PDA

View Full Version : Finally! Something I Can Support This President On


Rohirrim
06-25-2013, 12:21 PM
He later added, addressing those who deny climate change science: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.”
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19135726-obama-no-time-for-flat-earth-society-on-climate-change?lite

What this should mean, regarding Keystone, is that it never sees the light of day. There is no way Keystone will ever meet the criteria Obama has set forth , “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest." It can't meet that test, either environmentally or economically.

Certainly, this is not enough, (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/06/-later-today-president-obama.html) but if we wait for Congress to do something, nothing will ever happen, and I do mean nothing. As the old man once said, "They're useless as teats on a boar."

This is a good opening salvo, IMO.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 12:29 PM
The science of reality has flipped the question of who the real flat-earthers are.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change

As should always have been expected, these measures are far more about government control than any realistic impact on the planet.

Oh, and that oil's still going to market. Just in much less carbon-friendly vehicles than a pipeline. Perverse. But unfortunately in politics, you're not going anywhere if you don't DO SOMETHING for the cameras.

Rohirrim
06-25-2013, 12:43 PM
The science of reality has flipped the question of who the real flat-earthers are.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change

As should always have been expected, these measures are far more about government control than any realistic impact on the planet.

Oh, and that oil's still going to market. Just in much less carbon-friendly vehicles than a pipeline. Perverse. But unfortunately in politics, you're not going anywhere if you don't DO SOMETHING for the cameras.

The melting of ice all over the world has not plateaued at all. Neither have rising sea levels. Also, keep in mind that we don't know what it means when warming plateaus in various regions. In some regions it's getting hotter. Does it mean climate change is going to reverse? Of course not. We probably don't know yet what it means. This is the problem with political writers addressing the science. They pluck out the one statistic they like and build their case on it. Scientists don't do that. They look at the whole.

I've heard this argument before. Nobody can prove that it causes cancer, so just wait until they do. Meanwhile, keep smoking, man.

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 01:13 PM
The melting of ice all over the world has not plateaued at all. Neither have rising sea levels. Also, keep in mind that we don't know what it means when warming plateaus in various regions. In some regions it's getting hotter. Does it mean climate change is going to reverse? Of course not. We probably don't know yet what it means. This is the problem with political writers addressing the science. They pluck out the one statistic they like and build their case on it. Scientists don't do that. They look at the whole.

I've heard this argument before. Nobody can prove that is causes cancer, so just wait until they do. Meanwhile, keep smoking, man.

If having political writers addressing it is a problem, imagine how bad it is when Politicians get in on it. :)

peacepipe
06-25-2013, 01:41 PM
The flat-earth society does have some powerful politicians in its corner.

W*GS
06-25-2013, 03:02 PM
The science of reality has flipped the question of who the real flat-earthers are.

You take a blog reporting on a political magazine column as the source?

Why not the science?

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 03:23 PM
You take a blog reporting on a political magazine column as the source?

Why not the science?

Would it help if I went the Wagsian Cheesy Science Blog route? :)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

cutthemdown
06-25-2013, 03:27 PM
Obama has nothing he can do but destory the economy some more to satisfy the hard leaning left that right now is pissed at him. The Canadian oil will get fracked either way its just now we won't get anything from it.

W*GS
06-25-2013, 03:38 PM
Would it help if I went the Wagsian Cheesy Science Blog route?

Oh yeah - the cheesy Spencer with his faulty satellite data and his spaghetti plots.

I wonder why his UAH product is so different than the RSS product. They both use satellites - why don't they match identically?

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 03:49 PM
Oh yeah - the cheesy Spencer with his faulty satellite data and his spaghetti plots.

I wonder why his UAH product is so different than the RSS product. They both use satellites - why don't they match identically?

Dude give it up. Even the true believers are admitting they can't explain the 15 year hiatus. Bring back some of your vaunted scientific skepticism and maintain some form of credibility.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

W*GS
06-25-2013, 04:13 PM
Dude give it up. Even the true believers are admitting they can't explain the 15 year hiatus. Bring back some of your vaunted scientific skepticism and maintain some form of credibility.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

You deniers just love to cherry-pick and ignore the science.

