cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 and your opinion on the majority... is just your opinion. latest Nanos Poll: Looks like the majority of Canadians are FAR leftwing ideologues. Yet here we are with a Strong, Stable, Majority Conservative Government. Quote
Shady Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Prove it. It's true. Normal Canadians support said pipeline. They understand that it benefits us significantly ecnomically. But it's the usual suspects that seek to undermine Canada's energy industry, and undermine our ecnomic viability. All for the guise of environmentalism and so-called global warming. Even though Canada, as a nation, produces an insignificant amount of CO2 compared to giants like America, India, and China. In fact, you could eliminate 100% of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions, and it wouldn't make one ounce of difference. That's a fact. But instead of allowing us to use our abundant oil resources now, while developing future technology, which will ultimately be the answer to fossil fuels. They'd rather cut us off at the knees now, have Canadian families struggling and out of work, and have energy costs soar. All for literally nothing. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 It's true.I believe you. Show me the proof. Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Prove it. And even if it's true, and I have no clue whether it is or not, so what? If something is supported by a majority "far" right wing contingent, does that make in any less valid? Wtf are you talking about? Do yourself a favour and read the posts that led to this discussion, then you won't waste my time asking "so what?" Quote
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 Does the type of people that support any given idea invalidate it? Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Does the type of people that support any given idea invalidate it? That was never the discussion. Try again. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Canadians from across the country consistently placed greater importance on protecting the environment (mean of 4.24 out of 5) than they did on creating economic prosperity (mean of 3.71 out of 5). And as usual, the poll is self defeating/useless if it presents the options as being black/white and yes/no. The reality is that both economic development and the environment can be served with some reasonable planning. That option never gets asked, since the questions are generally dependent on the preset opinions of whomever pays the pollster.They should ask the same question a year from now. In the meantime, remove the many billions in taxes, income, royalties from the resource industry from the revenue stream that all Canadians currently enjoy. Lay off the hundreds of thousands of jobs. Close the schools and let Granny croak in the parking lot at the shuttered hospital. Then get f**king real. Quote The government should do something.
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 And as usual, the poll is self defeating/useless if it presents the options as being black/white and yes/no. The reality is that both economic development and the environment can be served with some reasonable planning. how's that 'reasonable planning' been working out... so far? Oh...wait... what planning, reasonable or otherwise? In it's absence, other than your expressed black/white & yes/no, just what would your version of, 'winning/useful' poll questions, have been? Quote
TimG Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Does the type of people that support any given idea invalidate it?No but reporting WHEN the survey was taken is rather relevant:http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/125 Polling between March 13 and March 18, 2009. (Random Telephone Survey of 1,002 Canadians, 18 years of age and older). A survey of 1,002 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.This poll was before Climategate and the various fiascos that have engulfed the IPCC. I think you will find that Canadians are a lot less willing to take the word of environmental NGOs when it comes to determining what is 'good for the environment'.The poll itself was also useless because it provided no context and no cost. A meaningful poll would have attached dollar values. i.e. would you be in favour of environmental regulations if it cost you personally $100/month? The vast majority of people only support environmental regulations if they believe someone else will pay the price. . Edited January 23, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 This poll was before Climategate and the various fiascos that have engulfed the IPCC. I think you will find that Canadians are a lot less willing to take the word of environmental NGOs when it comes to determining what is 'good for the environment'. unlike you, the average Canadian doesn't live and breath the denialsphere... the false narrative painted by Hackergate has passed - nothing showed it's irrelevance than the absolute lack of attention 'Son of Hackergate 2.0' received! as always, you've never been able to refute the physical science basis that supports the theory of AGW... you target the IPCC simply because it formalize, catalogs and reports the evidence you can't refute - nothing more, nothing less. As always (part deux), don't hesitate to come forward with your alternate causal ties and linkages to explain accelerated warming; alternate to anthropogenic sourced CO2. Sure you can... Quote
