Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[-1=e^ipi]

Why build 'em where you know they will likely be broken. ?

You snuck the word 'likely' in there, which I never agreed to nor have I seen evidence for, so I will ignore it.

Why build a house if you know it might break?

Why build a car if you know it might break?

Why build anything if there is a chance something might go wrong?

The precautionary principle is retarded, defies occum's razor and makes policy decision-making impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[waldo]

You mean the terrorists that Harper funded such as the ISIS? How are they not terrorists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_in_Iraq_and_Syria

huh! No... silly! I mean Canadians (and American interlopers) who are against pipelines. Are you saying you're unaware of the prior Harper Conservative labeling of those opposed to pipelines... particularly, the statements from Joe Oliver?

I am also surprised that you managed to write 1 post in coherent English rather than Waldo-speak. Congrats.

oh my! Sorry, I'm not up to your 7800 word manifesto level!

.

[On Guard for Thee]

You snuck the word 'likely' in there, which I never agreed to nor have I seen evidence for, so I will ignore it.

Why build a house if you know it might break?

Why build a car if you know it might break?

Why build anything if there is a chance something might go wrong?

The precautionary principle is retarded, defies occum's razor and makes policy decision-making impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Ignore it all you want. Go build your house on a fault line But shut the f**k up when it falls down.

[waldo]

Which is exactly balanced by the fact that they disproportionately benefit when the ROC foots the bill for reduced revenues. BC is a gorgeous place, that's a natural benefit they have. The natural drawback is that they are the only way to leave the country westward. If the ROC should pay for their disadvantage being on the coast, the obvious conclusion is that they should also pay the ROC for their advantages. After all....we would all love coastline wouldn't we? If we have to pay for them to enjoy it the way they see fit, then they would pay us for the loss of oil revenue as a result. Only fair right?

fairness is always in the eye of the beholder... only fair right?

[waldo]

Why the false trichotomy between a pipeline east, northern gateway and keystone XL? Why not build all 3 and diversify our markets? There is more than enough oil in Alberta for all 3 options.

says the guy who "claims", without bothering to ever offer substantiation, that the positive benefits of increased CO2 emissions outweigh the negative impacts!

[-1=e^ipi]

huh! No... silly! I mean Canadians (and American interlopers) who are against pipelines. Are you saying you're unaware of the prior Harper Conservative labeling of those opposed to pipelines... particularly, the statements from Joe Oliver?

I don't really follow Joe Oliver so could your provide the statements you are referring to? I doubt these statements label all opponents as eco-terrorists. If it is just that eco-terrorists exist, they certainly do. I even have family members that are eco-terrorist supporters (not that they would do the terrorism themselves). Though Vic Toews did call all those that oppose his anti-internet privacy bill 'child pornographers', so that wouldn't surprise me.

In any cause, I was talking primarily about how buy middle-eastern oil indirectly or directly funds Islamic terrorists. So maybe you have misread me?

[-1=e^ipi]

Ignore it all you want. Go build your house on a fault line But shut the f**k up when it falls down.

The precautionary principle is not the only way to deal with risk. In fact the precautionary principle is probably one of the most retarded ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment

Whether I will build or buy a house on a fault line depends on many factors, such as the cost of the land, the location of the land, the price of building materials, the probability of earthquakes, the risk of earthquakes, the availability of alternatives, etc.

[waldo]

I don't really follow Joe Oliver so could your provide the statements you are referring to?

I'm certainly not your go-fetch guy... try a googlie!

[-1=e^ipi]

says the guy who "claims", without bothering to ever offer substantiation, that the positive benefits of increased CO2 emissions outweigh the negative impacts!

I never claimed this. You however kept strawmaning me and continue to strawman me even when I clearly explain my position page after page after page. Even now you strawman me.

I did however say that the CO2 fertilization effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is clearly positive. Your response to this was denialism and claims that performing studies of the effects of CO2 on plant growth in enclosed green houses were meaningless (I forget your exact phrasing) because the real world isn't a greenhouse. Well in that case I guess the particle accelerator experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are not valid since they take place in enclosed environments (sarcasm).