Explain this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg
Global warming is sometimes thought of as just an increase in the air temperature, and it is a recurring myth that global warming has magically stopped whenever there is a pause in the long-term trend of increasing air temperature. However, heat is exchanged between all parts of the Earth System, and the oceans can hold vastly more heat than the air. Global warming is actually the total accumulated heat in the whole Earth System that results from the imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing heat and reflected energy. This figure from Nuccitelli et al. (2012) [PDF] shows the change in the total heat content of the Earth System since 1960 in terms of its major components: the total land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red) from Church et al. (2011), and the ocean heating for the 0-700 meter layer (light blue) and the 700-2,000 meter layer (dark blue) from Levitus et al. (2012).

Rohirrim
06-25-2013, 04:23 PM
Obama has nothing he can do but destory the economy some more to satisfy the hard leaning left that right now is pissed at him. The Canadian oil will get fracked either way its just now we won't get anything from it.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7hzob4ILh1r666ru.gif

houghtam
06-25-2013, 04:44 PM
Obama has nothing he can do but destory the economy some more to satisfy the hard leaning left that right now is pissed at him. The Canadian oil will get fracked either way its just now we won't get anything from it.

Have you been following the news? Have you been seeing the stories upon stories of oil spills in recent months? Like the 5 million liters spilled in Alberta alone this year, one of which was from 5 year old pipes? Canada's problem? The same company is doing the manufacturing in the US, and they're notorious for cheaping out...they outright denied to fit state of the art analysis equipment recommended by the US government because it would cost too much.

Did you also know no one knows how to effectively clean up tar sands oil bitumen? Go try fishing the Kalamazoo River near Marshall. I wouldn't even recommend canoeing it.

cutthemdown
06-25-2013, 05:08 PM
Have you been following the news? Have you been seeing the stories upon stories of oil spills in recent months? Like the 5 million liters spilled in Alberta alone this year, one of which was from 5 year old pipes? Canada's problem? The same company is doing the manufacturing in the US, and they're notorious for cheaping out...they outright denied to fit state of the art analysis equipment recommended by the US government because it would cost too much.

Did you also know no one knows how to effectively clean up tar sands oil bitumen? Go try fishing the Kalamazoo River near Marshall. I wouldn't even recommend canoeing it.

So you are saying the pipeline will break? How many pipelines out of all USA pipelines do you think have had a spill?

houghtam
06-25-2013, 05:14 PM
So you are saying the pipeline will break? How many pipelines out of all USA pipelines do you think have had a spill?

I'm saying it will break.

I'm also saying that company (Enbridge) is already responsible for the largest pipeline oil spill in US history.

I'm also saying you can't clean it up once it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge_oil_spill

And as far as how many? See for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

BroncoBeavis
06-25-2013, 08:18 PM
You deniers just love to cherry-pick and ignore the science.

Explain this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg
Global warming is sometimes thought of as just an increase in the air temperature, and it is a recurring myth that global warming has magically stopped whenever there is a pause in the long-term trend of increasing air temperature. However, heat is exchanged between all parts of the Earth System, and the oceans can hold vastly more heat than the air. Global warming is actually the total accumulated heat in the whole Earth System that results from the imbalance between incoming solar energy and outgoing heat and reflected energy. This figure from Nuccitelli et al. (2012) [PDF] shows the change in the total heat content of the Earth System since 1960 in terms of its major components: the total land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red) from Church et al. (2011), and the ocean heating for the 0-700 meter layer (light blue) and the 700-2,000 meter layer (dark blue) from Levitus et al. (2012).

Typical. "Hey Wagsy, how come the models you bank so much on are completely falling apart in such a short period of time?"

Wags: "Look! Ocean Changyness!"

Funny thing is you ridicule 15-year windows as insignificant and then follow up with a graph of a statistic that couldn't even be realistically tracked 50 years ago.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.

Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I'm driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can't simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I'll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.

...

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

Hans says something doesn't add up. Maybe we need to take another look.

Wags says "Bull****! The Sky Is Still Falling exactly as I always said it would!"

Who to believe...who to believe. Tough choice. LOL

W*GS
06-26-2013, 06:31 AM
Typical.

