Harper takes over 'energy projects' decisions

[bleeding heart]

So you believe in moral relativism then?

I don't think that was the point at all.

And if I can speak for Tim, he of course recognizes the importance of consultative positions for scientists, in any matter in which scientific observation and knowledge are crucial to the (political) decisions that are to be made.

I think there are two issues at cross-purposes here: there's the Harper Government's perceived hostility to science which clashes with their politics (which I do believe is an actual problem, btw); but there is also a more general issue--nothing specifically to do with the Harper government, but with any Government--which states that scientists do not make political decisions, but rather serve as consultants towards proper political decisions, where applicable.

The latter would likely be Timg's stance, if I read him correctly.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

You are evading the point. I said that scientists have no special qualifications that allow them to resolve questions of values and the people who are supposed to be resolving these issues are politicians. What does this have to do with that point?

What special qualification does an MP have? And do you believe in moral relativism? It has everything to do with the point you're trying to make and it follows logically from the post I quoted when I first asked.

[TimG]

which states that scientists do not make political decisions, but rather serve as consultants towards proper political decisions, where applicable.

Yes. This is what I am saying. Scientists present the data but this input is one of many that the 'boss' (in this case the politicians) receives. The 'boss' then has to make decisions that best balance the often competing advice they get.

[TimG]

What special qualification does an MP have?

An MP is elected to make decisions like this. They make the decision because that is their job.

And do you believe in moral relativism?

It has nothing to do with the point I am making. What I believe is there is a wide range of moral questions where reasonable people will have to agree to disagree. There are also other moral questions where there is only one 'moral' choice.

[cybercoma]

An MP is elected to make decisions like this. They make the decision because that is their job.

This is a tautology. You said people need special qualifications to make those decisions. Now you're saying they get to make those decisions because they get to make those decisions.

It has nothing to do with the point I am making. What I believe is there is a wide range of moral questions where reasonable people will have to agree to disagree. There are also other moral questions where there is only one 'moral' choice.

So then you believe there is a universal morality. There are questions where there is no relativity.

From your posts it's quite obvious that you believe everyone else's values are subject to relativity, while your beliefs are moral universals. Any time something comes up that is even remotely disagreeable to your biases, you chime in with the relativist arguments. Whenever anyone says that about the things you post or the arguments you start, you hold them as irrefutable universal truisms.

[Topaz]

The opposition parties did warn Canadians about the "US style" omnibus bill, were they ram it packed with so many things that it would take days to read it, but the opposition parties did. Harper past has shown he WILL do anything to get what he wants done with the gas and oil industry, which could be a conflict of interest, since, I understand his brothers are in that industry. So now he has another MP coming against Harper views on the pipeline and Moore was smart to do it because its the voters from B.C. who put him in Ottawa. No oil company can guarantee no leaks on any pipeline as yet, they will always leak and if Harper wants this pipeline then put his mouth where TORY money is. IF it EVER leaks, the Tory party pays the cost and NOT the Canadian government!

[waldo]

And if I can speak for Tim, he of course recognizes the importance of consultative positions for scientists, in any matter in which scientific observation and knowledge are crucial to the (political) decisions that are to be made.

the TimG application and acceptance of that consultation is most selective, is one-way, is self-serving... this latest stated TimG epiphany is fake/false:

Scientists present the data but this input is one of many that the 'boss' (in this case the politicians) receives. The 'boss' then has to make decisions that best balance the often competing advice they get.

TimG absolutely refuses to accept scientific consultation in regards to such scientific based examples as world government leader decisions to limit global warming temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celcius... to related scientific foundations supporting the U.S. EPA renewable fuel standards... to scientific based climate change policymaker summations... to scientific supporting information behind the U.S. EPA endangerment and cause/contribution findings towards GHG emissions standards for vehicles... to scientific foundations behind world military policy/preparedness regarding climate change... to scientific aspects of climate change mitigation... to etc., etc., etc.

[TimG]

This is a tautology. You said people need special qualifications to make those decisions. Now you're saying they get to make those decisions because they get to make those decisions.

So? It is true isn't it? MPs are elected to lead and generally would like to be elected again so it is their job to balance the various interests and come up with a solution that the majority can live with. Why should anyone else make these decisions?

I believe you are complete hypocrite on this point. You like the idea of scientists deciding on this issue because you think the scientists better reflect your values than the current government. You would adopt my argument if you felt scientists would make decisions that you disagree with (perhaps with cloning, GMOs or nuclear power)

From your posts it's quite obvious that you believe everyone else's values are subject to relativity, while your beliefs are moral universals.