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 National Post - Andrew Barr (Dec,2011): Q: Are you in favour of the Keystone XL pipeline which would carry crude oil from the Alberta oil sands to Houston Texas: A: - opposed => 49%; in favour => 38%; Q: Are you in favour of a second pipeline, the Northern Gateway pipeline which would carry crude oil from the Alberta oil sands across the Rocky Mountains to the B.C. coast at Kitimat, to be shipped by tanker to refineries in Asia? A: - opposed => 51%; in favour => 35%; Quote
TimG Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) the false narrative painted by Hackergate has passed - nothing showed it's irrelevance than the absolute lack of attention 'Son of Hackergate 2.0' received!What you seem to have missed is the political narrative has changed. Back in 2009 all politicans felt compelled to express "support for the IPCC science". Now many feel no such obligation. This change in narrative is because Climategate provided compelling evidence that leading climate scientists are really nothing but political activists obsessed with controlling the "message". I realize that in the lefty echo chambers that you inhabit that some people have convinced themselves that there was nothing to see in Climategate. But this is a delusion that is not supported by the facts. The climate treaty process is in shambles and the CO2 fear mongers are reduced to stirring up NIMBYs in order to wrest a symbolic victory from what has been a complete failure. This is entirely do to the change in political narrative triggered by Climategate. Edited January 23, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 This is entirely do to the change in political narrative triggered by Climategate. all that's happened is a reinforcement of the denier narrative that U.S. Republican politicians held. The rest of the thinking world quickly realized there was no there... there, in Hackergate. I suggest you take your BS to the existing MLW threads that have exposed Hackergate for the denier sham it was/is. Quote
TimG Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 National Post - Andrew Barr (Dec,2011)From Jan 2012http://www.vancouversun.com/business/residents+support+Northern+Gateway+pipeline+project+poll/5948076/story.html British Columbians by a 48-32 percentage margin support the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project linking the Alberta oilsands to the West Coast, according to a new poll. Quote
TimG Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) The rest of the thinking world quickly realized there was no there.Again - you need to leave your lefty echo chambers and see what is happening in the world. From the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500443.stm The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month. And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made". From Germany: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,685946,00.html In Great Britain it had already given similar survey results . The melting of confidence in the climate research may also have recently come to the errors and exaggerations in the report of the IPCC to do. Of course, polls are one thing. The actions speak louder than words. Germany choose to mothball its nuclear reactors despite the fact that it will need more coal to replace it. Japan is doing the same. Energy poverty is the biggest political issue that David Cameron is dealing with and anti-GHG measures are a major part of the problem. In Australia the labour government is headed for a major defeat if their coalition falls a part largely due to the "carbon tax" they pushed through. And that does not even touch on the fact that climate talks are going no where. The bottom line is the narrative has changed everywhere and no matter how much you fume and sputter, Climategate played a role in that change in narrative because it undermined the credibility of climate science by exposing climate scientists as political partisans. Edited January 23, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 From Jan 2012British Columbians by a 48-32 percentage margin support the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline project linking the Alberta oilsands to the West Coast, according to a new poll. any particular reason the Enbridge sponsored poll failed to mention anything to do with tanker shipments? University of B.C. forest resources management professor George Hoberg, a frequent commentator on the Northern Gateway project, cautioned that the Enbridge result didn't use the terms "oilsands" or "tanker." Use of those "hot button" terms could significantly influence the results, he said, adding he is skeptical of polls such as those by Ipsos and Mustel that were funded by parties with a stake in the debate. in any case, some interesting 'tactics' are just beginning to surface: Quote
TimG Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 any particular reason the Enbridge sponsored poll failed to mention anything to do with tanker shipments?Any particular reason you failed to provide any link to the methology for the graphic you linked? It is well known that poll results are easily skewed by the questions asked. Results can even be skewed by unreported questions asked prior to the questions that are actually public. That is why I don't take 'polls' on such controversial issues seriously even if I like the results. Quote
TimG Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) interesting 'tactics' are just beginning to surface:You mean the US funded environmental groups that brag about how they are shutting down the approval process by signing up thousands of people? Edited January 23, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 Any particular reason you failed to provide any link to the methology for the graphic you linked? It is well known that poll results are easily skewed by the questions asked. Results can even be skewed by unreported questions asked prior to the questions that are actually public. That is why I don't take 'polls' on such controversial issues seriously even if I like the results. ya sure... you take poll results deadly serious and flog them to no end, if it suits your agenda. As for the methodology behind that graphic I linked... don't know, don't care. I figured having the graphic include "National Post" on it should have been all the acceptance far right-wing Conservative ideologues like you would be looking for... oh, by the by, I sourced it from the Financial Post! Quote