Yes, typical of you.

Most all the retained energy is going into the oceans. That's the best place to look. And what has been found validates the theory.

Too bad for you.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 06:58 AM
Man. "The Flat Earth Society" is right. You think the ocean's aren't warming? Read this, dumbasses: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-15/national/39272484_1_fishing-boats-glen-spain-boris-worm

Man, this pisses me off. We are about to wipe out the world's coral reefs and we're more worried about how much money an energy executive has in his Aruban bank account. What would you rather have, a sea full of tuna or a sea full of jelly fish? Your call, dumbasses.

This is what a coral reef looks like:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/2/23/1298488013408/Coral-reef-near-Fiji-007.jpg

This is what it looks like after the water gets too warm:
http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2010/08/18/1282185581_7250/539w.jpg

This is what sequoia trees look like:
http://www.visitsequoia.com/img/3_1_1_The_Giant_Forest.jpg

What are they going to look like when the seas warm too much to create the cool coastal fogs these trees rely on for life?

What you are fighting for are the short term commercial self-interests of a handful of billionaires over (if you believe in that sort of thing) the rightful care-taking of God's green Earth.

Nothing so stupid as a Right Wing mouth-breather; Preach God on one hand, destroy His Earth with the other.

And if you don't believe in God, where would you like to move to once the forests are scorching deserts and the seas are filled with jelly fish?

You know why the Koch Brothers and Exxon Mobil spend billions to attack the science of global warming? Because they only give a **** about themselves and their own lives. Greed. When you sign on with them, you become the puppets of their greed.

Fedaykin
06-26-2013, 07:01 AM
So you are saying the pipeline will break? How many pipelines out of all USA pipelines do you think have had a spill?

Oil pipelines leak like sieves -- everything from small leaks to catastrophic ruptures. It's impossible to build a thousands of miles long pipe that doesn't.


Take a look for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#United_States

That list doesn't even include the "trivial" incidents that happen on a daily basis.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 07:16 AM
Oil pipelines leak like sieves -- everything from small leaks to catastrophic ruptures. It's impossible to build a thousands of miles long pipe that doesn't.


Take a look for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#United_States

That list doesn't even include the "trivial" incidents that happen on a daily basis.

Like this one?

http://www.wbaltv.com/image/view/-/20331576/medRes/2/-/maxh/460/maxw/620/-/ad1b2n/-/Billy-Tipton.jpg

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 07:27 AM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17501526-train-hauling-oil-derails-spilling-30000-gallons-of-crude-in-minnesota?lite

Ahhhh progress.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.put_mm.e96tSw2GgfMiFw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-03-28T001305Z_1_CBRE92R00MD00_RTROPTP_2_USA-DERAILMENT-OILSPILL.JPG

houghtam
06-26-2013, 07:30 AM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17501526-train-hauling-oil-derails-spilling-30000-gallons-of-crude-in-minnesota?lite

Ahhhh progress.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17501526-train-hauling-oil-derails-spilling-30000-gallons-of-crude-in-minnesota?lite

Wow, 30,000 gallons.

Meanwhile, upwards of 1 million gallons of bitumen were spilled near Kalamazoo.

Progress, indeed.

Fedaykin
06-26-2013, 07:37 AM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17501526-train-hauling-oil-derails-spilling-30000-gallons-of-crude-in-minnesota?lite

Ahhhh progress.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.put_mm.e96tSw2GgfMiFw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-03-28T001305Z_1_CBRE92R00MD00_RTROPTP_2_USA-DERAILMENT-OILSPILL.JPG

Hilarious!Hilarious!

Trying to make that comparison just shows that you have no clue what the issues are with pipeline transport.

Hint: When a train derails or blows up, we know about it immediately and it's something that has to be resolved to continue operating. Oh, and as pointed out by houghtam, the damage is constrained to relatively small amounts.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 07:39 AM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17501526-train-hauling-oil-derails-spilling-30000-gallons-of-crude-in-minnesota?lite

Ahhhh progress.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.put_mm.e96tSw2GgfMiFw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2013-03-28T001305Z_1_CBRE92R00MD00_RTROPTP_2_USA-DERAILMENT-OILSPILL.JPG

And look! There's snow on the ground! That means there is no such thing as global warming! :yayaya:

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 07:47 AM
More fun facts to share with the mouth-breathers:

Global warming has long been blamed for the huge rise in the world's jellyfish population. But new research suggests that they, in turn, may be worsening the problem by producing more carbon than the oceans can cope with.

