Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

[waldo]

Me and others like me that understand how important this is to the economy and the country .You gotta love ezra when he wades into the protests and shows how foolish these protesters have become.

oh damn! Ezrant's on board... with you... and others like you? Game over!

[PIK]

oh damn! Ezrant's on board... with you... and others like you? Game over!

Watch him sometime when he is doing his protest shows, it is quite sad. And to think the country is being held hostage by these losers.

[waldo]

Enbridge was careless, and it's cost them over a billion in cleanup costs. I rather doubt they want to incure a lot of billion and multi billion dollar cleanup costs, so presume they'll do better in future. I want them closely monitored, however.

As far as I know Kalamazoo is fine now.

yes... you can PRESUME. The Kalamazoo cleanup continues... where the oil still sits at the bottom of the river... you know, like the problem I highlighted with dilbit on the ocean floor.

[waldo]

Many organizations are researching and pursuing alternative energy sources. However, those sources are not yet in a position to replace oil and gas, and won't be for quite some time.

In any event, this is all private money building the pipelines, so suggesting 'we' spend that money on something else makes no sense.

no knowledgeable persons are suggesting a wholesale replacement... in any relative longer-term timeframe. There will always be a complement of fossil-fuels in any energy mix. Of course, extending that longer-term reliance on fossil-fuels does nothing to shift deployments... and usage... toward alternative sources.

[Icebound]

This issue, as with Keystone, has nothing to do with climate change. Nothing.

Well, maybe not "nothing".... but GW/CC is definitely not all of it.

Harper's centralized, controlling, "I know better than you", non-compromising style of government for 8 years.... has alienated the very people he now needs as his friends, if this is ever to get off the ground.

To get this done, serious science had to be studied seriously... by both sides... they had to talk, negotiate, compromise. To do that, you need relationships, a sense of trust.... and for 8 years, Harper did nothing to gain the trust of scientists, environmentalists, natives.

A leader has to lead.... Harper's idea for 8 years, was to WHIP. Whippees tend to be less than cooperative.

,,,

[overthere]

Well, maybe not "nothing".... but GW/CC is definitely not all of it.

Harper's centralized, controlling, "I know better than you", non-compromising style of government for 8 years.... has alienated the very people he now needs as his friends, if this is ever to get off the ground.

To get this done, serious science had to be studied seriously... by both sides... they had to talk, negotiate, compromise. To do that, you need relationships, a sense of trust.... and for 8 years, Harper did nothing to gain the trust of scientists, environmentalists, natives.

A leader has to lead.... Harper's idea for 8 years, was to WHIP. Whippees tend to be less than cooperative.

,,,

Both sides?

You are operating under the idea that the federal government is responsible for building the pipeline.

They aren't.

[-1=e^ipi]

if you'd like to take this up again, resurrect the thread... and be prepared to finally provide support for your claims... something in the real world; something that gets you out from the confines of non-real world, artificial, tailored greenhouse environments - you know, like the studies/cites that I provided. Something that you've failed to provide; something that you've refused to provide.

The premise of your 'argument' is ridiculous.

Do you reject evidence that suggests that planets exist outside our solar system because the light went through a 'non-real world, artificial, enclosed' telescope?

Do you reject the evidence collected by the Large Hadron Collider that suggests that the Higgs Boson exists because those experiments were in a 'non-real world, artificial, enclosed' environment?

There is no reason to think that the laws of physics in a laboratory environment are somehow different than those outside of the laboratory environment and via occam's razor, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

Also, I did provide empirical evidence that was not based on 'non-real world, artificial, enclosed' environments such as tree ring data or fossilized pollen data but you rejected that because you said that historical data was no good.

How the heck are you supposed to test the hypothesis that increasing CO2 concentrations increases crop yields via the CO2 fertilization effect if you can't enclose an environment to control CO2 levels and cannot use historical data?

[-1=e^ipi]

oh for sure! There's also the fake-skeptic position (aka cloaked denialism)... and, of course, there's the concern troll position that feigns concern while also trumpeting other accompanying positions like "do nothing/delay any action/there's nothing that we can do about it/adapt only/mitigation is a waste of money/the benefits of CO2 outweigh negative impacts, blah, blah, blah".

There are also morons on the internet that fail to understand science and refuse to understand even when presented with evidence after evidence after evidence.

[-1=e^ipi]

No one wants to call for a boycott of Middle-eastern oil or want to go protest oil from other parts of the world. It's so much easier to protest domestic forms of fossil fuels.

Actually I do. I think western nations should ban imports from Saudi Arabia, Iran and other religious theocracies that indirectly finance terrorism.

[Icebound]

Both sides?

You are operating under the idea that the federal government is responsible for building the pipeline.

They aren't.

Both sides, all sides.

Maybe not, but the federal government DOES provide "leadership". Its stamp of approval should be the moral guidance for the rest of the rabble.

