Oilsands and misinformation?

waldo · December 21, 2011

They are making improvements in the process, but environazis aren't interested in anything besides shutting down the whole oil industry. Cooler heads need to lead.
Suncor has developed a process that will eliminate 95% of the tailing ponds and allow land to be reclaimed after extraction. Many of the new projects are in situ which means the land is not disturbed and operators are working to reduce the consumption of fresh water.

further to tarsands misinformation... the following as secured via access to information legislation

No 'credible information' to support claims oilsands are green, says Environment Canada

Canada lacks "credible scientific information" to support its claims that oilsands development is environmentally responsible, putting the industry's economic future in jeopardy, says newly-released briefing material prepared for Environment Minister Peter Kent and senior management in his department.
The background notes, emailed to Environment Canada's top bureaucrat, Paul Boothe, cast doubt on the integrity of environmental assessments on new projects exploiting Alberta's natural bitumen deposits, also known as the oilsands.

They also noted that the regulatory shortcomings have left the industry ill-prepared to defend itself from foreign environmental policies, such as proposed climate legislation in Europe to reduce pollution from transportation fuels, as well as criticism on the international stage at events such as the global warming summit in this coastal resort town.

"National and international concern over the environmental footprint of oilsands production represents a growing threat to the economic future of the industry," said the briefing material, sent on June 4 by Assistant Deputy Minister Michael Keenan and released to Postmedia News on Thursday evening through access to information legislation. "Governments need to provide assurance that oilsands production is environmentally responsible in order to secure the industry's social license to operate."

cybercoma · December 21, 2011

That's bad. However, if the Conservatives can build up enough anger about the environment, perhaps they could split the vote 3 ways between the LPC, NDP, and GPC.

cybercoma · December 21, 2011

Not even a week ago Harper accused critics of spreading misinformation and now this. Environment Canada may as well have gone on the national news at 11 and gave Harper the middle finger.

sharkman · December 21, 2011

Yes, it's obvious that some tree hugging Al Gore fans are heading up Environment Canada these days and put their agendas ahead of Canada. Not surprising really. Also interesting that emails appear to have been hacked or leaked. And critics will always spread misinformation.

Edited December 21, 2011 by sharkman

waldo · December 21, 2011

Yes, it's obvious that some tree hugging Al Gore fans are heading up Environment Canada these days and put their agendas ahead of Canada. Not surprising really. Also interesting that emails appear to have been hacked or leaked. And critics will always spread misinformation.

when you haven't any argument resort to throwing "tree-hugging"... "Al Gore"...

if you actually bothered to read posts you would have caught that the background briefing information was realized through an access to information request... no email hacking/leaking. You would then appreciate that this background briefing information was specifically targeted for Conservative Environment Minister Peter Kent and senior management in his department. This was no whistle-blower or hacking scenario.

clearly, the lack of environmental attention and oversight has been known for some time... long before 2010's report scuttling move by the Conservative chaired/dominated Environment Committee => Conservative MPs accused of killing damaging committee report on oil sands

The House of Commons Environment Committee killed a report it was drafting on the oil sands last month because Conservative members wanted to hide testimony showing the government has failed to live up to its environmental protection responsibilities and the opposition parties were too poisoned by partisanship to reach consensus, say some witnesses who testified during the study.

"I think it's a total coverup," said University of Alberta ecology professor and water expert David Schindler last week of the Environment and Sustainable Development Standing Committee's decision to scrap tabling a formal report to the House on its more than two years of study of how Alberta oil sands projects affect the quantity and quality of surrounding water bodies.

clearly, the government is in full-blown public-relations mode - attempting to 'manage/control' the negative messaging concerning the lack of tarsands environmental attention/oversight. We see the foundations that have Harper Conservatives covertly involved with the UK in attempting to influence the EU's intent to update its greenhouse gas (GHG) default value designations for a grouping of described unconventional sources such as... oil shale, liquid coal & tarsands derived bitumen.

kill reports... work covertly to attempt to influence EU standards... rotate a senior staffer through the 'ethical-oil' charade. Harper Conservative's at their best!

by the by, it looks like the re-branding charade has run it's course... apparently Levant has sold enough books and there won't be another publishing run!