Your want to make that assumption because it makes you feel better. The only values that I class as universal are the values where no one really disagrees (i.e. >95% social consensus). If there is any debate about a particular point then it automatically becomes a point where people need to agree to disagree. There are a cases where I simply disagree with the social consensus but because the consensus is so overwhelming I just accept the consensus. So this is not about "my" values be universal and others being relative. It is about recognizing that the society has a right to impose its values on the minority when there is an overwhelming consensus but society must leave room for people to disagree if that consensus does not exist. Edited August 9, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So then you don't believe that what's right is right, regardless of the number of people who believe it? Your definition of a universal values is a popularity contest?

In that case, you need to wake up and smell the coffee because the vast majority of positions you take on this forum are completely relative and therefore meaningless. Moral relativism is nihilism. If there is no absolute right, then there can be no wrong.

[TimG]

So then you don't believe that what's right is right, regardless of the number of people who believe it? Your definition of a universal values is a popularity contest?

Values are choice like the choice to worship a god of once sort or another. If you believe in freedom of religion you must also believe that values are an individual choice. The issue is you can't run a society if there are no baseline rules governing behavior. Those baseline rules are the non negotiable 'fundamental values' that everyone must adhere to. The composition of those 'fundamental values' changes over time as social consensus changes. This is the world we live in whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

In that case, you need to wake up and smell the coffee because the vast majority of positions you take on this forum. Moral relativism is nihilism. If there is no absolute right, then there can be no wrong.

The positions I take on this forum can be often summarized as: "I disagree with your values, there is no consensus when it comes to your values, therefore you cannot use values as an argument to justify your position". This is not nihilism - this is standing up for freedom of conscious which is one of my fundamental values.

From my perspective I see no difference between a environmentalist/social activist and an evangelical christian. Both groups so convinced by their own version of morality that cannot comprehend that reasonable people will disagree. Both groups seek to use the state to impose their morality on the others even when there is no consensus. This is wrong. Freedom of conscious is one of those values which is an absolute necessity to ensure a peaceful coexistence in a mass society of very different people.

Edited August 9, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

From my perspective I see no difference between a environmentalist/social activist and an evangelical christian. Both groups so convinced by their own version of morality that cannot comprehend that reasonable people will disagree. Both groups seek to use the state to impose their morality on the others even when there is no consensus. This is wrong. Freedom of conscious is one of those values which is an absolute necessity to ensure a peaceful coexistence in a mass society of very different people.

clearly - your self-proclaimed "freedom of conscious" is most selective, is one-way, is self-serving... you label any scientist that doesn't align with your zealous ideological based "conscious" bent, a morality driven environmentalist/social activist.

[cybercoma]

The composition of those 'fundamental values' changes over time as social consensus changes. This is the world we live in whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

They're not very fundamental then if they're always shifting.

The positions I take on this forum can be often summarized as: "I disagree with your values, there is no consensus when it comes to your values, therefore you cannot use values as an argument to justify your position". This is not nihilism - this is standing up for freedom of conscious which is one of my fundamental values.

No but you seem to think there's consensus for the values that you hold.

From my perspective I see no difference between a environmentalist/social activist and an evangelical christian. Both groups so convinced by their own version of morality that cannot comprehend that reasonable people will disagree. Both groups seek to use the state to impose their morality on the others even when there is no consensus. This is wrong. Freedom of conscious is one of those values which is an absolute necessity to ensure a peaceful coexistence in a mass society of very different people.

Here you go. There is scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It has been observed, tested, and verified. This isn't the same thing as taking a moral or value-based stance on something. It's a statement of fact. Yet you will work overtime to say otherwise because it doesn't mesh with your biased opinion that absolutely nothing should be done to reduce the anthropogenic effect. You come on these forums and try to re-write the facts to fit your biased beliefs, instead of doing the rational thing, which is to adjust your beliefs to fit the facts. Maybe some day you'll see how irrational you are, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[TimG]

Here you go. There is scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It has been observed, tested, and verified.

So what? The real question is what (if anything) we should do about it. You are deliberately conflating the 'consensus' on the climate change with your pet policy prescriptions. This is pure dishonesty on your part because you should know by now that there is a huge difference between the two.

This is a good example of how you twist the facts to suit your value system.

Edited August 9, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So what? The real question is what (if anything) we should do about it. You are deliberately conflating the 'consensus' on the climate change with your pet policy prescriptions. This is pure dishonesty on your part because you should know by now that there is a huge difference between the two.

This is a good example of how you twist the facts to suit your value system.

Good example nothing. You clearly didn't understand a thing I typed. I stated clearly that what we should do about it is value-based. However, opinions ought to be based on facts and when you argue about climate change on here, you routinely ignore or try to dismiss the facts that make your opinion look stupid. If there's scientific consensus that makes your position look ridiculous, you consistently claim that the facts are biased or that the research is junk. A more reasonable and rational person might step back and figure that the scientific consensus might actually be right and that their opinion isn't supported by the facts is wrong. You on the other hand insist on the facts being wrong and your opinion always being right. If you're challenged enough, you'll retreat to the "agree to disagree" line bringing relativism into play. Again, relativism is nihilism. If all opinions are equally valid, even entirely contradictory ones, then no opinions matter. They're all meaningless. I certainly don't expect you to see this. Your biases are your blind spot and people like waldo have been pointing them out to you for as long as you've been posting here, but you continue to be in the dark.

