Argus Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Why? What prevents Canada from making both pipelines? We are. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 We are. Whos WE? You got a mouse in your pocket? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 Whos WE? You got a mouse in your pocket? We(Ie, Canada) are working on building two pipelines to the west (including tripling the capacity of the kinder morgan transmountain line, one to the south (Keystone) and one to the east. At present, I believe the Kinder Morgan line is in the late planning stages. Trans Canada is working on their "energy east" gas pipeline and Enbridge is now physically working on reversal of the line 9 pipeline east. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) 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. as I said, quit derailing this thread... resurrect the other thread if you want to start your nonsense again, if you want the waldo to lay another hurtin on ya! - your nonsense begins in the other thread: here - and it ends in that thread: here with you unable to respond to my initial citation request, as follows... you know, the real world environment and influences. Not your non-real world, isolated, artificial, controlled greenhouse enclosure/hood studies! citation request: most particularly, with respect to global yields; CO2 levels; distinctions between experimental enclosure studies/model simulations versus FACE results; stressed versus unstressed conditions, particularly with regard to weeds, pests, soil quality, water availability/quality, air quality, acclimation considerations, resource competition, etc. . Edited June 19, 2014 by waldo Quote
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 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. duh! Your claimed evidence was being mocked... after all your attempts to get anyone to acknowlege your 'manifesto' and after your pointed multiple calls for me to engage/respond to it (where you copied it into a complete separate thread you created)... after taking great pleasure in ignoring your plantive calls for me to respond to it, after your final direct request of me, I finally did cut you some slack and did so - here. But imagine, you didn't respond to it! Go figure. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 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/ Thank you for providing a link justifying your claims. With regards to the article posted, fortunately it references 3 papers as sources, but unfortunately 1 of the link is broken. For the two abstracts provided (I didn't want to pay to read the entire paper) they give some interesting estimates for reductions in protein concentrations for increasing CO2 levels. One of the papers gave the following estimates (for an increase from ~357 ppm to ~749 ppm, the range is very inaccurate): 10-15% reduction in protein content for wheat, barley and rice. 14% reduction in protein content for potato. 1.4% reduction in protein content for soybeans. Unfortunately, no estimates of increases in crop yields were given to compare the trade-off between increase in crop yields to a decrease in protein concentration. I tried to find a reference that estimates the increase in crop yields via the CO2 fertilization effect. This was what I found: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569568/ From the above link, it is found that for an increase from 330 ppm to 550 ppm, the crop yields for wheat and rice increase by about 17%, where as the crop yields for corn increase by about 6%. If we use a linear extrapolation to compare this to the ~357ppm to ~749 ppm change in the earlier paper, then this corresponds to approximately 30.3% increase in the crop yields for rice and wheat, and an approximately 10.7% increase in crop yields for corn. From this information, I will point out a few things: - Even with the reduction in protein concentration, it is more than offset by increases in crop yields since you end up with more overall plant protein (10-15% reduction in wheat/rice protein concentration vs a 30% increase in crop yields). - Wheat, rice and barely aren't even major sources of protein, they are major sources of carbohydrates. If you want protein you should eat meat or some other high protein food sources. And didn't the carbohydrate concentration increase since the sugar concentration increased? This doesn't really seem to be a major issue. - Interestingly, the only high-protein food source looked at, soy beans, had a very small reduction in protein content. - Any losses in protein concentration can be easily offset by using genetically modified organisms to increase protein concentration, or by changing crops to something that has a higher protein concentration (quinoa instead of rice for example). - It is interesting to point out that the CO2 fertilization effect is much smaller for C4 plants like corn than for C3 plants like barely or rice; as expected. For the second study, they found that spring wheat had a 10.4% increase in grain yields vs a 7.4% reduction in protein concentration. Again, increases in crop yields more than offset decreases in protein concentration. And wheat shouldn't be a major source of protein in anyone's diet anyway. With respect to the cyanide claims. You could just not eat clover leaves and cassava leaves and it becomes a non-issue. I think it is reasonable to conclude that despite these reductions in protein concentration and increases in cyanide content (for specific parts of plants that people do not eat) the overall effect of CO2 fertilization is positive. Also, as an aside, Waldo (the poster who I was responding to) completely denies the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect regardless of how much evidence I present. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 with you unable to respond to my initial citation request, as follows... you know, the real world environment and influences. Not your non-real world, isolated, artificial, controlled greenhouse enclosure/hood studies! . I.e. you somehow think that using data from laboratory experiments should not be allowed in science. And I provided you with references to tree-ring and fossilized pollen studies to demonstrate the CO2 fertilization effect. But you will probably ignore their existence yet again because you see to suffer from a selective reading disorder. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 I finally did cut you some slack and did so - here. But imagine, you didn't respond to it! Go figure. You mean your incoherent Waldo-speak ramblings that made no attempt to address any of the points that I made? Yeah it is unworthy of a response. Maybe you should try actually responding to the points people make. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 Mulcair would sell his own nuts to just once be in a position to make any decision that mattered, much less a hard decision. I see Harper is "selling his own nuts" (whatever that means to you) to back away from his latest unpopular decision as if he can pass the crap over the NEB. And once again he demonstrates his ignorance of the constitution he is supposed to reperesent, with regard to "duty to consult". Ever heard of it? Quote
jacee Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 I think Harper knows it now: /conservatives-distance-themselves-from-northern-gateway-pipeline-decision- Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 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. You cannot possibly present economic benefits without presenting negative consequences in the event of a major oil spill such as environmental costs, health costs and economic costs to the province of BC. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 Also, as an aside, Waldo (the poster who I was responding to) completely denies the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect regardless of how much evidence I present. what an absolute jackass statement for you to make! Clearly you've become unhinged after my repeated ridiculing of you basing your claim on the results of enclosure/hood studies within a non-real world artificial greenhouse environment! In your artificial non-real world 'bubble' intended to maximize growth, you fail to account for any of the many severely limiting growth factors that I brought forward... you know, all those influences that can/will work to reduce a possible CO2 fertilization effect in, where applicable, appropriate geographic regions... you know, all those influences you completely discount and ignore. in any case, I see you couldn't take the hint to quit derailing this thread... that you should resurrect the other thread where this discussion originates. Following in your derail, following up on the many cites/references I put forward in that other thread (only to have you ignore them), here, have another - sorry to burst your bubble --- per the latest IPCC AR5 WG II report: Based on observed and projected impacts to crops, mean yields are expected to decline (i.e., all the median estimates (dark horizontal lines) and most of the interquartile ranges (blue columns) all fall below zero. Although adaptation could mitigate some of the impacts, the changes are still likely to be negative. Demand for crops is projected to increase by 14 percent per decade through 2050 (dotted line at top of graph), which could exacerbate the consequences of declining productivity. . Quote
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 I.e. you somehow think that using data from laboratory experiments should not be allowed in science. quit making shyte up! Apparently, your kind of preferred science has you basing your most absolute and definitive claim on growth realized in non-real world artificial confines, without regard to real world limiting influences. And I provided you with references to tree-ring and fossilized pollen studies to demonstrate the CO2 fertilization effect. But you will probably ignore their existence yet again because you see to suffer from a selective reading disorder. ah yes, another of your deflections... one I most completely and thoroughly punted. Again, other than a climate sensitivity aspect, the distant past has no bearing on the effects of today's relatively recent warming and related climate change. Quote