You also continually called me a 'concern troll' because you couldn't handle the concept of a person with a background in science disagreeing with your dogma.

Also your post has nothing to do with my comment you were replying to, nor this thread.

[On Guard for Thee]

The precautionary principle is not the only way to deal with risk. In fact the precautionary principle is probably one of the most retarded ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment

Whether I will build or buy a house on a fault line depends on many factors, such as the cost of the land, the location of the land, the price of building materials, the probability of earthquakes, the risk of earthquakes, the availability of alternatives, etc.

I hear what you're saying. Get a deal on some land, throw up a place and hope for luck. Hey I've gambled lot's of times so I'm not going to try a "holier than thou" thing. It's just the pipeline thing, especially the NG one, seems to gamble with people who don't seem to want to.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm certainly not your go-fetch guy... try a googlie!

How can I search for a comment when I do not even know what it is because you will not tell me?

Also, when you asked for evidence or references in the past I provided them for you (even if it was for something that was well known or easy to find with a single google search) I generally provided them. The double standard you have between how much supporting evidence you think you require for your claims vs how much supporting evidence you think other posters require for their claims is very interesting.

[-1=e^ipi]

I hear what you're saying. Get a deal on some land, throw up a place and hope for luck. Hey I've gambled lot's of times so I'm not going to try a "holier than thou" thing. It's just the pipeline thing, especially the NG one, seems to gamble with people who don't seem to want to.

It's not 'gambling'. It is making a rational decision that maximizes expected utility.

Maybe we shouldn't send satellites into space because they might cause green aliens from mars to come and invade us. I'm sure you can find some tin-foil hat people that believe this. Does that mean we shouldn't send satellites into space?

[waldo]

I never claimed this. You however kept strawmaning me and continue to strawman me even when I clearly explain my position page after page after page. Even now you strawman me.

I did however say that the CO2 fertilization effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is clearly positive. Your response to this was denialism and claims that performing studies of the effects of CO2 on plant growth in enclosed green houses were meaningless (I forget your exact phrasing) because the real world isn't a greenhouse. Well in that case I guess the particle accelerator experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are not valid since they take place in enclosed environments (sarcasm).

no - you were not strawman'd! My response to your CO2 staple growth rate nonsense was to repeatedly challenge your claims by asking you to provide formal substantiation. Apparently, you found this most disconcerting! And yes, claiming global real world growth rates based on the results of simplistic growth studies in an isolated artifical greenhouse environment is simply foolhardy... and I backed all that up with actual substantiated citation - go figure!

You also continually called me a 'concern troll' because you couldn't handle the concept of a person with a background in science disagreeing with your dogma.

you have a background in science? Who knew... I labeled you a concern troll because that's exactly what you are in regards GW/CC. Your posting history speaks for itself in that regard.

Also your post has nothing to do with my comment you were replying to, nor this thread.

it has everything to do with this thread... and degree of opposition that some hold against pipeline development which presumes to further enable unfetterd tarsands expansion. When you, somewhat brazenly, call for any/all pipelines (as you did), I most certainly will highlight your past statements that diminish the overall impacts of increased CO2 emissions.

[waldo]

How can I search for a comment when I do not even know what it is because you will not tell me?

gee, how difficult might it be... there's "Joe Oliver", there's "enemies of the state/terrorists". Is there a problem?

Also, when you asked for evidence or references in the past I provided them

absolute bunk!

[On Guard for Thee]

It's not 'gambling'. It is making a rational decision that maximizes expected utility.

Maybe we shouldn't send satellites into space because they might cause green aliens from mars to come and invade us. I'm sure you can find some tin-foil hat people that believe this. Does that mean we shouldn't send satellites into space?

Maximizes utility at maximum risk, when there are alternatives with maybe a bit less profit. Don't get stupid about satellites, I've been navigating with GPS I'll bet since before you cut teeth.

