they had opened fire, it would have still been less egregious than any number of cases where police used hails of bullets against unarmed people like this case.

You're right. The issue is less one of state than of transition. All organisms (people included) adapt to their surroundings. And when surroundings change, there is a painful period of re-adaptation. During that period, some will move, some will die, and some will thrive. And when it comes to people, some will start shooting each other.

I would have serious doubts as to the validity of any study that tried to prove that. The places where you are most likely to die of heat are often the same places where health care is poor or non-existent, making a medical diagnosis of heat as a contributing (or primary) factor much less likely. In many poor places of the world, which are most often the hot parts of the world, if an elderly person (and here elderly may mean late 50s or early 60s) dies with no obvious cause, nobody is calling a doctor. And even if you could demonstrate that this correlation exists, the assertion that it follows that warming will be positive for human health is simplistic to the point of being preposterous. It wouldn't account for tropical diseases, parasites poisonous or otherwise dangerous animals that would be able to expand their ranges. It wouldn't account for cutoff points - there are professors have come to the conclusion that parts of the world will become uninhabitable due to excess heat and humidity. If the ideal temperature for people is ~20 degrees C, then it's easy to show that it is far cheaper and more effective to adapt to cold than heat. It's no great hardship for people to live in places where it routinely drops more than 60 degrees below the ideal and many people live where it can get to 80 degrees below ideal. I don't think that anyone is about to argue that people will live at 60 or 80 degrees above ideal. It wouldn't account for weather and precipitation changes that result in unusual droughts or floods, with attendant food and water shortages. Nor would it account for health problems as people flee their homes and become refugees. Most of all, it's not going to account for wars, which will inevitably happen whenever populations are under stress.

Coderre claimed it was but you assured me it wasn't. Then you said that Brad Wall talked to him about it. So I didn't investigate it further.

Oh.... I didn't know that any of this bunch had assured Coderre that an oil spill would have no impact on Montreal's water supply. Do you have a citation?

Lucky you. Due to mountains and lack of local transmission, our coverage on south Vancouver Island is tragic. According to TV Fool, I can get 3 local independent channels and maybe a few more out of Washington if I buy a fancier antenna. Still, I don't watch much TV so I'm contemplating dumping cable.

I think you should phone Denis Coderre and tell him he has nothing to worry about, then. The big ninny.

dilbit is composed of bitumen and solvents like benzene and xylene. When it gets spilled in water it has a tendency to separate into it's constituent components. The solvents are light and tend to float, releasing toxic and potentially explosive vapors. The bitumen also tends to float - for a while. As it attracts sediment in the water, it becomes heavier and then tends to sink. So, depending on the amount and nature of the sediment, it can float, sink or be suspended in the water. Also, it is possible for the sediment in the bitumen to become dislodged, resulting in floaters that appear later. You'll notice I used the words "tend to" a lot. Because, when this gunk is dropped into moving water (like, say, a river), it moves around and becomes mixed into the water column. It was a big learning curve because, due to gross negligence on the part of industry and the regulators, nobody bothered to do the proper investigation beforehand. I'm sure they will use the knowledge but I have no confidence they would do much better the second time. If you go back and read the study that was done to support the Trans Mountain submission, you'll note that they recommend further study. Dr Andrew Weaver also noted serious deficiencies in the Trans Mountain submission. Once the pipeline is filled, there will be a huge economic imperative to keep it filled in exactly the same way that companies are producing oil today and selling it at a loss. And if Canada were to decide in 15 years that it wants to curb GHG emissions and curb either the pipeline flow or the amount of oil produced to fill it, the lawsuits will be so massive that it will scare governments away from even considering it. This is a 50 year decision. Water treatment is situational. Unless Montreal already has significant levels of benzene in its water supply, I doubt it put in the capability to remove it.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the people of Montreal. Enbridge spent years dredging the Kalamazoo. Do you think they'd mind trucking in their drinking and bathing water for that long? Well. When the dilbit spill happened in Michigan, it actually spilled into a wetland near Talmadge Creek. Then it flowed 2 miles down to the Kalamazoo River. They had to close off 35 miles of the Kalamazoo River for about 2 years. So you tell me. Again with the false choice. If you could turn on a pipeline today and could turn it off in 10 years, that might be an appropriate choice. But it's not. This isn't about now or today. It's a decision about the future. Even in Trans Canada's wildest dreams, it won't be built for another 10 years and once it's built, it needs to be operated for 50 years. So the real question is whether we're building towards a clean energy future or whether we're going to continue to dig sludge out of Alberta and dilute it with toxic solvents for decades to come. And that future doesn't just belong to us, it belongs to our kids and their kids who will have to live with the consequences.