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 You mean your incoherent Waldo-speak ramblings that made no attempt to address any of the points that I made? Yeah it is unworthy of a response. Maybe you should try actually responding to the points people make. I did... read it again... here's the relevant extract from the main post. As I said, after all your 'manifesting' bluster, across 2 threads no less, it seems there's very little you actually disagree with (as bold highlighed below). As I said, I never recall you addressing... reconciling... a lengthy duration of an extreme event. I certainly did ignore your ridiculously long "manifesto"... in finally looking at your summation... and trying to make some sense of it, it would seem that after all your ridiculous "manifesting", for all intents and purposes, the only relevant aspect you disagree with is the duration of resonance - the so-called stalling out aspect. I note, whether you associate it with a blocking affect, or a stalling result, most particularly in relation to the heat waves in Europe-2003, Russia-2010, and North America-2011 that were the focus of the original article/associated study I put forward, I can't recall you ever reconciling the lengthy duration of those (or like) extreme events. As for the physical mechanism you appear so "manifestly" infactuated with, that original study I referenced, provided a possible one to account for the 'stalling' factor... a mechanism the study authors themselves apply caveats to. As I'm aware, the only challenge to that study hasn't been in terms of the physics; rather, it's been in regards to a statistics aspect. A challenge that, essentially, plays right into an acknowledged observed occurence caveat provided by the study authors. as I said, I have no inclination to discuss anything with you... my suggestion to you would be for you to apply your zeal/manifesto towards a challenge to the Pottsdam Institute scientists and their suggested possible causal physical mechanism as put forward within that study I referenced... challenge them on the physics level. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 What happened to the "Harper Government" stationary? How come this news release went out on the now rarely seen "Government of Canada" letterhead? Quote
eyeball Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 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. I'm not a quibbler over degrees of inhumanity. There are a lot more countries I would suspend trade with as well for their behaviour, including some allies. Whatever sort of uplift is going on in the backward places we deal with is offset by the backward slide of our own hard won standards and humanity. We should be resisting the loss of every inch of ground that is threatened, fight to regain those we've lost and continue striving to acquire more. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Keepitsimple Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 Perhaps it's time to actually inject some facts into the discussion - instead of kneejerk emotion. Now I know that for some, it really doesn't matter how safe the pipeline is - they simply don't want it - or any pipeline - or any oil for that matter.....period. So.... 1) 26 of the 40 First Nation communities affected by the NG have already signed partnership agreements 2) 209 conditions have been placed on Enbridge and almost half must be fulfilled before construction can begin Read below for a better understanding of what Mulcair and eco-nuts like Elizabeth May are calling "insanity".... A big challenge for Enbridge as it tries to win new friends will be the powerful and haunting images its opponents are conjuring up of the devastation maritime oil spills can cause. "Remember the Exxon Valdez" is a common cry from opponents. Enbridge will surely try to counter the fear and horror of that 1989 disaster with some easy-to-understand facts. The Valdez was a single-hulled vessel. All tankers out of Kitimat will be double-hulled. The Valdez was being piloted by a third mate who was off course with no knowledge of Alaska's Prince William Sound. Kitimat tankers will be guided, until they are in open ocean, by not one but two pilots with extensive local knowledge. And to guard against a powerless tanker drifting out of control, tankers coming out of Kitimat will be tied to one tugboat at all times with a second tugboat providing cover. Remember, hundreds of tanker and cargo ships have been going up down the narrow channel that serves Kitimat for years and they've been doing so without running into each other. At its narrowest, that channel is 1,400 metres wide. Meanwhile, oil tankers have been going in and out of Vancouver's Burrard inlet which, at its narrowest, is 150 metres wide. Moreover, on Canada's East Coast — no less pristine and sensitive as the West Coast — 4,000 oil tankers a year move in and out and the last time we had a spill of any size was in 1970. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/18/cant-we-protect-the-environment-and-get-rich-off-resource-wealth Quote Back to Basics
Smallc Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 Sounds pretty safe to me. The pipeline will be bogged down in court forever though. Quote
hitops Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) . This is a graph that shows declines, and says 'it's cause of climate change'. But that's all it is. I could post a graph showing the decline of English soccer along with a statement that it's due to climate change as well. Given you accept this reasoning, you would also accept that I hope. These kinds of things are silly. What you do today, is just look at anything bad and say it's climate change. No need for a sensible explanation. It used to be 'global warming', but after we didn't warm for 16 years, the wording had to be changed. Since 'climate change' can't be defined in any way that is accountable to testing, anything can be climate change. It's perfect. Edited June 19, 2014 by hitops Quote
