Northern Gateway Pipeline Approved

waldo · June 19, 2014

further to that Enbridge equity "bonanza" offered to "some number" of First Nation communities, of which "some number" have, apparently, accepted:

The equity offer from Northern Gateway to aboriginal groups along the route of a controversial oil pipeline would amount to an average of about $70,000 a year for the bands, which would be obliged to borrow the millions of dollars needed to purchase equity from Calgary-based Enbridge itself.

It's a far cry from the path out of poverty the company claims, say some aboriginal leaders, who are among the minority who have rejected the offer.

"Only minimal economic benefits were offered," Chief Rose Laboucan, the six-term chief of the Driftpile Cree Nation northwest of Edmonton, told the federal panel assessing the project during final arguments about the controversial project.

that's huuuuuge! $70K/year on average, per community/band :lol:

Edited June 19, 2014 by waldo

Keepitsimple · June 19, 2014

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...

From one of your own citations:

Northern Gateway has said 60 per cent of aboriginal groups along the pipeline route have signed on, but the Haida Nation told the panel last week that 18 equity packages were offered to Alberta aboriginal groups and 15 signed up. In B.C., 27 offers were made and 11 First Nations signed up.

It's more than the two bands that have acknowledged the agreements, but less than the 60 per cent claimed by Enbridge.

Waldo - even the article itself is a little disingenuous - because 26 out of 45 is 57% which one might reasonably round to 60%. So much for the honesty of Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt - who said - again, from the citation you provided:

"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."

Sort of puts anything else this honourable Chief says in doubt, doesn't it?

Edited June 19, 2014 by Keepitsimple

-1=e^ipi · June 19, 2014

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!

Claiming that experimental evidence is useless because it takes place in an enclosed environment is absurd. I've already responded to this in earlier posts. Try responding to what I wrote earlier rather than ignore it.

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..

Again another attempt at strawmaning what I said. How difficult is it for you to understand the difference between the CO2 fertilization effect on crop yields, and the overall effect of changing CO2 levels on crop yields?

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:

.

Oh look, another out of context graph or statement from a study/scientific paper that doesn't indicate the methodology used, theoretical model used, methodology, etc. But as expected, you aren't interested in science, only support for your dogma. The text at the bottom sort of implies that they didn't even consider adaptation to get these results. And these results have 0 well within any reasonable confidence interval, meaning the data isn't conclusive enough to claim crop yields will decline.

-1=e^ipi · June 19, 2014

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.

So you think that all the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are nonsense because they take place in non-real world artifical confines?

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.

So when presented with non 'enclosed study' data that supports the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect such as tree ring data or fossilized pollen data, you call that a deflection? How warped is your mind?

-1=e^ipi · June 19, 2014

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.

Incoherent Waldo-speak ramblings.

hitops · June 19, 2014

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.

There's an important distinction though. I have post-graduate medical degree and can read scientific literature. You just believe the hype. The IPCC tells us something, and you believe it. I don't, because I can interpret it and don't find it compelling.

Why is there this unique situation in climate science vs other science? Well there isn't really, all science is corrupted by normal human incentives. Climate science however, is unparalleled in it's exposure to political and social pressure. There is no way it can be properly objective. Their financial support (both personal, academic and project-related) and reputation are directly, directly dependent on finding a given view, because promotion of that view gets the dollars. You can't do research or pump your CV if you don't get the moolah. You won't get no moolah saying it's overblown, because that means your livelihood is overblown. Normal, healthy breathing humans do not naturally attack their own interests.

We have the same problem in medicine. Especially in the US where docs can make big bucks doing a robotic prostatectomy (one example) when you may not need one at all. The difference is, robotic prostatectomies aren't relevant to major policy decision, but 'climate change' evidently is.

waldo · June 19, 2014

oh snap! Not another guy touting his own prowess, while implying/stating someone he doesn't agree with... has no education chops, can't read scientific literature and simply accepts whatever "climate change hype" comes down! Well done... and thanks for lending your esteemed knowledge/capability to the board.

and... we have another denier attacking the IPCC - go figure.

waldo · June 19, 2014

apparently, you're unwilling to stop derailing this thread; again, start a new one or resurrect one you feel appropriate... I've already given you the links to the related discussion (start, end) in that other thread.

Claiming that experimental evidence is useless because it takes place in an enclosed environment is absurd. I've already responded to this in earlier posts. Try responding to what I wrote earlier rather than ignore it.

