Jump to content

Anti-Pipeline Campaign was foreign funded


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

14% eh?  I've shown over and over again in this and other threads that our oil industry is under-reporting its emissions and that government regulators are too incompetent or vested to do anything about it.

You've propagated "alternative facts" and all of your sources suck because you just gobble up everything that you see on CNN.

Quote

As for not developing Tar Sands we should do that because...

All you lickspittles are doing here is reflecting the virtue our oil industry and government signals when they pretend the CO2 produced by burning the worst lowest grade oil on the planet beyond our borders has nothing to do with us.

This is basically the same mentality I'd expect from someone who produces and promotes cigarettes, asbestos, LAVs or Fentanyl for a living.

Cry me a river eyeball. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

14% eh?  I've shown over and over again in this and other threads that our oil industry is under-reporting its emissions and that government regulators are too incompetent or vested to do anything about it.

As for not developing Tar Sands we should do that because...

All you lickspittles are doing here is reflecting the virtue our oil industry and government signals when they pretend the CO2 produced by burning the worst lowest grade oil on the planet beyond our borders has nothing to do with us.

This is basically the same mentality I'd expect from someone who produces and promotes cigarettes, asbestos, LAVs or Fentanyl for a living.

Apparently from what I read is that we are all made up of carbon. The more carbon in the air means that we get to breath plenty more oxygen that keeps you and me alive. Trees and plants and animals all need carbon in the air to survive. The last I heard was that trees and plants live off of carbon in the air. Why do you want less carbon? Less carbon means you could die one day from lack of oxygen. The earth would turn cooler. Winters will get worse. Then more trees and plants and animals will die because of the earth getting colder. 

Many liars are promoting and making plenty of money off of the fools who believe their lies that if we try to eliminate more carbon from the air that all will be well. From what I have read, things will only get worse if that happens. If the earth is warming up by a few degrees(WOW)that in another twelve years we will all die. Well, according to numb nuts AOC, we are all going to die in twelve years if we don't stop greenhouse emissions. I personally think that she is totally full of it. Just saying. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You've propagated "alternative facts" and all of your sources suck because you just gobble up everything that you see on CNN.

Cry me a river eyeball. 

Scientific American's facts are alternative?  You don't think that's an opinion that deserves any evidence to substantiate it?

I didn't cite CNN.  What alternative post did you read where I quoted their Tar Sands reportage?  It should be really easy for you to prove you're not a lying sack of putrid shit when substantiating this.  All you have to do is provide the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Scientific American's facts are alternative?  You don't think that's an opinion that deserves any evidence to substantiate it?

I didn't cite CNN.  What alternative post did you read where I quoted their Tar Sands reportage?  It should be really easy for you to prove you're not a lying sack of putrid shit when substantiating this.  All you have to do is provide the link.

Where is "Scientific American's" article on how badly our own studies on carbon from the oil sands are underestimating thins? You posted a link to "phys.org" and some global news and CBC links. I could make site called climatescience.com and it wouldn't really be all that credible, would it? The CBC and Global are crap and they get their talking points directly from CNN.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2019 at 1:53 AM, eyeball said:

All this story does is underscore how slimy our trading partners and the oil industry are.  I see no reason not to believe our government and industry wouldn't do the same thing if they were in a similar position to do so.

Keeping the Tar Sands in the ground is still the right thing to do.  Its the most CO2 laden oil on the market and largely destined for the biggest most dangerous authoritarian country on the planet.  We should be boycotted and sanctioned for even thinking about digging it up.

One thing I was thinking about today is that the oil markets are 100% fixed. Production is scaled back to make an artificial demand which raised the price of oil. I am sure this practice would be considered illegal if applied to anything else.  Collusion between oil producers, which ends up just screwing people who use gas.  Hell you can call that extortion. Purposefully manipulating demand and the price of it at the expense of consumers who could actually use a break from high gas prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

One thing I was thinking about today is that the oil markets are 100% fixed. Production is scaled back to make an artificial demand which raised the price of oil. I am sure this practice would be considered illegal if applied to anything else.

The oil markets are fixed by the OPEC cartel, who are not subject to law enforcement obviously, but in fact they can't scale back for long before members of he cartel start breaking ranks because of their need for revenue to prop up their tyrannical regimes.  Oil in of itself in not a premium asset, you're not Arab rich unless you are selling it in large volumes.

Of late the opposite of scaling back has been occurring as the Saudis have been driving the price down in order to cripple the competition in North America.

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Where is "Scientific American's" article on how badly our own studies on carbon from the oil sands are underestimating thins? You posted a link to "phys.org" and some global news and CBC links. I could make site called climatescience.com and it wouldn't really be all that credible, would it? The CBC and Global are crap and they get their talking points directly from CNN.