Research led by Rob Condon of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in the US focuses on the effect that the increasing numbers of jellyfish are having on marine bateria, which play an important role by recycling nutrients created by decaying organisms back into the food web. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that while bacteria are capable of absorbing the constituent carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other chemicals given off by most fish when they die, they cannot do the same with jellyfish. The invertebrates, populating the seas in ever-increasing numbers, break down into biomass with especially high levels of carbon, which the bacteria cannot absorb well. Instead of using it to grow, the bacteria breathe it out as carbon dioxide. This means more of the gas is released into the atmosphere.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/12/jellyfish-plankton-ocean-acid

"Gee, Mister Scientist. You mean there are not just effects that you can read on a thermometer, but also side-effects that you might not imagine until they happen? Who woulda thunk it?"

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 07:51 AM
Wow, 30,000 gallons.

Meanwhile, upwards of 1 million gallons of bitumen were spilled near Kalamazoo.

Progress, indeed.

That single pipeline system distributes around 3 times as much oil as all rail systems in the United States combined.

Keystone would roughly double the carrying capacity of all current rail deliveries in the US.

The comparison isn't to rail as it stands today, but to rail as it will have to be to ship all this oil. Oh and all those assuredly "carbon neutral" diesel locomotives (and accompanying refining and fuel distribution), track maintenance teams, infrastructure overhauls, etc etc.

In reality stopping the pipeline doesn't solve any problems. It only distributes and hides them. A notable hallmark of most political solutions to problems.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 07:53 AM
More fun facts to share with the mouth-breathers:

Global warming has long been blamed for the huge rise in the world's jellyfish population. But new research suggests that they, in turn, may be worsening the problem by producing more carbon than the oceans can cope with.

Research led by Rob Condon of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in the US focuses on the effect that the increasing numbers of jellyfish are having on marine bateria, which play an important role by recycling nutrients created by decaying organisms back into the food web. The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, finds that while bacteria are capable of absorbing the constituent carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other chemicals given off by most fish when they die, they cannot do the same with jellyfish. The invertebrates, populating the seas in ever-increasing numbers, break down into biomass with especially high levels of carbon, which the bacteria cannot absorb well. Instead of using it to grow, the bacteria breathe it out as carbon dioxide. This means more of the gas is released into the atmosphere.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/12/jellyfish-plankton-ocean-acid

"Gee, Mister Scientist. You mean there are not just effects that you can read on a thermometer, but also side-effects that you might not imagine until they happen? Who woulda thunk it?"

Well, if you don't believe it's happening in the first place, you'll just make up other excuses. Of course it's not the fault of climate change, that doesn't exist.

It's because the taxes on companies who fish jellyfish predators are too high.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 07:54 AM
That single pipeline system distributes around 3 times as much oil as all rail systems in the United States combined.

Keystone would roughly double the carrying capacity of all current rail deliveries in the US.

The comparison isn't to rail as it stands today, but to rail as it will have to be to ship all this oil. Oh and all those assuredly "carbon neutral" diesel locomotives (and accompanying refining and fuel distribution), track maintenance teams, infrastructure overhauls, etc etc.

In reality stopping the pipeline doesn't solve any problems. It only distributes and hides them. A notable hallmark of most political solutions to problems.

It solves the problem of "hey now there would be thousands of miles of more pipeline that could now burst."

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 07:58 AM
Well, if you don't believe it's happening in the first place, you'll just make up other excuses. Of course it's not the fault of climate change, that doesn't exist.

It's because the taxes on companies who fish jellyfish predators are too high.

Now imagine billions of tons of dead jellyfish sinking into the abysses of the oceans and rotting there in a great mass. I wonder what kind of gasses that will create?