I didn't say any such thing; your desperation reeks! What I have said is that when it's the sole basis for your absolute and definitive claim... and it's to the exclusion of all real-world crop growth impacting factors... that sir, is absurd. You're tailoring an isolated controlled environment for maximum growth, without regard to limiting influences. It's bloody amazing you even attempt to keep your charade up/active.
.

Again another attempt at strawmaning what I said. How difficult is it for you to understand the difference between the CO2 fertilization effect on crop yields, and the overall effect of changing CO2 levels on crop yields?

pfffft!
.

Oh look, another out of context graph or statement from a study/scientific paper that doesn't indicate the methodology used, theoretical model used, methodology, etc. But as expected, you aren't interested in science, only support for your dogma. The text at the bottom sort of implies that they didn't even consider adaptation to get these results. And these results have 0 well within any reasonable confidence interval, meaning the data isn't conclusive enough to claim crop yields will decline.

apparently you're having difficulty reading! The source is mentioned - twice. If you have difficulty with the IPCC, perhaps take it up with them... by the by, speaking of you contacting others, have you reached out to the Pottsdam Institute guys yet, or are you instead shopping your "manifesto" around to journals? :lol:

how in the hey do you make that claim about adaptation when both the graphic and verbiage within it (and my quote of the same) all mention adaptation... you do see where the graph shows "with adaptation" & "no adaptation", right... you can read, right?
.

Edited June 19, 2014 by waldo

waldo · June 19, 2014

So you think that all the experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are nonsense because they take place in non-real world artifical confines?

you're repeating yourself! Here, let me do the same, back at ya, from my last post:

"I didn't say any such thing; your desperation reeks! What I have said is that when it's the sole basis for your absolute and definitive claim... and it's to the exclusion of all real-world crop growth impacting factors... that sir, is absurd. You're tailoring an isolated controlled environment for maximum growth, without regard to limiting influences. It's bloody amazing you even attempt to keep your charade up/active."

.

So when presented with non 'enclosed study' data that supports the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect such as tree ring data or fossilized pollen data, you call that a deflection? How warped is your mind?

you're wandering... and repeating, again! As I stated when you brought up the distant past in the original thread, as I stated just a couple of posts back:

"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."

in actuality, this is repeating twice; a repeat on a repeat - well done. The last time you tried to state/imply this I called that, "an absolute jackass statement for you to make!"

.

waldo · June 19, 2014

Incoherent Waldo-speak ramblings.

c'mon lil' buddy... you can keep repeating this forever! Bottom line is that after pleading for me to engage you in your "manifesto", when I finally relent after your most recent plead, you suddenly pull this incoherent/speak routine (multiple times now) of yours. I clearly stated where I thought your only point of departure exists... after all your bluster manifesting, as I see/read it, you only have one point to question. I named that single point and, in kind, mentioned you've never reconciled the long duration periods that some extreme events exist through.

waldo · June 20, 2014

From one of your own citations:

Northern Gateway has said 60 per cent of aboriginal groups along the pipeline route have signed on, but the Haida Nation told the panel last week that 18 equity packages were offered to Alberta aboriginal groups and 15 signed up. In B.C., 27 offers were made and 11 First Nations signed up.

It's more than the two bands that have acknowledged the agreements, but less than the 60 per cent claimed by Enbridge.

Waldo - even the article itself is a little disingenuous - because 26 out of 45 is 57% which one might reasonably round to 60%. So much for the honesty of Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt - who said - again, from the citation you provided:

"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."

Sort of puts anything else this honourable Chief says in doubt, doesn't it?

sorry Simple... that's simply bad journalism. It wasn't the Haida Nation making those statements; rather, it was the Haida Nation speaking to the Enbridge "alleged" equity offerings/numbers. Specifically, from the Haida Nation final submission to the NEP:

NO SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT

Northern Gateway boasts that 60 percent of Aboriginal communities support the project as they have signed up for equity participation in the project. Let’s examine this assertion.

Northern Gateway admits that, of the 18 equity packages offered in Alberta, 15 were allegedly signed in Alberta and, of the 22 packages offered in the interior of British Columbia, 11 were allegedly signed.

in any case Simple, your attempt to cast doubt/aspersion towards Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt is busted... he awaits your apology. So yes, his statement remains intact:

"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."

.

-1=e^ipi · June 20, 2014

has no education chops, can't read scientific literature and simply accepts whatever "climate change hype" comes down!

Perhaps it is because you do not understand the basics principles of science?

apparently, you're unwilling to stop derailing this thread; again, start a new one or resurrect one you feel appropriate... I've already given you the links to the related discussion (start, end) in that other thread.

