Northern Gateway Pipeline Lawsuit

[WestCoastRunner]

I get that I am an easy target. I am no scientist, I am only a british columbian concerned about my province.

[On Guard for Thee]

I get that I am an easy target. I am no scientist, I am only a british columbian concerned about my province.

Apparently Tim is no scientist either. No scientist would make those kind of closed ended claims.

[WestCoastRunner]

Apparently Tim is no scientist either. No scientist would make those kind of closed ended claims.

Well, it bothers me that Tim is so quick to dismiss concerns of British Columbia residents without even perusing the report from the 'over 300 scientists' from all over the world. What is the harm in delaying this decision.

[WestCoastRunner]

Well, it bothers me that Tim is so quick to dismiss concerns of British Columbia residents without even perusing the report from the 'over 300 scientists' from all over the world. What is the harm in delaying this decision.

Let's get the decision right, because once that decision is made, there is no turning back.

[TimG]

Catastrophic spills are quite real and very possible.

Car accidents are very real. Do you refuse to drive in one? Given your aversion to risk you really have no business getting behind the wheel or even walking on a street. You should spend your days hiding inside to protect yourself from the risk of a catastrophic accident.

Obviously, probably do not do that because you feel the risk of a catastrophic accident is manageable.

Risk free is an illusion. Life requires that we live with risk.

As partners in confederation BC has a legal and moral obligation to allow Alberta to transport goods to market.

The only role BC has to play is in monitoring the safety regulations and ensuring they are followed.

You didn't really address the 300 scientists from all over the world regarding this report.

I could poll 300 people walking down Young St in TO and it would be just as meaningful. People with nothing to lose and nothing to gain can make all the pronouncements they want. That does not mean they are relevant.

I live in Vancouver. I can see the tankers if I walk a few blocks from my house. I would be affected by a spill. In theory, my property value could go down if a bad spill occurred in the right area. Yet I think the risk is manageable.

Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

I could poll 300 people walking down Young St in TO and it would be just as meaningful. People with nothing to lose and nothing to gain can make all the pronouncements they want. That does not mean they are relevant.

Sure Tim. Compare 300 people on Yonge street in TO to 300 scientists. BTW, those 300 folks in TO on Yonge St, do not live in BC and you are right, their opinions are meaningless. Why don't you poll 300 people in BC.

[On Guard for Thee]

Let's get the decision right, because once that decision is made, there is no turning back.

He's pretty quick to dismiss any and all scientific conclusions that don't fit his framework. And that's dangerous. Macdonalds tobacco used to have scientific "evidence" that smoking wasn't harmful.

[WestCoastRunner]

He's pretty quick to dismiss any and all scientific conclusions that don't fit his framework. And that's dangerous. Macdonalds tobacco used to have scientific "evidence" that smoking wasn't harmful.

Sure he is. Must work for an oil company.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure he is. Must work for an oil company.

Wouldn't be surprised.

[TimG]

Sure Tim. Compare 300 people on Yonge street in TO to 300 scientists. BTW, those 300 folks in TO on Yonge St, do not live in BC and you are right, their opinions are meaningless. Why don't you poll 300 people in BC.

Why should the opinions of 300 self appointed activists matter just because they are also scientists? That does not mean they are informed or know anything about the issues.

BTW I live in Vancouver. I can see the tankers if I walk a few blocks from my house. I could be affected by a spill. In theory, my property value could go down if a bad spill occurred in the right area. Yet I think the risk is manageable.

[WestCoastRunner]

Why should the opinions of 300 self appointed activists matter just because they are also scientists? That does not mean they are informed or know anything about the issues.

BTW I live in Vancouver. I can see the tankers if I walk a few blocks from my house. I could be affected by a spill. In theory, my property value could go down if a bad spill occurred in the right area. Yet I think the risk is manageable.

Again, I ask. What is the harm in delaying this report for further analysis of the impact of British Columbia?

[WestCoastRunner]

Again, I ask. What is the harm in delaying this report for further analysis of the impact of British Columbia?

I mean, 'what is the harm in delaying the decision' until further analysis is done?

[TimG]

Sure he is. Must work for an oil company.

As yes - the typical leftest conceit. I disagree with and think your opinions are irrational so I must have an ulterior motive. I find it interesting that you don't ask if those 300 scientists had any ulterior motives? Why does agreeing with you automatically mean someone holds an opinion because they have rationally examined the evidence?

[WestCoastRunner]

As yes - the typical leftest conceit. I disagree with and think your opinions are irrational so I must have an ulterior motive. I find it interesting that you don't ask if those 300 scientists had any ulterior motives? Why does agreeing with you automatically mean someone holds an opinion because they have rationally examined the evidence?

Again, what is the harm in delaying the decision until a further analysis is done?

[TimG]

I mean, 'what is the harm in delaying the decision' until further analysis is done?

Because delay is always followed by more delays. The only way a delay makes sense is if there is clear deadline. Simply waiting 'until more analysis is done' is a cop out used by people who want to kill it. The only analysis that needs doing is the layered safety strategy that will reduce the risk of a major spill to as close to zero as possible.

This strategy needs to public.

It needs to be approved, monitored and enforced by the government of BC.

The full cost of doing this monitoring should paid for by the pipeline owners and/or the federal government.

I believe in setting up incentives right to ensure the best outcomes.

This approach gets the incentives right.

Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I mean, 'what is the harm in delaying the decision' until further analysis is done?

Generally speaking, i think there is ample evidence to persuade us it's time to start turning the corner away from fossil fuels. Even though it may be in advance of us having to do it when we suck the last barrel of oil or the last nugget of coal from the ancient swamps. We may not be able to breathe by then.

[WestCoastRunner]

Because delay is always followed by more delays. The only way a delay makes sense is if there is clear deadline. Simply waiting 'until more analysis is done' is a cop out. The only analysis that needs doing is the layered safety strategy that will reduce the risk of a major spill to as close to zero as possible.

Tim, the recommendation to Harper to delay the decision until more analysis could be done was signed by 300 scientists from universities from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, along with colleagues from international institutions including Stanford, Cornell and Oxford. Do you think that you have more knowledge than them?

Among their findings:

The panel failed to explain its rationale for finding that the benefits of the $7-billion pipeline justify the risks.

A finding that marine mammals will not suffer significant adverse cumulative effects contradicts government's own management plans for several endangered and at-risk species.

Let's get further analysis done before we move forward with a decision that we can't back out of.

[On Guard for Thee]

As yes - the typical leftest conceit. I disagree with and think your opinions are irrational so I must have an ulterior motive. I find it interesting that you don't ask if those 300 scientists had any ulterior motives? Why does agreeing with you automatically mean someone holds an opinion because they have rationally examined the evidence?

And I suppose you think those scientists have an ulterior motive that somehow exceeds Exxon's ?

[TimG]

Do you think that you have more knowledge than them?

Probably not but I don't believe they are objective (I don't believe anyone is objective - but I little patience for people who pretend they are and try to use that pretense to deflect criticism).

this statement:

The panel failed to explain its rationale for finding that the benefits of the $7-billion pipeline justify the risks.

It means nothing because risks are purely subjective. Canada loses billions every year because its only customer is the US - billions that would be better spent on programs or tax reductions. People that can see this connection understand the benefit. People that don't understand the connection won't see the benefit. People who don't understand how layered industrial safety systems can reduce risk to near zero think the risks are higher than they are. Edited June 4, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

I expected this much from you. I was not surprised. I do, however, hope the govt asks for further analysis.

[On Guard for Thee]

Probably not but I don't believe they are objective (I don't believe anyone is objective - but I little patience for people who pretend they are and try to use that pretense to deflect criticism).

this statement:

It means nothing because risks are purely subjective. Canada loses billions every year because its only customer is the US - billions that would be better spent on programs or tax reductions. People that can see this connection understand the benefit. People that don't understand the connection won't see the benefit. People who don't understand how layered industrial safety systems can reduce risk to near zero think the risks are higher than they are.

The risks would only be subjective if we had no history. We do, so they are not.

[cybercoma]

Tim, You didn't really address the 300 scientists from all over the world regarding this report. What are your thoughts on this? You are quick to dismiss my concerns but what about these 300 scientists?

They're scientists. TimG has a lengthy posting history about scientists. You should look into it. It seems he thinks they're all full of crap, unless they agree with his opinions.

[Smallc]

I'd have to know what field they each studied. It seems every recent EA that doesn't shut down a project is 'deeply flawed'.

[Shady]

I'm getting sick of so-called scientists with political agendas trying to run our economies.

[TimG]

It seems he thinks they're all full of crap, unless they agree with his opinions.

Your are misrepresenting my views. I don't think scientists that agree with me are any more right than the ones who disagree. The difference is scientists that agree with me generally also acknowledge the limits of their own understanding and don't try to push ideas on society based on data which they know is unreliable.

It is the activist scientists who pontificate in media like clergy and insist that they should not be questioned because they are "scientists" are the people which I have the most contempt for.

Edited June 5, 2014 by TimG