Everybody who doesn't believe in this science should be made to keep a reef tank. Nothing too big. Thirty gallons. See what happens when the salinity, or the alkalinity, or the calcium, or the phosphates, or the nitrates, get a little out of whack. The margins for error are very small. And what happens? Everything dies. Well, everything except for algae. They love it. I wonder how an algae salad sandwich tastes?

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 08:02 AM
It solves the problem of "hey now there would be thousands of miles of more pipeline that could now burst."

At the expense of increased CO2 emissions? Sacrilege! :)

houghtam
06-26-2013, 08:10 AM
At the expense of increased CO2 emissions? Sacrilege! :)

Some of us thought the CO2 emissions angle for the pipeline argument was a stupid one to begin with. Some of us are more concerned with localized threats to the environment which have regional and global influence than a general concern about emissions.

Read my posts. CO2 has never been a concern of mine when talking about pipelines. It's that this is a poorly regulated industry full of do-what-it-takes-to-cut-all-costs-no-matter-what companies who rarely have to take responsibility for their actions after the fact, and almost never have to worry about them before the fact.

Example, as I pointed out to cut, is Enbridge. A company with a history not only of negligence, but of pure refusal to cooperate on cleanup efforts. And who gets the contract?

And we're not just talking about wilderness here...these people had their homes built over a pipeline they didn't even know was there.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 08:21 AM
Some of us thought the CO2 emissions angle for the pipeline argument was a stupid one to begin with. Some of us are more concerned with localized threats to the environment which have regional and global influence than a general concern about emissions.

Read my posts. CO2 has never been a concern of mine when talking about pipelines. It's that this is a poorly regulated industry full of do-what-it-takes-to-cut-all-costs-no-matter-what companies who rarely have to take responsibility for their actions after the fact, and almost never have to worry about them before the fact.

Point taken.

Example, as I pointed out to cut, is Enbridge. A company with a history not only of negligence, but of pure refusal to cooperate on cleanup efforts. And who gets the contract?

And we're not just talking about wilderness here...these people had their homes built over a pipeline they didn't even know was there.

Not saying that's not terrible. But they could've just as easily been killed in a derailment, as two people were in that Baltimore derailment below. I'm not trying to equate one method with the other. It's just important to note that when as a policy, we oppose new infrastructure development, the alternative is almost never zero-cost. Just harder to quantify (or affect)

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 08:27 AM
This is simple stuff: Our carbon burning industrial creation is killing us. Overpopulation is killing us. Fix it or don't.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 08:28 AM
This is simple stuff: Our carbon burning industrial creation is killing us. Overpopulation is killing us. Fix it or don't.

Or double down and say "hey they would have just died some other way, but I saved $6 at the pump this month."

Rigs11
06-26-2013, 08:32 AM
Gotta love beavis,on abortion he use a handful of cases to support his view on abortion.on climate change he ignores years of scientific dataHilarious!

Rigs11
06-26-2013, 08:33 AM
Wouldn't the oil from keystone get exported anyways?

Fedaykin
06-26-2013, 08:36 AM
Point taken.



Not saying that's not terrible. But they could've just as easily been killed in a derailment, as two people were in that Baltimore derailment below. I'm not trying to equate one method with the other. It's just important to note that when as a policy, we oppose new infrastructure development, the alternative is almost never zero-cost. Just harder to quantify (or affect)

You're still not thinking about the bigger issue. Pipelines (as they are currently used) are an ecological nightmare compared to rail shipping.

* Pipeline breaks can release orders of magnitude more contaminants into the environment simply because the ability to constrain the leak from a break is much less than with discrete shipping units.

* Small leaks (which always exist) in a pipeline are hard to detect, and can do enormous amounts of damage over time -- particularly to wetlands (even with a relatively small leak). Moreover, companies that run pipelines don't give a flying **** about any leak unless it's more expensive to let the leak happen than to fix it. This is one reason why companies refuse to install leak detectors. It's not just the expense of the detectors -- it's that they don't care about the leaks unless it affects their bottom line so they don't want to detect them, and any leak likely to affect their bottom line is relatively easy to detect using non technological means.

Like I said, when a train derails, it something that's immediately apparent, not concealable and a blocker issue that can't simply be ignored.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 08:42 AM
Gotta love beavis,on abortion he use a handful of cases to support his view on abortion.on climate change he ignores years of scientific dataHilarious!