You initiated the 'derailing' (if you want to call it that) on page 4...

I didn't say any such thing; your desperation reeks! What I have said is that when it's the sole basis for your absolute and definitive claim... and it's to the exclusion of all real-world crop growth impacting factors... that sir, is absurd. You're tailoring an isolated controlled environment for maximum growth, without regard to limiting influences. It's bloody amazing you even attempt to keep your charade up/active.

If your above 'argument' is valid, then how is the below not valid:

"What I have said is that when it's the sole basis for your absolute and definitive claim... and it's to the exclusion of all real-world physics factors... that sir, is absurd. You're tailoring an isolated controlled environment for maximum collision of large hadrons, without regard to limiting influences. It's bloody amazing you even attempt to keep your charade up/active. Therefore, collisions at the LHC is not evidence for the existence of Higgs Bosons."

pfffft!

I guess it is very hard for you to understand the difference between the CO2 fertilization effect and the effect of CO2 levels on crop levels.

apparently you're having difficulty reading! The source is mentioned - twice.

It is you who has difficulty reading. I never claimed that you did not give the source. I claimed that you did not explain the methodology or theoretical model used to arrive at the conclusions. Do you not understand the difference? Probably not since you seem to only understand dogma...

how in the hey do you make that claim about adaptation when both the graphic and verbiage within it (and my quote of the same) all mention adaptation... you do see where the graph shows "with adaptation" & "no adaptation", right... you can read, right?

Sorry, I made a minor error with regards to misreading the text. I apologize.

Oh look, I can admit I was wrong. Too bad you cannot do that...

Also, it is all moot because of none of the results are statistically significant. You do understand what that means, right?

have you reached out to the Pottsdam Institute guys yet, or are you instead shopping your "manifesto" around to journals?

What definition of manifesto are you using, because yours does not seem to fit any definitions that I have encountered.

From wiki: "A manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government."

"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."

You statement, even if true, does not mean that you cannot use past evidence to validate the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect.

c'mon lil' buddy... you can keep repeating this forever! Bottom line is that after pleading for me to engage you in your "manifesto", when I finally relent after your most recent plead, you suddenly pull this incoherent/speak routine (multiple times now) of yours. I clearly stated where I thought your only point of departure exists... after all your bluster manifesting, as I see/read it, you only have one point to question. I named that single point and, in kind, mentioned you've never reconciled the long duration periods that some extreme events exist through.

Sorry but could you rephrase this in non-incoherent Waldo-speak?

Keepitsimple · June 20, 2014

sorry Simple... that's simply bad journalism. It wasn't the Haida Nation making those statements; rather, it was the Haida Nation speaking to the Enbridge "alleged" equity offerings/numbers. Specifically, from the Haida Nation final submission to the NEP:

in any case Simple, your attempt to cast doubt/aspersion towards Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt is busted... he awaits your apology. So yes, his statement remains intact:

.

Sorry Waldo.....no apology coming. I'll accept 26 alleged signings over Sterritt's outlandish claim that only two signed - every time!

On Guard for Thee · June 20, 2014

Perhaps it is because you do not understand the basics principles of science?

You initiated the 'derailing' (if you want to call it that) on page 4...

If your above 'argument' is valid, then how is the below not valid:

"What I have said is that when it's the sole basis for your absolute and definitive claim... and it's to the exclusion of all real-world physics factors... that sir, is absurd. You're tailoring an isolated controlled environment for maximum collision of large hadrons, without regard to limiting influences. It's bloody amazing you even attempt to keep your charade up/active. Therefore, collisions at the LHC is not evidence for the existence of Higgs Bosons."

I guess it is very hard for you to understand the difference between the CO2 fertilization effect and the effect of CO2 levels on crop levels.

It is you who has difficulty reading. I never claimed that you did not give the source. I claimed that you did not explain the methodology or theoretical model used to arrive at the conclusions. Do you not understand the difference? Probably not since you seem to only understand dogma...

Sorry, I made a minor error with regards to misreading the text. I apologize.

Oh look, I can admit I was wrong. Too bad you cannot do that...

Also, it is all moot because of none of the results are statistically significant. You do understand what that means, right?

What definition of manifesto are you using, because yours does not seem to fit any definitions that I have encountered.

From wiki: "A manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government."

You statement, even if true, does not mean that you cannot use past evidence to validate the existence of the CO2 fertilization effect.

Sorry but could you rephrase this in non-incoherent Waldo-speak?

Yeah, maybe stop with the manifesto's and some might pay attention.