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 You mean the US funded environmental groups that brag about how they are shutting down the approval process by signing up thousands of people? citation request Quote
TimG Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) citation request http://dogwoodinitiative.org/blog/mob-the-mic-successThe No Tankers network just helped sign up the largest group of people ever in Canadian history to speak at a pipeline hearing... Our ‘Mob the Mic’ action accounted for about 1,600 of those! Some people signed up as individuals, others joined one of Mob the Mic’s 150 teams. Dogwood took $30,000 from a foreign foundation in 2009 “to mobilize urban voters for a federal ban on coastal tankers.” Yet another foreign backer paid Dogwood to “to help grow public opposition to counter the Enbridge pipeline construction…” What you and the other environmental activists are trying to do is create a false narrative that will mobilize political opposition to the pipeline. It is quite hypocritical to attack the oil companies for fighting back against the "hollywood liberals" who want to prevent Canada from benefiting from its resources. Edited January 23, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted January 23, 2012 Report Posted January 23, 2012 You mean the US funded environmental groups that brag about how they are shutting down the approval process by signing up thousands of people?citation requestDogwood took $30,000 from a foreign foundation in 2009 “to mobilize urban voters for a federal ban on coastal tankers.” Yet another foreign backer paid Dogwood to “to help grow public opposition to counter the Enbridge pipeline construction…” nice! Your original post spoke to the active Northern Gateway Intervenor process - you added a reference to U.S. funding... the implication being you're saying U.S. interests are funding the, as you stated, "shutting down the approval process by signing up thousands of people". When challenged to cite your source(s) you revert to dated 2009 references that have nothing... nothing... to do with this active Northern Gateway Intervenor process - notwithstanding, you didn't cite your source, regardless of it's irrelevance to the active Northern Gateway Intervenor process. You sir, are dishonest! What you and the other environmental activists are trying to do is create a false narrative that will mobilize political opposition to the pipeline. It is quite hypocritical to attack the oil companies for fighting back against the "hollywood liberals" who want to prevent Canada from benefiting from its resources. whaaa! Just who are these Hollywood liberals you keep referring to? Personally, in this context discussion, I believe the only thing I've stated, to date, in regards to oil companies, is pointing out the questioning of funding of the astroturf "Ethical Oil" organization, particularly in regards to it's spokesperson's outright refusal to answer, 9 times, whether Enbridge funds the "Ethical Oil" organization (per the CBC's Power & Politics, Evan Solomon's interview) Quote
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 That was never the discussion. Try again. Look, you're the one that brought it up as though this somehow invalidates opposition to the pipeline. You said "the majority that oppose it are far left environmentalists." Does that mean that all environmentalists are "far left"? Does that mean that their environmental concerns are less valid because the "majority" who oppose it are from the far left (which isn't even true)? I want to know what your purpose is for characterizing the movement as being about the "far left", when that's not necessarily the case and even if it was, it wouldn't matter. What you're doing is "poisoning the well". You're trying to discredit valid environmental concerns by trying to discredit at least some (the majority you say) of the people that are raising them. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 And as usual, the poll is self defeating/useless if it presents evidence contrary to my position.FTFY. Quote
cybercoma Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Posted January 23, 2012 No but reporting WHEN the survey was taken is rather relevant: http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/125 This poll was before Climategate and the various fiascos that have engulfed the IPCC. I think you will find that Canadians are a lot less willing to take the word of environmental NGOs when it comes to determining what is 'good for the environment'. The poll itself was also useless because it provided no context and no cost. A meaningful poll would have attached dollar values. i.e. would you be in favour of environmental regulations if it cost you personally $100/month? The vast majority of people only support environmental regulations if they believe someone else will pay the price. . Your objections are completely irrelevant. In fact, the poll is completely irrelevant because it doesn't quite matter what the "majority" of Canadians think. Appealing to the bandwagon here doesn't legitimize or discredit the environmental concerns that people have. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.