Since Montreal didn't look after their sewage properly and had to discharge into the St Lawrence, they should accept a massive dilbit pipeline running up the St Lawrence valley. Is that the logic that is being suggested?

I don't know why not - why don't you ask Harper? Clearly, there is some reason they decided to subsidize industry. Today, there is no realistic substitute when it comes to aviation. So, let's focus on those areas where is there a realistic substitute. There's no logic to the premise that since we can't get rid of 100% of fossil fuels immediately, we should just throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can do. I don't think there's any chance that me staying in bed will cause the evacuation of Vancouver. Yeah. A share of the pie. That gold rush mentality that is distorting our economy and driving out sustainable industries in favor of an unsustainable and unstable one. What happens in 70 years remains to be seen. However, most of the cheap oil is gone and what's left will just continue to get more expensive. Oil will gradually price itself out of existence. If we're smart, we'll hasten that with carbon taxes (we being the world, not just Canada). The internal combustion engine is a dinosaur, horribly complex and grotesquely inefficient. The sooner it's gone the better. The document shows that in the late 20th century, Canada was making good progress towards a diversified economy. In other words, low oil prices are good for Canada. Then came the price run-up and a disastrous Harper regime (and his policies geared towards making us an "energy superpower"). It's quite possible (I would say probable) that the focus on digging sludge out of Alberta has done more harm than good to the whole of Canada, even if you only care about money.

I know it can be changed but will it? And more importantly, you're avoiding the question. If the risk is as low as you seem to think, why did Harper feel the need to socialize the risk on behalf of the oil transportation industry (as did other governments before him)? We need to get rid of fossil fuels so, ultimately yes. But we can't do everything all at once. There needs to be a balance. The risk of a major spill is unlikely but it's not zero; and it will grow as the number of tankers grows. The reason I asked how many spills would you like is that based on the reading I've done on the subject, I don't believe that a major spill of dilbit in deep water will be cleaned up. Not for any amount of money. They will scrape the sludge off the beaches (as well as they can) but it will sink. And the damage done will long outlast the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this. How many major west coast cities does Canada have? One. And it's a gem. And we're risking it for some short term profit, most of which goes to foreign owned oil companies. Madness. We're living in a dream world. Fossil fuels are so damaging in so many ways, I won't even get into all of them here. But we will get off of them - whether that's in 20 years, 50 years or 70 years. How much are you willing to sacrifice for an extra 30 or 50 years of being able to dig sludge out of the ground? It's even questionable how much the fossil fuel industry has contributed to Canada's standard of living. When you account for the economic damage done to other industries due to the high dollar, it may even have been a net drag. There's a great analysis done by the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives - I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

Yes, but impacts from what? The FBI talk about non lethal rounds. And certainly not 120.

The dot is on the top of the truck at multiple points during the video. Look at 7:49. There is no way that anybody is doing that other than from the air.

I don't need a dashcam, I can see the actual footage. Look around 2 minutes and again around 4 minutes. Aside from one guy stepping a few feet into the forest and discovering the snow is too deep to maneuver, they're not fanning out. They're standing around picking their butts. And they are not firing.

Again. 120 shots? If they fired with their eyes closed, some of the bullets would have hit the truck. Where are the holes? And where in the video can you see them shooting?

He's not wearing a suit jacket. If there are inside pockets, they would have been lower down. The video isn't clear so it's just a guess.