But since its relationship with the rabble is.... questionable?....then its approval is not going to be trusted.

[-1=e^ipi]

there probably would have been a U.S. approval of the KXL pipeline by now, possibly making Northern Gateway a moot point.

Why? What prevents Canada from making both pipelines?

[waldo]

The premise of your 'argument' is ridiculous.

as I said, "if you'd like to take this up again, resurrect the thread... and be prepared to finally provide support for your claims... that the overall global effects of increased CO2 outweighs the negative impacts. Feel free to isolate that to your non-real world artificial controlled greenhouse environments or take a step out into the real world.

[Shady]

as I said, "if you'd like to take this up again, resurrect the thread... and be prepared to finally provide support for your claims... that the overall global effects of increased CO2 outweighs the negative impacts. Feel free to isolate that to your non-real world artificial controlled greenhouse environments or take a step out into the real world.

If you actually cared about CO2 emissions, then you'd support this and Keystone, instead of opposing it, and therefore increasing CO2 emissions by some 40%. But like I said, there is no compromise with people like you.

[waldo]

Why? What prevents Canada from making both pipelines?

uhhh... that would be the U.S. State Department KXL approval as accepted by the U.S. President... notwithstanding any judicial pursuits that may be in play at the U.S. state and federal supreme court levels as driven by, for example, those Nebraskan farmers/ranchers opposed to KXL.

.

[waldo]

If you actually cared about CO2 emissions, then you'd support this and Keystone, instead of opposing it, and therefore increasing CO2 emissions by some 40%. But like I said, there is no compromise with people like you.

you don't know what you're talking about. I already responded to your false-front rail versus pipeline nonsense.

[waldo]

oh for sure! There's also the fake-skeptic position (aka cloaked denialism)... and, of course, there's the concern troll position that feigns concern while also trumpeting other accompanying positions like "do nothing/delay any action/there's nothing that we can do about it/adapt only/mitigation is a waste of money/the benefits of CO2 outweigh negative impacts, blah, blah, blah".

There are also morons on the internet that fail to understand science and refuse to understand even when presented with evidence after evidence after evidence.

does that evidence include a 7800 word manifesto? How's that working out for you?

.

[eyeball]

Actually I do. I think western nations should ban imports from Saudi Arabia, Iran and other religious theocracies that indirectly finance terrorism.

I'll 2nd that and add that we should likewise crease trading with dictatorships like China.

So...send the oil to eastern Canada for refining or better yet refine it in Alberta and ship finished products.

Edited June 18, 2014 by eyeball

[hitops]

We can actually do even better than that - do everything we can to get our oil to market. That includes keystone, gateway, going east, or anything else.

There are 3 clearly positive effects here:

- More money for us

- Less need for our customers to shop from middle east

- Less money for middle east for oil they do sell, as increased supply reduces price

On the other hand, just stopping trade with fanatacismabad will have no impact, except negatively on us.

[Boges]

I'll 2nd that and add that we should likewise crease trading with dictatorships like China.

Walmarts All retail outlets would be pretty empty then.

[-1=e^ipi]

as I said, "if you'd like to take this up again, resurrect the thread... and be prepared to finally provide support for your claims... that the overall global effects of increased CO2 outweighs the negative impacts. Feel free to isolate that to your non-real world artificial controlled greenhouse environments or take a step out into the real world.

Oh look, you again ignored what I wrote. Your denialism of scientific methodology and the CO2 fertilization effect continues.

Respond to what I write if you want me to give a decent response back.

[-1=e^ipi]

does that evidence include a 7800 word manifesto? How's that working out for you?.

If you are referring to the evidence I presented earlier that the CO2 fertilization effect exists, that has nothing to do with the 7800 word post I made about the effects of climate change on jetstreams. If you actually read what I wrote, let alone have the capacity to understand what I write, then you would know that.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'll 2nd that and add that we should likewise crease trading with dictatorships like China.

So...send the oil to eastern Canada for refining or better yet refine it in Alberta and ship finished products.

I disagree with this because china doesn't indirectly fund terrorism and is at least slowly modernizing and becoming westernized. Also, their culture is more compatible with western culture than Islamic culture is to western culture.

I'm not a protectionist like you. Don't mistake the fact that I support trade restrictions under very specific circumstances with support for protectionism.

[On Guard for Thee]

Question Period was fun this am. Mulcair got a good lick in with his statement that it seems all 21 conservative mp's from BC seem to have entered the "witness protection program"

[overthere]

Mulcair would sell his own nuts to just once be in a position to make any decision that mattered, much less a hard decision.

[Icebound]

.....the evidence I presented earlier that the CO2 fertilization effect exists,......

Yeah, but the quality is questionable.... increased CO2 results in reductions in protein, and increases in cyanide content:

http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect/