Canadian Tar Sands Mining/Keystone Pipeline

[ralis]

I gotta stop clicking on "view ralis' posts." Zero value in 'em whatsoever. If you want to address me ralis, you're going to have to write something good enough for someone else to quote, I've had enough of your badgering. If you dont know what our solar theories are missing, git on to some reading and you might figure out why we cant make decent solar predictions. If it doesnt make sense to you that the energy equation kinda needs to start with the most significant heat source and then proceed towards its balance with earth from a radiative physics standpoint, then well...I cant give you some magic potion that will get rid of a lack of imagination. The sun's a variable star in case you never noticed, and when your model omits things via an oversimplified coefficient TSI, add on an incomplete understanding of the sun and its cycles and you already have a long term catastrophic flaw in your "model"....its only a model, like camelot, shhh! Add in volcanism that isnt represented in the models and you're cooked, any retrodiction is coincidental or artificial, prediction, hah, laughable...and wrong. I've given you many chances to address those couple very simple points and you simply just cant do it.

 

Later on, enjoy that kool aid.

 

You assume that I or research scientists don't have knowledge as to the sun being a star and it's effects? That is authoritarian posturing on your part.

 

As I have stated numerous times, you have some obsessive need to be absolutely right. No matter what I or anyone else states. You have stated many times that whatever I post, you will knock it down as being wrong.

 

Have you posted on any other forums? If so include links here.

Edited March 19, 2013 by ralis

[voidisyinyang]

Trains Will Move Tar Sands Oil, if Keystone XL Doesn’t

http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/trains-will-move-tar-sands-oil-if-keystone-xl-doesnt/

[joeblast]

the reason to cancel the pipeline is that it buys more time, since it will take longer for the fuel to be burned if it is transported by rail???

 

 

 

that makes zero sense whatsoever. I mean, you'd basically have to prove there's this massive positive feedback wall we're up against...and since signals cant be accurately separated from noise and even the IPCC's low estimates are too high, that cant be done by any means that preserves the scientific method.

 

let's see something that backs up that line of thinking that isnt hopelessly skewed, flawed, or both. I think if it existed, we'd have seen it by now.

 

I mean plus, isnt the train going to pollute more and have more possible failures than a pipeline? Asking for the less economical, less efficient, potentially more dangerous from a points of failure standpoint. Well hey, the green industry did manage to produce cars that burn under water

[voidisyinyang]

the reason to cancel the pipeline is that it buys more time, since it will take longer for the fuel to be burned if it is transported by rail???

 

 

 

that makes zero sense whatsoever. I mean, you'd basically have to prove there's this massive positive feedback wall we're up against...and since signals cant be accurately separated from noise and even the IPCC's low estimates are too high, that cant be done by any means that preserves the scientific method.

 

let's see something that backs up that line of thinking that isnt hopelessly skewed, flawed, or both. I think if it existed, we'd have seen it by now.

 

I mean plus, isnt the train going to pollute more and have more possible failures than a pipeline? Asking for the less economical, less efficient, potentially more dangerous from a points of failure standpoint. Well hey, the green industry did manage to produce cars that burn under water

 

"you'd probably have to prove"???

 

So you don't believe in the precautionary principle?

 

haha.

 

I think the proof is on the people wanting to destroy the planet -- they have to prove they are not going to cause harm before they can do the project.

 

Obviously it doesn't work that way since regulatory agencies were created by big corporations.

 

Gabriel Kolko's book details this very well....

 

http://miltenoff.tripod.com/Kolko.html

 

 

Kolko initiates a re-examination of the Progressive Era, challenging the consensus that Progressivism was a middle-class reaction to the power of big business.(6) Kolko also defies the prevalent opinion that the federal government and presidents in particular, sought to neutralize if not destroy the power of big corporations. According to Kolko, major American businesses not only did not oppose many of the regulatory acts from 1900 through 1916 but actively sought and supported many reforms and regulations. The effect of government and big business actions was the creation of 'political capitalism,' "an utilization of political outlets to attain stability and rationalization in the economy."(3)

[joeblast]

"you'd probably have to prove"???

 

So you don't believe in the precautionary principle?

 

haha.

well, basically and probably arent entirely interchangeable - and I do believe in the precautionary principle - but I dont believe in using that as an excuse to toss any requirement to prove the theory! grandiose claims are made by those who push the model's output as reality - and since the models have significant fundamental flaws in them, the long term predictions are simply GIGO. what's that about being a bit off at the start, and go far enough for the model equations to break and tell you something crazy will happen...you can easily be off by 10,000 miles by the time we get 50 years into a model run, nevermind 100 or more.