Years of scientific data showing vastly less warming than the doomsday models predicted? Only one side is currently ignoring the data.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 08:42 AM
I, for one, trust the oil companies to do what's right. After all, if they were doing deep water drilling, for example, they sure as hell wouldn't risk a spill, or even loss of life through explosion, by using technology that they knew was faulty. Right?

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 08:43 AM
Years of scientific data showing vastly less warming than the doomsday models predicted? Only one side is currently ignoring the data.

Right now, you are getting a spiritual pat on the head from the Koch Brothers. Enjoy. :thumbs:

houghtam
06-26-2013, 08:49 AM
You're still not thinking about the bigger issue. Pipelines (as they are currently used) are an ecological nightmare compared to rail shipping.

* Pipeline breaks can release orders of magnitude more contaminants into the environment simply because the ability to constrain the leak from a break is much less than with discrete shipping units.

* Small leaks (which always exist) in a pipeline are hard to detect, and can do enormous amounts of damage over time -- particularly to wetlands (even with a relatively small leak). Moreover, companies that run pipelines don't give a flying **** about any leak unless it's more expensive to let the leak happen than to fix it. This is one reason why companies refuse to install leak detectors. It's not just the expense of the detectors -- it's that they don't care about the leaks unless it affects their bottom line so they don't want to detect them, and any leak likely to affect their bottom line is relatively easy to detect using non technological means.

Like I said, when a train derails, it something that's immediately apparent, not concealable and a blocker issue that can't simply be ignored.

Case in point, the most recent spill (by Enbridge again) was only discovered when executives spotted it from the air while on an unrelated flight over the area. The spill would have been detected if the company had decided to go with the detection methods urged (but not required) by the US government for construction.

Obama was smart to just say no.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 08:50 AM
You're still not thinking about the bigger issue. Pipelines (as they are currently used) are an ecological nightmare compared to rail shipping.

* Pipeline breaks can release orders of magnitude more contaminants into the environment simply because the ability to constrain the leak from a break is much less than with discrete shipping units.

* Small leaks (which always exist) in a pipeline are hard to detect, and can do enormous amounts of damage over time -- particularly to wetlands (even with a relatively small leak). Moreover, companies that run pipelines don't give a flying **** about any leak unless it's more expensive to let the leak happen than to fix it. This is one reason why companies refuse to install leak detectors. It's not just the expense of the detectors -- it's that they don't care about the leaks unless it affects their bottom line so they don't want to detect them, and any leak likely to affect their bottom line is relatively easy to detect using non technological means.

Like I said, when a train derails, it something that's immediately apparent, not concealable and a blocker issue that can't simply be ignored.

That's a valid point. And I think a lot more needs to be done to monitor pipelines. But at least you know what that pipeline does and where it does it. Train oil goes everywhere. And rolls through communities all over at leisure.

You're right that the possible scale of concentrated ecological disaster is less with trains. But from an efficiency, emissions and lives standpoint, pipelines are safer. Unfortunately, our policy makers do little to try to balance any of that. They assume stopping a pipeline means stopping the oil.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 08:51 AM
For the amount of oil the industry moves around big spills fairly rare.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 08:56 AM
For the amount of oil the industry moves around big spills fairly rare.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-08/killing-keystone-seen-as-risking-more-oil-spills-by-rail.html

A good read on the topic.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 08:59 AM
That's a valid point. And I think a lot more needs to be done to monitor pipelines. But at least you know what that pipeline does and where it does it. Train oil goes everywhere. And rolls through communities all over at leisure.

You're right that the possible scale of concentrated ecological disaster is less with trains. But from an efficiency, emissions and lives standpoint, pipelines are safer. Unfortunately, our policy makers do little to try to balance any of that. They assume stopping a pipeline means stopping the oil.

Yeah, it's just that sometimes it takes the pipeline bursting for it to be discovered.

See: Arkansas

alkemical
06-26-2013, 09:02 AM
Wouldn't the oil from keystone get exported anyways?

Yep.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 09:02 AM
The real point here is that we have to get off oil.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 09:03 AM
The real point here is that we have to get off oil.