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 This is a graph that shows declines, and says 'it's cause of climate change'. But that's all it is. the graph is sourced... if your want..... more... have at er! Quote
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 Perhaps it's time to actually inject some facts into the discussion - instead of kneejerk emotion. Now I know that for some, it really doesn't matter how safe the pipeline is - they simply don't want it - or any pipeline - or any oil for that matter.....period. So.... 1) 26 of the 40 First Nation communities affected by the NG have already signed partnership agreements 2) 209 conditions have been placed on Enbridge and almost half must be fulfilled before construction can begin Read below for a better understanding of what Mulcair and eco-nuts like Elizabeth May are calling "insanity".... yes Simple, we're quite familiar with Enbridge facts! As for your SunNews' reference to the Kitimat Douglas Channel, within the following split graphic which one do you think originates from Enbridge? yes, that 26 number is just everywhere... can you, can anyone provide an actual list of those First Nation communities, where their located, in Alberta or BC, degree of possible impact on those "claimed" communities, etc.. About all I can find is this handy lil caveat attached by Enbridge..... stating that it is “contractually prohibited from disclosing the identities of our Aboriginal partners at this time. Public disclosure is a matter for individual communities.” Now, isn't that convenient! Quote
Smallc Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 So you're saying they're lying. You should provide proof then, being as the claim hasn't been challenged. Quote
hitops Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) the graph is sourced... if your want..... more... have at er! Ya I know, my comments incorporate the source. The data supporting the assertion, is conjecture and modeling. With modeling, you get what you put in. If you expect climate change to cause x or y, and you put those factors in to the model, it will tell you what you want to hear. The IPCC can't prove climate change (a term with no real definition) is the cause. They just believe it is. You find the data for it, no real hard data exists. Everything is caused by climate change! We had to go to 'climate change' once it was apparent there was no significant warming. I'm just wondering in 20 years if there are not major deviations, what we will have to relabel climate change as? Edited June 19, 2014 by hitops Quote
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 So you're saying they're lying. You should provide proof then, being as the claim hasn't been challenged. you're quick with that lying charge aren't you. Proof of what? Proof of something claimed but, apparently, unavailable! And yes, that claim has been challenged on various levels, notably from Coastal First Nations... A claim today by Enbridge that the company has signed equity agreements with 60 per cent of the First Nations along the proposed B.C./Alberta route of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project is a complete sham, says Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt. “We have checked with all the First Nations on the pipeline route west of Prince George and only two First Nations have signed equity agreements,” says Sterritt, in response to Enbridge’s announcement earlier today. Sterritt says the numbers being bandied about by Enbridge are flawed. “Enbridge expanded its pipeline corridor by 80 kilometers to increase its numbers. Many of these communities that have signed on are located outside of the areas that will be most impacted by a spill.” As well Enbridge is including groups that either aren’t located on the pipeline corridor or don’t have land in British Columbia, Sterritt said. “We are absolutely mystified about the inclusion of the Metis in Enbridge’s 60 per cent. It’s ridiculous to include groups that don’t have Aboriginal Rights and Title to land within the pipeline corridor.” Quote
waldo Posted June 19, 2014 Report Posted June 19, 2014 Ya I know, my comments incorporate the source. The data supporting the assertion, is conjecture and modeling. With modeling, you get what you put in. If you expect climate change to cause x or y, and you put those factors in to the model, it will tell you what you want to hear. The IPCC can't prove climate change (a term with no real definition) is the cause. They just believe it is. You find the data for it, no real hard data exists. Everything is caused by climate change! We had to go to 'climate change' once it was apparent there was no significant warming. I'm just wondering in 20 years if there are not major deviations, what we will have to relabel climate change as? oh sorry, my apologies... I thought you were questioning the lack of associated detail to go along with the graph... not GW/CC itself. But, ya... my bad... I forgot you're one of cadre of MLW "fake skeptics/deniers"! Your last sentence pretty much sums up your knowledge level on any of this - that ole naming meme distinction (global warming versus climate change) has been dealt with many times previously in past MLW threads. Keep that faith, hey! again, the waldo will once again act conductor here: rather than derail this thread (further), if you'd really like to get your denial on, start another separate thread or find an existing one that you feel appropriate. Thanks in advance. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.