[-1=e^ipi]

no - you were not strawman'd! My response to your CO2 staple growth rate nonsense was to repeatedly challenge your claims by asking you to provide formal substantiation. Apparently, you found this most disconcerting! And yes, claiming global real world growth rates based on the results of simplistic growth studies in an isolated artifical greenhouse environment is simply foolhardy... and I backed all that up with actual substantiated citation - go figure!

You just strawmaned me two posts ago and I explained why...

And I provided a lot of evidence explaining why increasing atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth, including: references to greenhouse studies that verify that increasing CO2 increases plant growth (up to about 1500 ppm), references to guides that explain the optimal conditions to grow plants like marijuana in greenhouses, references to plant growth in the past few thousand or tens of thousands of years and it's relationship to CO2 levels and how that was inferred based on tree ring data and fossilized pollen data, references & citations to many scientific articles (even ones that you provided) that state this well known fact, references to the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants and why it evolved recently due to historically low CO2 levels compared to the majority of the past 600 million years during which multi-cellular life on earth has flourished, etc. And if you had even a high school level education you would freakin know the reason for this has to do with the basic chemistry of the photosynthesis reaction: 6C0₂ + 6H₂0 -> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂.

it has everything to do with this thread... and degree of opposition that some hold against pipeline development which presumes to further enable unfetterd tarsands expansion. When you, somewhat brazenly, call for any/all pipelines (as you did), I most certainly will highlight your past statements that diminish the overall impacts of increased CO2 emissions.

I am for all pipelines that can be shown to be of net benefit to Canada through the methodology of a cost benefit analysis, yes.

And yes I also think, and have explained why in great detail, that global warming alarmism is nonsense and such beliefs result in harmful decisions.

What is your point here?

[On Guard for Thee]

You just strawmaned me two posts ago and I explained why...

And I provided a lot of evidence explaining why increasing atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth, including: references to greenhouse studies that verify that increasing CO2 increases plant growth (up to about 1500 ppm), references to guides that explain the optimal conditions to grow plants like marijuana in greenhouses, references to plant growth in the past few thousand or tens of thousands of years and it's relationship to CO2 levels and how that was inferred based on tree ring data and fossilized pollen data, references & citations to many scientific articles (even ones that you provided) that state this well known fact, references to the recent evolution of the C4 cycle in plants and why it evolved recently due to historically low CO2 levels compared to the majority of the past 600 million years during which multi-cellular life on earth has flourished, etc. And if you had even a high school level education you would freakin know the reason for this has to do with the basic chemistry of the photosynthesis reaction: 6C0₂ + 6H₂0 -> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂.

I am for all pipelines that can be shown to be of net benefit to Canada through the methodology of a cost benefit analysis, yes.

And yes I also think, and have explained why in great detail, that global warming alarmism is nonsense and such beliefs result in harmful decisions.

What is your point here?

OK explain where the ice in the arctic went to.

[-1=e^ipi]

gee, how difficult might it be... there's "Joe Oliver", there's "enemies of the state/terrorists". Is there a problem?

The problem is that you refuse to reference or provide a quote for what you keep referring to.

Solution: provide me a reference.

Maximizes utility at maximum risk, when there are alternatives with maybe a bit less profit. Don't get stupid about satellites, I've been navigating with GPS I'll bet since before you cut teeth.

What do you mean by cut teeth. I don't cut people's teeth, I'm not a dentist... Wrong verb?

And your claim about utility being maximized at maximum risk (if that is what you mean; your sentence structure is poor and has no subject) is nonsense and can be easily disproven with a simple counter example:

The only restriction on utility is that it be a positive monotonic transformation of the consumption set. Though usually utility has a negative second derivative / is concave to represent risk aversion and preference for diversity.

For example, suppose we have two options, build a house on a fault line, build a house somewhere else. Suppose consumer as $10000. The house on the fault line costs $5000. The house not on the fault line costs $5005. Suppose that there is a 1% chance of an earthquake near the fault line which will cause $1000 in repairs. Suppose the Utility function is the square root of income after buying the house and the earthquake (if it occurs).

Expected Utility for house on fault line = 0.99*sqrt(5000) + 0.01*sqrt(4000) = 70.64.

Expected Utility for house not on fault line = 1*sqrt(4995) = 70.68.

The expected utility for buying the house not on the fault line is greatest. Therefore you choose the option with the lowest risk. Your claim has been disproven.

[-1=e^ipi]

OK explain where the ice in the arctic went to.

Which ice? Where have I made any claim regarding ice in the arctic in any of my posts in this thread? Wtf are you talking about?

Edited June 18, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Which ice? Where have I made any claim regarding ice in the arctic in any of my posts in this thread? Wtf are you talking about?

You reckon global warming is nonsense. That ice that is missing out of the arctic. And the Thwaites ice sheet melting into the antarctic while we're at it. That's "what ice"

[On Guard for Thee]

The problem is that you refuse to reference or provide a quote for what you keep referring to.

Solution: provide me a reference.

What do you mean by cut teeth. I don't cut people's teeth, I'm not a dentist... Wrong verb?

And your claim about utility being maximized at maximum risk (if that is what you mean; your sentence structure is poor and has no subject) is nonsense and can be easily disproven with a simple counter example:

The only restriction on utility is that it be a positive monotonic transformation of the consumption set. Though usually utility has a negative second derivative / is concave to represent risk aversion and preference for diversity.

For example, suppose we have two options, build a house on a fault line, build a house somewhere else. Suppose consumer as $10000. The house on the fault line costs $5000. The house not on the fault line costs $5005. Suppose that there is a 1% chance of an earthquake near the fault line which will cause $1000 in repairs. Suppose the Utility function is the square root of income after buying the house and the earthquake (if it occurs).

Expected Utility for house on fault line = 0.99*sqrt(5000) + 0.01*sqrt(4000) = 70.64.

Expected Utility for house not on fault line = 1*sqrt(4995) = 70.68.

The expected utility for buying the house not on the fault line is greatest. Therefore you choose the option with the lowest risk. Your claim has been disproven.

A lot of supposing going on there.

[-1=e^ipi]

You reckon global warming is nonsense.

Where did I make this claim? Nowhere because I do not believe it to be true.

You climate alarmists and your continual inability to comprehend that there are more than 2 positions on the issue of climate change (denialism and alarmism) amuse me.

A lot of supposing going on there.

It is a single counter example. A single counter example is sufficient to prove your claim false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

[Boges]

Gosh, with all the problems with Oil producers internationally with annexations and full scale invasions from violent jihadists and we, here in Canada, can't agree to find an efficient way to get our in-demand resource to market.

This will be a huge wedge issue for the next election. The prospective customers are going to get their black gold from somewhere, for it not to be from Canada with the simple opposition of "just cuz" should be simply unacceptable to most.

[jacee]

Gosh, with all the problems with Oil producers internationally with annexations and full scale invasions from violent jihadists and we, here in Canada, can't agree to find an efficient way to get our in-demand resource to market.

This will be a huge wedge issue for the next election. The prospective customers are going to get their black gold from somewhere, for it not to be from Canada with the simple opposition of "just cuz" should be simply unacceptable to most.

The prospective customers don't vote here, or live with the environmental damage.

Nobody's saying "just cuz".

Just cause, though ...

.

.

[Boges]

The prospective customers don't vote here, or live with the environmental damage.

Nobody's saying "just cuz".

Just cause, though ...

.

.

No one is going to stop Alberta from taking that Bittumen from ground. I'm pretty sure JT won't. So we'll just have to have the stuff shipped by rail and risk more Lac Megantics, I suppose.

I'm pretty sure one or two of these 200 PLUS!!!! conditions would have environmental risks minimized.

Also without potential customers abroad, our economy would suffer a lot.

This Isolationism is unbecoming of Canadians.