Review info and sources, and provide your own sources, and rationale. 

Just saying "no because I said so" isn't sufficient. Lol 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Where is "Scientific American's" article on how badly our own studies on carbon from the oil sands are underestimating thins?

I have no idea where that article is.  The SA article I linked to was about burning Tar Sands not processing them. Like all the rest of your ilk you seem completely oblivious to the difference.
 

Quote

You posted a link to "phys.org" and some global news and CBC links.

That's right I did. These were the articles I pointed to that showed our oil industry's claims about their processing emissions are completely false.  You went on to dismiss them all as CNN sourced without providing a single, cite source or link to substantiate your dismissal.
 

Quote

 

I could make site called climatescience.com and it wouldn't really be all that credible, would it?

 

No, nothing you say is credible.  

Quote

The CBC and Global are crap and they get their talking points directly from CNN.

Stop lying, the Global story clearly notes; 

Quote

Those findings, based on 2014 data from the Canadian and U.S. governments, analyzed and published for the first time in a Global News/Toronto Star/National Observer investigation, are part of a national trend showing Canadian refineries pump out far higher levels of some key pollutants compared against their U.S. counterparts.

 

As for the CBC they make it quite clear the information they reported on came from Nature Communications.

Quote

There is no mention of CNN anywhere in the sources or articles I've provided - you're not doing a very credible job of disproving that you are indeed a lying sack of you know what.  That said, kudos for being the first one to attempt any refutation of the articles I've posted in several threads on the topic now.  A lot smarter people than you haven't even tried, maybe you should have taken a cue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

One thing I was thinking about today is that the oil markets are 100% fixed.

Yes, I can see this when the price flips up on the Co-op Gas Bar sign followed moments later by the price flipping up on the Petro-Can sign next door.  The guy at the Petro-Can sign has to go up a ladder to change his sign.  The guys at the Gas-Bar like to fuck with his head by changing the price on their electric sign to see how many times they can get him to climb up and down the ladder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The oil markets are fixed by the OPEC cartel, who are not subject to law enforcement obviously, but in fact they can't scale back for long before members of he cartel start breaking ranks because of their need for revenue to prop up their tyrannical regimes.  Oil in of itself in not a premium asset, you're not Arab rich unless you are selling it in large volumes.

Of late the opposite of scaling back has been occurring as the Saudis have been driving the price down in order to cripple the competition in North America.

Hopefully there are no terrorist nations that is a part of OPEC ..  wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Hopefully there are no terrorist nations that is a part of OPEC ..  wait.

Oh indeed, they are a rogues gallery, but it's not like it's some sort Western institution that we have any significant control over, it was a self organizing cartel which doesn't even answer to itself, as they are hardly unified as any sort of stable alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yes, I can see this when the price flips up on the Co-op Gas Bar sign followed moments later by the price flipping up on the Petro-Can sign next door.  The guy at the Petro-Can sign has to go up a ladder to change his sign.  The guys at the Gas-Bar like to fuck with his head by changing the price on their electric sign to see how many times they can get him to climb up and down the ladder.

In Bellingham, Washington there is real a gas war going on in that city. One can go a couple of blocks down the road and the gas price can be 30 cents a gallon cheaper. Prices vary everywhere in that city. From $2.60 a gallon to $3.69 a gallon. Unlike here in Canada there is no such a thing like that happening. There has to be a conspiracy by the oil company's in Canada to work together to keep the price of gas up and allow no competing among one another.

At one time an American oil company called Arco opened up a gas station in Burnaby, BC. and they were well known for selling their gas at ten cents or more cheaper than other oil companies in America. They were selling their gas in Burnaby at approx ten cents a liter less. They were opened for about a year and then they were gone. What happened to them? I suspect that the other oil companies ganged up on them and had the politicians gang up on them also and they were probably told to raise their gas prices or else. Apparently, they did not want to raise their prices and now they are gone from BC. Big oil companies hate competition. 

It would appear these days that foreigners run and rule this country. No doubt a globalist like G. Soros a foreigner is funding the anti-pipeline environmentalist activist movements and the native Indians in to fighting any new pipelines being built, especially here into BC. With the backing of globalist foreigner Soros, the environmental and native Indian movements are out to try and send BC back to the 17th century if they possibly can do it. Those environmentalists appear to hate progress. They appear to hate oil. Something that they use every day. Go figure. They just love their trees and whales and bicycle lanes. Foreign funders like Soros and his ilk are all just laughing at the fools who will listen to them and support their anti progress communist programs and agendas that will hinder them more than help them. I don't believe in the old saying anymore that there is one sucker born every minute. It would appear as though in the past few decades there have been a hundred suckers that have been born every minute of every day, and it is beginning to show big time. Just saying. :D

Edited by taxme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2019 at 6:08 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

The reality is that any prime minister could have gotten the following pipelines through.

Pipeline #1 - Alberta Clipper (Line 67) pipeline expansion - This pipeline runs through Alberta and Saskatchewan, through crap land. No province or premier would get in the way of that.

Pipeline #2 -  Enbridge’s Southern Lights Pipeline - Same as above. Some of it went through southern Alberta, Sask and Manitoba. No push back for the pipeline from anyone.

Pipeline #3 - Anchor Loop Project. - This was approved and permitted by the Liberals in 2004. Then built by the Conservatives. It's only 150km in length. Yay.

Harper tried and tried hard to get the Trans Mountain through and failed. Now, the Conservative crowd is bitching about Trudeau not being able to get it through.

The truth is that Harper failed like Trudeau did. But the hacks only complain about Trudeau.

Edited by Hudson Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hudson Jones said:

The reality is that any prime minister could have gotten the following pipelines through.

....The truth is that Harper failed like Trudeau did. But the hacks only complain about Trudeau.

 

But Harper is not the prime minister...Trudeau is.

How many pipelines has Trudeau "gotten through"...easy or not ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I have no idea where that article is.  The SA article I linked to was about burning Tar Sands not processing them. Like all the rest of your ilk you seem completely oblivious to the difference.
 

That's right I did. These were the articles I pointed to that showed our oil industry's claims about their processing emissions are completely false.  You went on to dismiss them all as CNN sourced without providing a single, cite source or link to substantiate your dismissal.
 

No, nothing you say is credible.  

Stop lying, the Global story clearly notes; 

 

As for the CBC they make it quite clear the information they reported on came from Nature Communications.

There is no mention of CNN anywhere in the sources or articles I've provided - you're not doing a very credible job of disproving that you are indeed a lying sack of you know what.  That said, kudos for being the first one to attempt any refutation of the articles I've posted in several threads on the topic now.  A lot smarter people than you haven't even tried, maybe you should have taken a cue.

Like I said right at the start of this, if everything that you're saying is 100% true, there's a whopping 14% difference. That's from YOUR OWN source. Do you think that anyone in Canada cares about a 14% difference when there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake?

And to be completely honest I don't believe anything from the sources that you are citing. Misinformation about the oil sands is like an economy of it's own. People with an agenda of their own can get "scientists" to go out and do "studies" which come to whatever conclusion they are paid to reach. Just like the tobacco industry did for decades.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Like I said right at the start of this, if everything that you're saying is 100% true, there's a whopping 14% difference. That's from YOUR OWN source. Do you think that anyone in Canada cares about a 14% difference when there are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake?

As I pointed out oil industry lickspittles insist on pretending there's no difference between producing Tar Sands oil and burning Tar Sands oil.

Quote

And to be completely honest I don't believe anything from the sources that you are citing. Misinformation about the oil sands is like an economy of it's own.

What misinformation? What misinformation did Scientific American produce?  If you're saying the amount of CO2 they maintain the Tar Sands contains is wrong then refute it with evidence to the contrary. You seem to believe SA's 14% figure for production emissions but everything else they say is misinformation?  How the hell does that work? Oh right some bullshit you've peddled about CNN sources except you can't actually point to any because you pulled that bullshit out of your stupid ass.

Quote

People with an agenda of their own can get "scientists" to go out and do "studies" which come to whatever conclusion they are paid to reach. Just like the tobacco industry did for decades.  

Lickspittles with shit for brains cannot conclude anything without slipping in their own spittle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2019 at 5:16 PM, eyeball said:

What misinformation? What misinformation did Scientific American produce?  If you're saying the amount of CO2 they maintain the Tar Sands contains is wrong then refute it with evidence to the contrary. You seem to believe SA's 14% figure for production emissions but everything else they say is misinformation?  How the hell does that work? Oh right some bullshit you've peddled about CNN sources except you can't actually point to any because you pulled that bullshit out of your stupid ass.

I didn't say that I "believed" your article. I said that if your article is even true it still isn't pointing out anything worth getting alarmed about. Do you get it? That's just basic english that you're sucking at now.

Quote

Lickspittles with shit for brains cannot conclude anything without slipping in their own spittle.

Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I didn't say that I "believed" your article. I said that if your article is even true it still isn't pointing out anything worth getting alarmed about. Do you get it?  That's just basic english that you're sucking at now.

You're full of shit. You didn't say that at all about the Scientific American article until just now. I'm pretty sure quoting an article to make a point while saying you don't believe the article is called sucking and blowing at the same time.  What I don't get is why you didn't just said climate change lol right from the get go.  It's no wonder the difference between processing and burning is moot too.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

You're full of shit. You didn't say that at all about the Scientific American article until just now. I'm pretty sure quoting an article to make a point while saying you don't believe the article is called sucking and blowing at the same time.  What I don't get is why you didn't just said climate change lol right from the get go.  It's no wonder the difference between processing and burning is moot too.  