 

if there's a sound basis for precaution, fine. if the basis is unsound and the understanding flawed - does it still make sense to divert the same amount of resources and get all the king's horses and all the king's men (and all the king's taxpayers too - I mean really, with all the financial problems the world has, we cant afford to spend a trillion dollars to maybe stave off .2 degrees of warming) to mobilize and make this a top priority?

 

I vehemently disagree with that.

 

As always, if you want to talk real pollution, I'm all for eliminating it. But I'm not going to advocate vast amounts of resources chasing a fake pollution bogeyman, partly for the wasted resources, partly because it sucks correction-potential out of other real causes of pollution.

 

 

If your models' feet arent held to the fire, well hell...

 

 

hahaha...you can see the GISS creep...bad, bad coefficients, James...your assuming a large, rapid curtailment of CO2 is STILL too high by 31%...what does that tell you...CO2 doesnt carry the weight they say it does, not even close, and its those pesky other things that the models miss that wind up being the main driver. Like Feynman said, nature will not be fooled.

Edited March 20, 2013 by joeblast

[voidisyinyang]

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

 

$52 billion a year tax payer PORK to support the highly "profitable" fossil fuels industry.

 

haha. Corporate Nanny State in action.

[joeblast]

the best energy generation for the future will be decentralized and distributed. its why I bought a whole ton of solar cells, but I've got some prerequisite work on my house to take care of before I get out the soldering gun and start putting my panels together. days are getting longer, I gotta git movin'

[ralis]

well, basically and probably arent entirely interchangeable - and I do believe in the precautionary principle - but I dont believe in using that as an excuse to toss any requirement to prove the theory! grandiose claims are made by those who push the model's output as reality - and since the models have significant fundamental flaws in them, the long term predictions are simply GIGO. what's that about being a bit off at the start, and go far enough for the model equations to break and tell you something crazy will happen...you can easily be off by 10,000 miles by the time we get 50 years into a model run, nevermind 100 or more.

 

if there's a sound basis for precaution, fine. if the basis is unsound and the understanding flawed - does it still make sense to divert the same amount of resources and get all the king's horses and all the king's men (and all the king's taxpayers too - I mean really, with all the financial problems the world has, we cant afford to spend a trillion dollars to maybe stave off .2 degrees of warming) to mobilize and make this a top priority?

 

I vehemently disagree with that.

 

As always, if you want to talk real pollution, I'm all for eliminating it. But I'm not going to advocate vast amounts of resources chasing a fake pollution bogeyman, partly for the wasted resources, partly because it sucks correction-potential out of other real causes of pollution.

 

 

If your models' feet arent held to the fire, well hell...

 

 

hahaha...you can see the GISS creep...bad, bad coefficients, James...your assuming a large, rapid curtailment of CO2 is STILL too high by 31%...what does that tell you...CO2 doesnt carry the weight they say it does, not even close, and its those pesky other things that the models miss that wind up being the main driver. Like Feynman said, nature will not be fooled.

 

 

You paste a graph and claim to point out the errors without showing your work. Didn't you state in another post you are a college dropout? I don't believe for one minute that you could work in a research group.

 

Reading a few blogs, books or deferring to Feynman does not make one an authority on this subject.

Edited March 20, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Latest oil spill in Arkansas from Canadian tar sands. This is what we get from neoliberal policies brought about by Republican Tea Bagger authoritarianism.

 

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-video-exxon-oil-company-and.html

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u30m8U6VP3E

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/international-forum-globalization-kochtopus-stalling-climate-progress

 

The Kochtopus

[joeblast]

bah, old news how much money the koch brothers have. who the hell cares, if you really follow money you see more spent on the alarmist side - unless of course you only want to consider private spending, but in that vein why would you want to only look at a portion of the data and not all of the data?

 

hey, how's about this one, how's that's utter and complete failure of hockey stick II, the marcotte paper? more alarmist garbage making unsubstantiated claims that turn out to have severe fundamental flaws!

 

keep it on pollution and you'll have some ground to stand on or have you not realized that the CO2 issue was stolen, adapted, transmogrified to suit fascist interests? if the government didnt stand to "make money" off of co2, they wouldnt give two shits what the climate sensitivity is for our current level of saturation.

 

 

wow, it is indeed a good day - that ignorant fraud James Hansen announced he's retiring from nasa so that he could be a full time AGW cheerleader....as if he hasnt been exactly that for the last 20+ years anyway.