[TimG]

However, opinions ought to be based on facts and when you argue about climate change on here, you routinely ignore or try to dismiss the facts.

I do not dismiss facts. What I do is look at the scientific basis for a claim and decide whether the claim is really nothing but an opinion rather than a fact. It is not my fault that you naively assume that any utterance by a scientist is a 'fact'.

As for the 'scientific consensus' I have looked in detail at the science (I am willing to bet I have read more of the original research than you) and have come to the conclusion that climate science field has been corrupted by fanatics. It is a opinion that will not change until scumbags like Mann and Jones lose their jobs for their incompetence and dishonesty.

It is not my fault that you are too pig headed to look at the evidence against these yahoos and instead place your blind trust in your 'priests'. Waldo is worst than you when it come blind fanaticism. I laid out the evidence carefully why Mann is full of crap and he just started blathering logically inconsistent nonsense that only demonstrates he is clueless. This is why I ignore him now. Your suggestion that waldo is capable of pointing out my blind spots is laughably absurd.

My actual opinions on climate change are more moderate than they appear on this forum. I have simply made the deliberate decision that I will oppose any climate measure until the scientists clean up their act and stop defending scumbag scientists because they are 'on the team'. If that makes me ideological then it is no worse than people like you and waldo who refuse to even consider the possibility that there are serious problems that need resolving.

Edited August 9, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

My actual opinions on climate change are more moderate than they appear on this forum. I have simply made the deliberate decision that I will oppose any climate measure until the scientists clean up their act and stop defending scumbag scientists because they are 'on the team'.

yours is a patently false and hypocritically self-serving post. That you should once again trot out a couple of names of climatologists shows the absolute vacuous nature of anything you say challenging scientists at large, the consensus on climate change, or climatology proper. Yours is a position founded on nothing more than parroting the worst denier charlatan bloggers within the denialsphere you so endear. As has been repeatedly highlighted, your MLW posts, your stated positions are founded on, "themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, selling disaster porn, rent seeking, etc., etc., etc.".

to boldly state you, "don't dismiss facts" is the height of your MLW hypocrisy.

in keeping with the OP theme and the most recent post discussion concerning Harper's latest comments on the Northern Gateway project, your assessment of Harper "claiming" intentions to defer to science, to scientists, is noted:

I suspect Harper has looked at the political landscape and is now willing to let this project die. He is hiding behind the skirts of scientists to avoid officially changing his position.

[jacee]

in keeping with the OP theme and the most recent post discussion concerning Harper's latest comments on the Northern Gateway project, your assessment of Harper "claiming" intentions to defer to science, to scientists, is noted:

Conservatives continue to soften tone ...

http://m.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1239885--conservatives-continue-to-soften-tone-on-northern-gateway-pipeline

Omigod ... has he started realizing that the PM is paid to work for the people and not for the oil companies?

Edited August 10, 2012 by jacee

[Marcanadian]

Conservatives continue to soften tone ...

http://m.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1239885--conservatives-continue-to-soften-tone-on-northern-gateway-pipeline

Omigod ... has he started realizing that the PM is paid to work for the people and not for the oil companies?

The folks at Enbridge are going to have to take him aside and show him who's boss!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

The folks at Enbridge are going to have to take him aside and show him who's boss!

or maybe(hopefully) he's realizing that the extreme corporatist, anti consumer, anti labour, anti general citizen agenda is why Canadians have swung to the left?

Corporations can only buy you votes when the population remains ignorant of how your policies are for corporations, not people.

Edited August 12, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[eyeball]

Yes. This is what I am saying. Scientists present the data but this input is one of many that the 'boss' (in this case the politicians) receives. The 'boss' then has to make decisions that best balance the often competing advice they get.

This is all fine except you've overlooked the fact that it's us who are the real bosses in a democracy. As such the very least we should be demanding of the process politicians are involved with is that it be totally transparent. Quite simply that means every single bit of advice and the manner in which it is delivered and by whom, should be available to all.

Edited August 12, 2012 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Conservatives continue to soften tone ...

http://m.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1239885--conservatives-continue-to-soften-tone-on-northern-gateway-pipeline

Omigod ... has he started realizing that the PM is paid to work for the people and not for the oil companies?

Ah, but can we have a sustainable economy with no oil companies? Can we thrive by just drafting everyone into CUPE?

[ironstone]

Hold your kudos: It's not over yet!