 

You're full of shit. You posted things there from CBC, Phys.org, Global and you keep talking about Scientific American as if that's what we were talking about all along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're full of shit. You posted things there from CBC, Phys.org, Global and you keep talking about Scientific American as if that's what we were talking about all along.

First of all get the order of what I posted and why straight.

1. Physics Org - to refute Goddess' falsehood that Canada only emits 2% of the worlds CO2. Physics Org reports evidence that Canada is hugely underestimating how much we're emitting. 

2. Scientific American - to demonstrate the enormous difference in CO2 emissions between processing and burning Tar Sands Oil.  An issue you nor anyone else have touched with a 10' pole.

3. Global News then 4. CBC News - to substantiate further the reality that Canada is underestimating and underreporting its emissione due in good part to poor regulation of our oil industry.

Quote

 you keep talking about Scientific American as if that's what we were talking about all along.

No I keep referring to it to underscore my reasons for linking to it.

1. That Tar Sands oil should be left in the ground because it's the worst CO2 laden oil on the planet.

2. That burning it will release an unconscionable amount of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere.

3. To challenge the notion that we're only accountable for processing emissions, emissions that in any case have been shown to be based on false accounting and lax regulation.

The falsehood, deception and avoidance seem as deliberate and nefarious as it is in the production of weapons, deadly addictive drugs and other dangerous substances.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2019 at 1:53 PM, eyeball said:

No it's a fact, Tar Sands oil is the most CO2 laden oil on the planet. Everyone wants us to keep it in the ground even the democracies. Instead of insisting Canada lower itself to the level of the world's shitheads Albertans should follow their own advice and move to where the jobs are.

As for dangerous dictatorships, Russia is a has been and give me call when Saudi Arabia 

I am looking at an analysis of some Athabasca crude and I am not seeing any associated CO2.  Normally we see it associated with very light ends.. and that is what extra heavies and heavies don't have...or seldom have in significant amounts.  that changes a bit as you go SW in the formation but fugitive emissions are regulated  and controlled. 

I would not call Russia a has been...all of the same people resources and weapons are still there that made them  a superpower and the guy steering  the ship is a modern day Joe stalin.

Saudi not only  could become a nuclear power but may be forced into that with proliferation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2019 at 2:35 PM, eyeball said:

First of all get the order of what I posted and why straight.

1. Physics Org - to refute Goddess' falsehood that Canada only emits 2% of the worlds CO2. Physics Org reports evidence that Canada is hugely underestimating how much we're emitting. 

2. Scientific American - to demonstrate the enormous difference in CO2 emissions between processing and burning Tar Sands Oil.  An issue you nor anyone else have touched with a 10' pole.

3. Global News then 4. CBC News - to substantiate further the reality that Canada is underestimating and underreporting its emissione due in good part to poor regulation of our oil industry.

No I keep referring to it to underscore my reasons for linking to it.

1. That Tar Sands oil should be left in the ground because it's the worst CO2 laden oil on the planet.

2. That burning it will release an unconscionable amount of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere.

3. To challenge the notion that we're only accountable for processing emissions, emissions that in any case have been shown to be based on false accounting and lax regulation.

The falsehood, deception and avoidance seem as deliberate and nefarious as it is in the production of weapons, deadly addictive drugs and other dangerous substances.

Do you think that big oil down in the States doesn't have any stooges out there peddling falsehoods? Do you think that I trust a site like phys.org? 

Do you think I care if our oil releases 14% more CO2?

Do you think I care what Global News and CBC say? I've posted on here several times about how caught up they are in passing around lies. Once I catch them lying blatantly I'm done with them.

The same people who bitch about the oil sands bitch about burning Alberta coal and how bad it is. I lived for 20 years by a lake that had 3 coal-fired power plants around it and I never heard anyone complaining about coal residue, smoke, or anything else that was coal-related. 

Your opinion of oil sands oil means nothing to me eyeball. You are the kind of person to get led around by the nose by people like Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, AOC, etc. I don't trust your judgement one bit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

 

Your opinion of oil sands oil means nothing to me eyeball. You are the kind of person to get led around by the nose by people like Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, AOC, etc. I don't trust your judgement one bit.

This is idiotic speculation and this kind of shit on this site needs to stop.  Ruins this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

This is idiotic speculation and this kind of shit on this site needs to stop.  Ruins this forum.

Stop quoting AOC and backing her quotes, stop following moronic Maddow and Copper talking points, and I'll stop accusing you guys of doing those things. Fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...