WestCoastRunner · June 20, 2014

Stanley Park was voted the best park in the world today by TripAdvisor. It even beat out Central Park. Let's think for a second about the tourism implications not just for BC but for the rest of Canada. This recognition will put Canada on the map for a while.

Now, let's imagine that an oil spill has devastated parts of BC along the coastline. BC would no longer be rated as any best 'whatever' in the world and there goes BC's tourism industry overnight. Not to mention the rest of Canada.

On Guard for Thee · June 20, 2014

Too many ways for re-creation of the Exxon Valdez. They're still cleaning that up.

monty16 · June 20, 2014

We can rely on our aboriginal first nations people to save the day. Those great stewards of the environment would never, ever, ever sell out to profit themselves.

-1=e^ipi · June 20, 2014

We can rely on our aboriginal first nations people to save the day. Those great stewards of the environment would never, ever, ever sell out to profit themselves.

^ Racist Comment.

Now, let's imagine that an oil spill has devastated parts of BC along the coastline. BC would no longer be rated as any best 'whatever' in the world and there goes BC's tourism industry overnight. Not to mention the rest of Canada.

Exactly what scenario are you imagining in order for a 'possible' oil spill in Kitimat to be so bad that it 'wrecks' the coastline near Stanley Park? This sounds as ridiculous as the idiots that think Fukushima has poisoned the entire Pacific Ocean.

Yeah, maybe stop with the manifesto's and some might pay attention.

Oh look, another idiot that doesn't understand the meaning of the word manifesto.

Keepitsimple · June 20, 2014

Too many ways for re-creation of the Exxon Valdez. They're still cleaning that up.

I guess you're not paying attention to some of the posts - but somehow, I don't think it matters to you. Why don't you at least read this over to find out what's going on today:

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.

waldo · June 20, 2014

You initiated the 'derailing' (if you want to call it that) on page 4...

you're incorrect. Since you refuse to take the hints/requests to quit derailing this thread, I've moved the discussion to the thread where both of your derailing subjects originate - here:

waldo · June 20, 2014

I guess you're not paying attention to some of the posts - but somehow, I don't think it matters to you. Why don't you at least read this over to find out what's going on today:

Simple, why keep dropping that David Akin/SunNews article reference... keying on what you bold highlighed within that article, why don't you reach a bit and compare the size of oil tankers proposed/intended with the size of existing tankers... key to the tanker classes and size/weight. Why don't you speak to the numbers of existing versus proposed tankers. What's the relevance of comparing East Coast tanker traffic, at large, with that route from Kitimat to the open ocean? C'mon Simple, reach beyond your SunNews cut & paste. I've already cast scrutiny on your claimed 'facts' with that split graphic showing how Enbridge downplayed the Douglas Channel as a wide open path to the open ocean!

waldo · June 20, 2014

Sorry Waldo.....no apology coming. I'll accept 26 alleged signings over Sterritt's outlandish claim that only two signed - every time!

that's a shame; you, through that poor journalism I exposed, impugned the integrity/character of Coastal First Nations executive director Art Sterritt. Since you apparently can't take the time to actually read, the 2 number he spoke to was, as stated, "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". Yes, clearly you have no qualms in accepting, outright, something alleged, even in the face of the other referenced article comments from Sterritt; that:

- Enbridge expanded its pipeline corridor by 80 kilometers to increase its numbers; that many of those communities that have signed on are located outside of the areas that will be most impacted by a spill

- Enbridge is including groups that either aren’t located on the pipeline corridor or don’t have land in British Columbia

- Enbridge is including Metis groups in its numbers; groups that don’t have Aboriginal Rights and Title to land within the pipeline corridor

yes Simple, your accepting of that "alleged" number would appear to also accept it in the context of those comments from Sterritt that state Enbridge pumped those numbers up by expanding the pipeline corrider, that Enbridge pumped those numbers up by including groups that aren't located on the pipeline corrider and that Enbridge pumped those numbers up by including groups that don't have rights/title to land within the pipeline corrider.

Edited June 20, 2014 by waldo

PIK · June 20, 2014

Is Victoria still pumping sewage straight into the ocean?

The_Squid · June 20, 2014

Is Victoria still pumping sewage straight into the ocean?

Are you confusing sewage and bitumen again??

PIK · June 20, 2014

Are you confusing sewage and bitumen again??

No Just makes me wonder when I hear about how green BC is and I remember Victoria and Halifax were still pumping it straight into the oceans. So is victoria still doing it? Edited June 20, 2014 by PIK