Do you naively assume people will tolerate this?

The opposition will only get more militant.

Stephen Harper's push for pipelines likely to backfire

What I really don’t understand is the Conservatives’ failure to appreciate the political risks in trying to push these projects through. While it may be deemed radical for a Conservative from Alberta to be opposed to the pipelines, opposition in B.C., especially to increased tanker traffic, sits squarely in the middle of the road, cutting across all party lines.

“Radical” here more reasonably represents the people who are vowing to stop the pipeline by any means necessary. If British Columbians believe they have been given a fair hearing and lost fairly, there won’t be much tolerance for llegal acts. But if the common experience of British Columbians is to feel we are being bulldozed by Ottawa, all bets are off. cmcinnes@vancouversun.

And Harper's vulnerable in BC:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/89379-nothing-conservative-about-harper-when-it-comes-to-oil

Still, nixing the powers of a public board feels a little rash and it could carry significant political risks. And since the oil produced in Alberta has to cross British Columbia to get to Asian markets, it’s in B.C. where the potential risks arise.

Currently, the Tories hold 21 of 36 seats in B.C. and six more are available in the next election. It also has a militant and well-organized environmental movement So you know the pipelines and oilsands will become key election issues.

This is shaping up to be a confrontation between Alberta and BC.

I would go further than the op-ed above, and say that if the issue heats up before the next election, we may see some BC Cons cross the floor and bring down Harper.

Yes,everyone gang up on THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF CANADA.Who do you think pays for much of our welfare state?As usual,the left want's it both ways.They are only too happy to live off the spoils while at the same time biting the hand that feeds them.

[bleeding heart]

Yes,everyone gang up on THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF CANADA.

"Gang up"?

I didn't realize that provinces had delicate feelings, and were so sensitive.

Edit: No, that's not quite true; I did realize it, after an insult-laden discussion with poster "Claudius."

Criticizing a province hurts some people's feelings, evidently.

Now, what sort of personal identity depends on an accident of geography is itself maybe an interesting topic......

Edited August 14, 2012 by bleeding heart

[waldo]

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Science not politics!!!

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says science — not politics — will ultimately determine whether the Northern Gateway pipeline proceeds...

.

Harper insisted Tuesday that a

decision on major projects such as the Northern Gateway will be made independently by scientists examining the “economic costs and risks”

associated with the project.

.

The issue is politically dicey for a Harper government that holds 21 seats in British Columbia and is looking to fend off Tom Mulcair’s NDP, which opposes the Northern Gateway pipeline and has been surging in the polls.

But comments by Harper and his senior B.C. minister James Moore suggest the federal government is increasingly uneasy about being politically tied to the Northern Gateway pipeline project

“We may be witnessing the beginnings of the Harper government backing away from the project,” said University of B.C. political scientist George Hoberg, a specialist on environmental and resource management policy.

“C-38 unquestionably shifts the final say on pipeline approvals from the NEB to the cabinet. But what I hear Harper saying today is that, for the Northern Gateway pipeline, he will respect the findings of the joint review panel if they find against the project. To me, that is a very important clarification of position.”

oh my! Will the usual MLW suspects who so vehemently state scientists aren't qualified to speak on matters of economics/policy/risk assessment... step forward... and challenge the comments of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper?

remember Harper Conservatives... "Science"!

No time for ‘science’ to be completed on Northern Gateway review:

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the fate of Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast will be based on science and not politics, documents show some of that science isn’t forthcoming.

And critics say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment currently underway.

Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline will cross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds.

The department didn’t have them.

.

But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them that their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright.

The cuts will mean the department in B.C. has half the habitat staff it had a decade ago.

All but five of the province’s fisheries field offices will be cut as part of a $79 million — 5.8 per cent — cut to the department’s operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects.

The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist.

“[Harper] says the science will make the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Langer. “It’s a cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.”

Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees.

Given the Dec. 31, 2013, deadline set by the federal government, Anderson said scientists in the Fisheries Department simply don’t have time to complete any substantial scientific study of the project.

“You can’t do these studies on the spur of the moment. It takes time to do them,” Anderson said. “And the federal Fisheries have just been subjected to the most remarkable cuts, so you’re in the throes of reorganization and reassessment and re-assigning people, and on top of it you throw them a major, major request for resources and work.

“It can’t be done.”

[jacee]

Looks like Harper is realizing that the people of Canada have the power to stop his pipelines-to-China, even with the absolute power he decreed to himself (See OP).

Considering alternatives now ...

No special regulations prevent moving crude by rail: briefing note to Harper

One thing bothers me ... why are we taxpayers not allowed to know how much CORPORATE WELFARE we'd be contributing? Harper needs a reminder that IT'S OUR MONEY!! not his.

Key sections of the document referring to possible federal support for rail-related options are blacked out.