So,

now we have Velshi on his way back to the PMO as Harper's, "director of planning"
. Talk about a charade!

LonJowett · December 21, 2011

And critics will always spread misinformation.

Yes, you have proven that again. :lol:

sharkman · December 21, 2011

Geez Waldo, it's pretty obvious that you blindly accept stories/data that supports whatever position you're taking on an issue. In that regard you are somewhat naive. You are a rabid poster who holds your views with religious fervor and for that reason you should join up with one of your favorite causes for you would be an encouragement to the troops. But the organizers should selectively feed you only small pieces of the picture depending on how they want to motivate you. The big picture would leave you disenchanted with the cause.

Edited December 21, 2011 by sharkman

waldo · December 21, 2011

Geez Waldo

I accept you have nothing to say/offer... I accept your unconditional capitulation!

LonJowett · December 21, 2011

Geez Waldo, it's pretty obvious that you blindly accept stories/data that supports whatever position you're taking on an issue.

It's pretty obvious that you blindly dismiss people who disagree with whatever position you're taking on an issue as Al Gore-loving nazis. :lol:

waldo · December 21, 2011

It's pretty obvious that you blindly dismiss people who disagree with whatever position you're taking on an issue as Al Gore-loving nazis.

it's a standard move... apparently, if one provides countering/challenging information to the fake skeptic cause, sharkman labels that as, as he states, "blind acceptance from a naive, rabid poster, holding views with religious fervor". He, on the other hand, apparently holds a belief that he is someone who, with care and thoughtfulness, evaluates information wisely and astutely, and posts in an impassive manner. :lol:

sharkman · December 21, 2011

It's pretty obvious that you blindly dismiss people who disagree with whatever position you're taking on an issue as Al Gore-loving nazis.

Well, welcome to the forum! Nice to see you posting again, what's that, less than a 100 posts in 5 1/2 years, eh? Perhaps if you stick around a little more you'll notice a few things about the posters around here. Make me proud!

Edited December 21, 2011 by sharkman

sharkman · December 21, 2011

it's a standard move... apparently, if one provides countering/challenging information to the fake skeptic cause, sharkman labels that as, as he states, "blind acceptance from a naive, rabid poster, holding views with religious fervor". He, on the other hand, apparently holds a belief that he is someone who, with care and thoughtfulness, evaluates information wisely and astutely, and posts in an impassive manner.

You're a homer, dude. Face facts. All you do is shout and stamp your feet. And then giggle like a school girl with posts like the above.

I have biases. The difference is, I know what they are.

Edited December 21, 2011 by sharkman

waldo · December 21, 2011

You're a homer, dude. Face facts. All you do is shout and stamp your feet. And then giggle like a school girl with posts like the above.

I have biases. The difference is, I know what they are.

why don't you try to post/discuss without devolving into insult mode? I most certainly will continue to post accurately and informatively... I would suggest that if you have difficulty accepting what's posted, rather than reaching for your insult bag, just put me on ignore.

sharkman · December 21, 2011

And you will most certainly continue to post with a strong bias and fervor of a true believer. Have at it.

waldo · December 21, 2011

why don't you try to post/discuss without devolving into insult mode? I most certainly will continue to post accurately and informatively... I would suggest that if you have difficulty accepting what's posted, rather than reaching for your insult bag, just put me on ignore.
And you will most certainly continue to post with a strong bias and fervor of a true believer. Have at it.

quit whining; just pull the ignore switch... while you continue to post with a strong bias and fervor of a fake skeptic! Have at it.

sharkman · December 22, 2011

Hah, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! In ten years you might learn to be skeptical but right now you're too idealistic. If you don't like my 'whining' then I'm afraid you'll just have to lump it.

waldo · December 22, 2011

further to tarsands misinformation... the following as secured via access to information legislation

