ReeferMadness

There are no police in front of the truck. They are limited to fanning out by the banks of snow on the side of the road. They fan out but only a little. Admit it - there is no way that 120 shots were fired. That's ridiculous.

Here is a car with 137 shots fired at it. Compare that with the truck. Do you think the Baltimore police have better weapons/aim than the FBI/Oregon State Police?

When I wear a suit jacket, I keep my wallet in my left inside pocket and draw it out with my right hand. Trying to reach to a right inside pocket with a right hand is almost impossible.

Can't see it - I'll try on my desktop with a bigger monitor. If they're shooting, they're doing it from behind. Where are the bullet holes in the back of the truck? Or do they all miss? There is clearly a red laser dot on the roof of the truck. If it's not a guy with a rifle, what is it? Again, I'll check on my bigger monitor. I see nothing.

High up people? Could you be more specific?

That's ridiculous. Where are all the bullet holes in the white truck? There wouldn't have been a window left in it.

I don't carry a gun so I don't know. Maybe it was an inside pocket, in which case it would be easier to pull it with a right hand.

At what point in the film do you see his hands out the window? And why would they shoot? If anything, the guy in the helicopter with a rifle would have had the best angle. And if he shot, we would have seen the impacts. Also, between 1:45 and 2:21, you can see a white splat mark on the windshield, drivers side. It could have been a bullet or it could have been a rock. The video isn't clear enough. Originally, I thought that's what you meant by bullet hole but it was clearly there when they were first stopped.

According to the FBI, he was carrying a 9mm in his left pocket, not a holster.

Never been shot at so it's tough to say. In this case, he clearly wasn't getting anywhere though. Nobody else in the truck tried to run away.

Really? So here's another question for you. If tankers are so safe, why did Canada cap the liability for oil companies at $400 million per spill? After all, if tankers are so safe, the companies should have no issues with accepting unlimited liability (as was recommended by the Harper government's tanker safety expert panel. How much do you think a major spill in Burrard Inlet would cost? During the Kalamazoo River spill, they had to evacuate the local population due to dangerous fumes. And that was not a particularly large spill. What would it cost to evacuate the lower mainland?

My interpretation was that he was first shot when he fell and after he lowered his hands and rummaged through his pockets. But I'll wait for the official investigation. If he was hit before he ran through the snow, he couldn't have been hit badly. It's not easy running in deep snow even if you haven't been shot....

Hard to say. I wouldn't run away after being pulled over and if I tried to run a roadblock, I would be so amazed to still be alive that I might do just about anything.

How many would you like?

And you're an expert? Because I'm waiting for you and Tim to publish your wealth of counter-evidence but all I'm seeing is a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. Why don't you ask them? I have my biases but I also look at the available literature. There is much more (and better) evidence to support my position. What level of climate sensitivity did they use? What discount rate? What coefficient of relative risk aversion? Etc

I'm not sure how you can tell he flinches. I see his hands up, they go down and he appears to reach into his pockets a couple of times. That's what the FBI reported and that's how it looks. Then he falls. Don't forget this is a guy who proclaimed publicly he would die at the refuge before he went to jail. We'll see what the autopsy says. When I saw this video, I couldn't help but think the FBI and the OSP were a model of restraint compared to this incident. Well, I'm glad they're down there, south of the border.

Unsubstantiated accusation.... Random anecdote.... More unsubstantiated claims... Well. Let's all risk the future of society on your opinion. And yet, this research is good enough for it to be reported by the the Washington Post and the World Economic Forum. Do you think they are biased in favor of whatever cabal you think is running the climate change conspiracy? You got nothing. No evidence. Just your own deeply held beliefs. I'll leave you to them.

And it's still not cleaned up....

Only the ones who fail to produce findings acceptable to him. So, yeah, pretty much all of them.

The FBI has released the video of the incident. It doesn't appear to support the group's claims. And where are those Oregon and Idaho militia???

They chose economists that published about climate change - they didn't stipulate what the findings were. If, as you claim, "no economist worth the title believes that mitigation is a viable or worthwhile goal", then show us some evidence. You like to try to poke holes in scientific studies but it's hard to find fault with your evidence - because you never seem to have any!

And the people with expertise agree that the way to protect the economy is to protect the environment. Read the link I just posted - it says that economists agree that we need a carbon tax of more than $US37 per ton.

Really. And yet, here in that left wing rag, the Washington Post, is a report on a separate study, conducted by the New York University School of Law is another survey that says almost exactly the same thing. Ouch! That's gotta hurt all the fossil fuel lovers out there.

It seems like many people would like governments to stop worrying about climate change and focus on the economy. Imagine their surprise then, when they find out that according to a survey of economists conducted by the World Economic Forum, the top risk to the global economy is the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Not only that, but many of the other top risks (large-scale involuntary migration, water crisis, extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, food crises) are all events that are associated with climate change. The lesson here is for those who think of the environmental issues as feel-good attempts by fuzzy-headed do-gooders. A healthy environment with a vibrant eco-system is not a nice-to-have, it's essential for a healthy economy.

The available maps aren't very detailed but looking at this, it appears they're proposing to build the new section of the pipeline right up the St Lawrence valley. Can you blame Quebec for being a wee bit nervous about that? This pipeline is intended to carry 1.1 million barrels per day of Alberta's finest sludge, diluted with carcinogenic, mutagenic, biotoxic solvents. That equates to about 1.6 million gallons per hour. The Kalamazoo River spill was about 1 million gallons (less than an hour's worth of this pipeline's capacity). It has been over 6 years and Enbridge has spent over $1 billion and it still isn't cleaned up. Do the math. Really? That's called sarcasm. You included it in your 'proof' that Canadians were doing due diligence in studying dilbit and I called you on it. What I really think is that it might have been cool if someone had thought to figure this out before they started to send this sludge through the pipeline. But the oil industry chose not to know and the energy cheerleaders regulators were more concerned with ensuring that the oil companies made their quarterly profits than ensuring that they could clean up their messes. And governments in Ottawa and Alberta were too busy bullying environmentalists and landowners to worry about it.