[ralis]

Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center For Science Education discusses the parallels between global warming deniers and anti-evolutionists.

 

 

http://ncse.com/

 

 

Edited April 3, 2013 by ralis

[voidisyinyang]

bah, old news how much money the koch brothers have. who the hell cares, if you really follow money you see more spent on the alarmist side - unless of course you only want to consider private spending, but in that vein why would you want to only look at a portion of the data and not all of the data?

 

hey, how's about this one, how's that's utter and complete failure of hockey stick II, the marcotte paper? more alarmist garbage making unsubstantiated claims that turn out to have severe fundamental flaws!

 

keep it on pollution and you'll have some ground to stand on or have you not realized that the CO2 issue was stolen, adapted, transmogrified to suit fascist interests? if the government didnt stand to "make money" off of co2, they wouldnt give two shits what the climate sensitivity is for our current level of saturation.

 

 

wow, it is indeed a good day - that ignorant fraud James Hansen announced he's retiring from nasa so that he could be a full time AGW cheerleader....as if he hasnt been exactly that for the last 20+ years anyway.

 

 

Why do you think the government is "making money"? The private FED prints money and the govt is in huge debt to the FED.

 

Big Oil controls the government.

 

So government money is used to subsidize big oil despite the big oil "profits."

 

How is the government against big oil?

 

 

Following the creation of unregulated oil derivatives markets that made room for speculation and insider trading in the fossil-fuel industry, the Koch Brothers’ wealth quintupled in six years (2005-2011). While enriching themselves “beyond the point of avarice” the Koch Brothers have used their mounting wealth to run an ideological campaign against climate change legislation in the US.

 

http://www.progressorcollapse.com/are-oiled-billionaires-koch-brothers-screwing-up-the-world-the-kochtopus-and-us-climate-change-inaction/

Edited April 3, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[ralis]

Why do you think the government is "making money"? The private FED prints money and the govt is in huge debt to the FED.

 

Big Oil controls the government.

 

So government money is used to subsidize big oil despite the big oil "profits."

 

How is the government against big oil?

 

 

 

http://www.progressorcollapse.com/are-oiled-billionaires-koch-brothers-screwing-up-the-world-the-kochtopus-and-us-climate-change-inaction/

 

I might add the unregulated trading (dark pool) of gasoline futures (Wall Street) which has increased the price of fuel for all. Such increases lead to price spikes of rice and other food staples worldwide and underdeveloped countries are hurt the most.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark_pool_liquidity.asp

[joeblast]

Why do you think the government is "making money"? The private FED prints money and the govt is in huge debt to the FED.

 

Big Oil controls the government.

 

So government money is used to subsidize big oil despite the big oil "profits."

 

How is the government against big oil?

 

 

 

http://www.progressorcollapse.com/are-oiled-billionaires-koch-brothers-screwing-up-the-world-the-kochtopus-and-us-climate-change-inaction/

I wasnt addressing that aspect of "making money" in this thread - I was addressing "making money" via taxation, and a fraudulent scheme to make an excuse to introduce a new source of tax revenue - the collective exhalations of businesses!

 

Are you arguing about whether or not this is a potential "revenue source" for the government???

 

And like I mentioned before, all business expenses are passed on to the people via the "prices" the products cost. So introducing another "source of revenue," that source boils down to what...another way to pick our pockets.

 

So none of that, whether or not the government positions itself here or there to be for or against big oil, has quite so much to do with the "bed schemes" as to do with raiding more of what they've graciously left us with in our pockets.

 

Cmon drew...if mother nature is telling us that CO2 isnt quite the big hot fleece electric blanket that alarmists say it is, and that detracts from other real efforts that might actually produce some environmental result - how's she gonna feel about that? Stealth eco-destruction with the label of eco salvation - worst of the worst!

 

Like I keep saying, if you want to focus on real environmental efforts, that's where the focus should be, and not this "invent-a-tax" scam.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

real environmental efforts include, but are not limited to:


finding and arresting every pollutive business and industry, growing a garden, boycotting mass production and mass produced goods; especially food, walk more, drive less, ride a bike instead of the bus. the list is longer than the internet is deep.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[ralis]

I wasnt addressing that aspect of "making money" in this thread - I was addressing "making money" via taxation, and a fraudulent scheme to make an excuse to introduce a new source of tax revenue - the collective exhalations of businesses!

 

Are you arguing about whether or not this is a potential "revenue source" for the government???

 

And like I mentioned before, all business expenses are passed on to the people via the "prices" the products cost. So introducing another "source of revenue," that source boils down to what...another way to pick our pockets.