No 'credible information' to support claims oilsands are green, says Environment Canada

following on the earlier above referenced access to information request, along comes another:

'Secret' Environment Canada presentation warns of oilsands' impact on habitat

Contamination of a major western Canadian river basin from oilsands operations is a "high-profile concern" for downstream communities and wildlife, says a newly-released "secret" presentation prepared last spring by Environment Canada that highlighted numerous warnings about the industry's growing footprint on land, air, water and the climate.
The warnings from the department contrast with recent claims made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Peter Kent that the industry is being unfairly targeted by environmentalists who exaggerate its impacts on nature and people.

.

.

"It's clear that there's nothing ethical about this level of environmental destruction and greenhouse gas pollution," said Saul. "The government seems to know the level of destruction associated with the tarsands and yet they're presenting a very different face to the public and in reality, there seems to be a massive gap between what they know to be an extremely destructive project and a policy agenda that is essentially seeking to promote the rapid expansion of the tarsands."

Environment Canada has been working on improving its monitoring programs on impacts of development on land, air and water as part of a process launched by former minister Jim Prentice, in collaboration with Alberta.

cybercoma · December 22, 2011

Geez Waldo, it's pretty obvious that you blindly accept stories/data that supports whatever position you're taking on an issue. In that regard you are somewhat naive. You are a rabid poster who holds your views with religious fervor and for that reason you should join up with one of your favorite causes for you would be an encouragement to the troops. But the organizers should selectively feed you only small pieces of the picture depending on how they want to motivate you. The big picture would leave you disenchanted with the cause.

u mad? :lol:

cybercoma · December 22, 2011

And you will most certainly continue to post with a strong bias and fervor of a true believer. Have at it.

Bias is when someone accepts or comes to a conclusion that does not follow from the premises because that conclusion appeals to the person's, in this case, partisanship. You could always prove that, instead of attacking the poster.

sharkman · December 22, 2011

Bias is when someone accepts or comes to a conclusion that does not follow from the premises because that conclusion appeals to the person's, in this case, partisanship. You could always prove that, instead of attacking the poster.

I have a question for you. Do you ever, like, log off this forum and kick back or something? Thanks for your advice, but I'll pass on the lesson. Here's some advice for you: If you're ever working in an office with Chuck Norris, never ask him for his three hole punch.

cybercoma · December 22, 2011

:lol:

That's sound advice. Thanks!

(PS: I may or may not actually be a team of people posting from a single account)

LonJowett · December 22, 2011

I have a question for you. Do you ever, like, log off this forum and kick back or something?

So the only rebuttal you have for people is they post too little or they post too much? Wow. Talk about having nothing to add. :lol:

sharkman · December 22, 2011

Bias is when someone accepts or comes to a conclusion that does not follow from the premises because that conclusion appeals to the person's, in this case, partisanship. You could always prove that, instead of attacking the poster.

That is proper advice, and I have observed the tenacity with which you debate and research, providing your findings. You are among a good core group of posters on this forum.

I used to do something like that and one day while proving beyond a doubt that this fellow was wrong, it occurred to me that I was, to a great extent, wasting my time. People tend to not go quietly when they've been bested. They move the goal posts or simply disbelieve the facts, data, or whatever, and you can argue in circles for hours, and what's the point of that? I try to stay away from wasting my time. You can't prove the point to another person when they hold their views with religious fervor, so I try avoid posters like that. But champion your causes, there is no harm in that.

LonJowett · December 22, 2011

views with religious fervor, so I try avoid posters like that. But champion your causes, there is no harm in that.

So you're saying there's no point in listing for you all the people in and associated with Obama's administration who have lobbied or worked for Goldman Sachs (and the like) because you've decided he is a far-left socialist and nothing will change your mind?

sharkman · December 22, 2011

In that case I could be persuaded one way or another to a certain extent. But for people to ignore the whole body of data that is Obama and zero in on one aspect is not exactly being open minded. But he's a very polarizing politician and people on both sides react strongly.