 

So none of that, whether or not the government positions itself here or there to be for or against big oil, has quite so much to do with the "bed schemes" as to do with raiding more of what they've graciously left us with in our pockets.

 

Cmon drew...if mother nature is telling us that CO2 isnt quite the big hot fleece electric blanket that alarmists say it is, and that detracts from other real efforts that might actually produce some environmental result - how's she gonna feel about that? Stealth eco-destruction with the label of eco salvation - worst of the worst!

 

Like I keep saying, if you want to focus on real environmental efforts, that's where the focus should be, and not this "invent-a-tax" scam.

 

 

I would appreciate you being on topic as opposed to your favorite anti-government rants! BTW, your anti AGW posts are boring and authoritarian.

[voidisyinyang]

I wasnt addressing that aspect of "making money" in this thread - I was addressing "making money" via taxation, and a fraudulent scheme to make an excuse to introduce a new source of tax revenue - the collective exhalations of businesses!

 

Are you arguing about whether or not this is a potential "revenue source" for the government???

 

And like I mentioned before, all business expenses are passed on to the people via the "prices" the products cost. So introducing another "source of revenue," that source boils down to what...another way to pick our pockets.

 

So none of that, whether or not the government positions itself here or there to be for or against big oil, has quite so much to do with the "bed schemes" as to do with raiding more of what they've graciously left us with in our pockets.

 

Cmon drew...if mother nature is telling us that CO2 isnt quite the big hot fleece electric blanket that alarmists say it is, and that detracts from other real efforts that might actually produce some environmental result - how's she gonna feel about that? Stealth eco-destruction with the label of eco salvation - worst of the worst!

 

Like I keep saying, if you want to focus on real environmental efforts, that's where the focus should be, and not this "invent-a-tax" scam.

 

Yeah you're confusing people with corporations. Corporate prices are undemocratic taxes whereas government taxes are democratic.

 

So you want to believe that a "price" is just something a corporation has no choice to do because their taxes were increased - but industry is based on regional monopolies with price fixing -- not on the mythical "free trade" scam that you believe in.

 

So for example advertising is a tax deduction - and so when people say how they like corporate ads so much -- well guess what? They're paying for them - so I hope they like them. haha. Obviously they don't have a vote in how the ads will be but they are paying for them nonetheless.

 

Welfare for the corporations is the reason governments need to tax the poor working class so much -- the government is a tool by the corporate elite to funnel the money of the masses upwards to the rich.

[ralis]

Yeah you're confusing people with corporations. Corporate prices are undemocratic taxes whereas government taxes are democratic.

 

So you want to believe that a "price" is just something a corporation has no choice to do because their taxes were increased - but industry is based on regional monopolies with price fixing -- not on the mythical "free trade" scam that you believe in.

 

So for example advertising is a tax deduction - and so when people say how they like corporate ads so much -- well guess what? They're paying for them - so I hope they like them. haha. Obviously they don't have a vote in how the ads will be but they are paying for them nonetheless.

 

Welfare for the corporations is the reason governments need to tax the poor working class so much -- the government is a tool by the corporate elite to funnel the money of the masses upwards to the rich.

 

I guess we are wandering OT but I will add that economic policy is still being dominated by the 'Chicago Schools of Economics' 'Ayn Rand Objectivism' and the erroneous belief that corporations are benevolent entities. Corporations are fictions created (chartered) for a specific limited purpose and should be dissolved at the end of the allotted time.

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/1/exxonmobil_tar_sands_oil_pipeline_ruptures

 

 

"It’s almost as if nature was trying to send a message that it might be best to just leave this stuff underground in Canada, where it’s been safely for the last few million years, instead of trucking it, piping it, training it hither and yon across the countryside," says Bill McKibben, co-founder and director of 350.org. He is author of "Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet."

[voidisyinyang]

http://act.350.org/letter/a_million_strong_against_keystone/

 

sign the comments against the pipeline

[joeblast]

Yeah you're confusing people with corporations. Corporate prices are undemocratic taxes whereas government taxes are democratic.

 

So you want to believe that a "price" is just something a corporation has no choice to do because their taxes were increased - but industry is based on regional monopolies with price fixing -- not on the mythical "free trade" scam that you believe in.

 

So for example advertising is a tax deduction - and so when people say how they like corporate ads so much -- well guess what? They're paying for them - so I hope they like them. haha. Obviously they don't have a vote in how the ads will be but they are paying for them nonetheless.

 

Welfare for the corporations is the reason governments need to tax the poor working class so much -- the government is a tool by the corporate elite to funnel the money of the masses upwards to the rich.

 

Sorry man, if you think "business expenses" have nothing to do with the price of a product then you've gone and buried your head too far into your books or somewhere. You are taking a huge amount of things and rolling it into one nice neat little package containing the last 50,000 years and you're stretching context too far with that. Any "business expense" (and it'd be redundant to say "that goes into the price of a product" here) cant be used 100% interchangeably with "how large corporations manipulate the environments they do business in." You are using them as though it is no big deal to swap out one term with another. If you truly think that's the case, then...well, we'll be at an impasse there, draw the venn diagrams out and see why - you know this stuff.

 

I never said a price was something a corp has no choice but to increase. I said the weight of government will absolutely have an impact on the price of something. Correspondingly, it would be pretty silly to think that if the government increased its 'weight' let's say 30% on a given business, that business would not alter its behavior and or pricing in response. Or do you refute the assertion that taxation alters behavior to a certain extent? In that vein, are we to blame the business owner when behavior IS altered because of a government dictat? (So are you blaming businesses for saying "ok, we're hiring as many part timers under 30 hours as we can and limiting full time employment" because of obamacare? Stimulus, response. Not every business that is doing that is a large corporation that throws its weight around to gain an advantage over its competition instead of relying on the fundamentals of business to do so. If you're over 50 employees, you become subject to huge requirements...so basically they just dictated that if you're under 50 employees, you'll stay there because of the massive hump of...wait for it...costs to the business! There is a cost to doing business, that's just a fact of life, whether the business has 1, 5, 47, 1000, or 45,000 employees. Of course the dynamics of that changes with size, but the underlying fact stands.)

 

And why dont you ask members of the EU how democratic those taxes are? Over here, just because we vote doesnt mean we vote on taxes directly, we "vote in a general direction" and after that boom its ostensibly gone out of our hands. Your only recourse is the ballot box or the courts - can be more or less efficient than hitting a business in the pocket if you get enough support - while the distinction can be made of the democratic-ness of these "taxes," its damn near razor thin.

 

So when you want to consider a situation like corporate welfare, that is a special case - I am speaking of fundamental tenets that are applicable to any business, if I am talking about a big corporation or any of the ills that flow from such, I mention it most of the time. If I opened up a new business tomorrow, where do you think my corporate welfare would be? Right, non existent. Are you just reading what I'm writing too fast, or are you just missing those distinctions? Again I have no illusions about how certain interests buy politicians to bend the rules in their favor - its just not the entirety of the context, and I am inclined to say "you should be able to tell the difference in these contexts" but that wouldnt be the nicest way to put it haha

[voidisyinyang]

Sorry man, if you think "business expenses" have nothing to do with the price of a product then you've gone and buried your head too far into your books or somewhere.

 

Business expenses are externalized as genocidal warfare - the real reason for the genocide on Indochina, Iraq, etc. was cheap access to resources be it Southeast Asia or Middle East, etc.

 

So you have to include all the externalities for the real business "Price" - and that includes the free costs for subsidized research at government funded universities.

 

Business is corporate-state welfare -- plain and simple - but even worse business depends on genocide and slavery.

[joeblast]

haha...now this one's funny and ironic - turns out that at this point in time, the USA is the only major industrialized nation in the world to have met its kyoto protocol goals to reduce CO2 emissions by 5.2% by 2012.

 

 

only...we did it by economic decline, not by signing up and paying carbon tithes

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.livescience.com/28530-carbon-dioxide-falling.html

 

Yeah except the increased methane releases -- it's more than just carbon dioxide....

 

 

By multiplying a mass of a particular gas by its GWP, you find the equivalent of the mass of CO₂ emissions it would take to produce the same warming effect in a 100-year period. Methane, or CH4, is a greenhouse gas that has a multitude of sources, including fossil fuel production, livestock, biomass burning, and waste management. It is much more efficient at trapping radiation than CO₂, and it has a GWP of 25, and in 2010, it accounted for 10% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the second highest next to CO₂.

Globally, roughly 60% of methane emissions into the atmosphere come from human activities. In 2006, the EPA estimated that 18% of these anthropogenic emissions came from the natural gas and petroleum industries. The U.S. accounts for 12 of that 18%. Researchers also estimated that domestic methane emissions would rise by as much as 8% from 2005 to 2020, due to the projected growth of the natural gas industry. While natural gas emits roughly half the CO₂ as coal does, it is estimated to release substantial amounts of methane into the atmosphere and groundwater.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/swara-salih/fracking-methane-leaks_b_2536846.html