And "global warming" isn't the reason.

alkemical
06-26-2013, 09:13 AM
And "global warming" isn't the reason.

Agreed. There's a by product of terraforming and changing the hydrologic cycle, which isn't in our benefit as a species living on the planet, but it's not a sustainable way of doing things.

I know a utopian solution isn't happening tomorrow, and i'm not going to say "tesla power" - but there has to be solutions that are cost effective.

One of the problems is regulations. Not all regulations are for the benefit of well being, but to protect established markets. That's where the collusion happens between gov't & corporations.

A lot of the petrol usage here, is in AG related items: the diesel fuel used to run tractors, the petrol used to make fertilizers & pesticides, the plastics used to package, the transportation costs, etc.

We have to be better, or else more of our farms & ag will be bought by chinese & other countries. (Look at the IMF & World Bank policies on nations that default on $)

There is a cost to changing how things are done, and if done right - most of that cost is upfront, while giving a good ROI over the long term.

I don't have any answer to solve the whole issue - I don't think there is a 'silver bullet' solution to a complex issue. I just see where there are extreme costs.

I'm fortunate to live in a very agriculture state, but this state is also being put under pressure for fracking. I don't really agree with fracking due to concerns that aren't addressed: (how does the hydrologic cycle change when you pump water deep into the earth, where it can't be recouped?, etc etc)

What i'm worried about is BLM lands being opened up for mining/fracking & also the sale of our agriculture lands.

the best thing you can do to help, is buy as much local grown as you can to minimize impact. Learn to eat more seasonally, and if you can - grow some of what you eat.

Beyond that - that's my way of trying to make an impact on environment - well that and selling bioremedation products to help clean up the petrochemicals that are sprayed onto fields and into our water supply.

Rohirrim
06-26-2013, 09:34 AM
How about we take the $41 billion we currently give the oil companies in subsidies, and use that money to begin researching a new direction?

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 10:02 AM
How about we take the $41 billion we currently give the oil companies in subsidies, and use that money to begin researching a new direction?

Most of those "subsidies" are breaks every American company gets for any kind of domestic production in the name of encouraging job creation.

Not saying it's a great system, but for the most part it's not Big Oil getting special treatment.

Rigs11
06-26-2013, 11:44 AM
Most of those "subsidies" are breaks every American company gets for any kind of domestic production in the name of encouraging job creation.

Not saying it's a great system, but for the most part it's not Big Oil getting special treatment.

ahhh..but when Solyandra gets 500 million you righties go apeshet.Hilarious!

houghtam
06-26-2013, 11:54 AM
ahhh..but when Solyandra gets 500 million you righties go apeshet.Hilarious!

Boom goes the dynamite.

Spin away, spinbot!

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 12:01 PM
the reason we didn't like the solar giveaway is that it didn't make sense financially. Supporting oil however leads to an abundant powerful proven energy source. I realize lefties don't understand how little bang for your buck you get from solar but whatever good luck saving the planet.

meanwhile wind farms kill birds left and right and the govt gives them a waiver for no fine. If an oil company kills a bird its a big fine. True **** look it up.

houghtam
06-26-2013, 12:25 PM
the reason we didn't like the solar giveaway is that it didn't make sense financially. Supporting oil however leads to an abundant powerful proven energy source. I realize lefties don't understand how little bang for your buck you get from solar but whatever good luck saving the planet.

meanwhile wind farms kill birds left and right and the govt gives them a waiver for no fine. If an oil company kills a bird its a big fine. True **** look it up.

Okay, so please list the companies which received federal aid during Republican administrations and subsequently failed that you and your party went ape**** about. Either alphabetical or by total money invested/lost will work.

BroncoBeavis
06-26-2013, 12:28 PM
ahhh..but when <s>Solyandra</s> The Toilet gets 500 million you righties go apeshet.Hilarious!

FIFY. :)

alkemical
06-26-2013, 01:02 PM
How about we take the $41 billion we currently give the oil companies in subsidies, and use that money to begin researching a new direction?

That's bad for how business is currently done. Not for the betterment of anyone on earth that doesn't get a golden parachute.

alkemical
06-26-2013, 01:03 PM
If someone can give me a $ figure on how much the subsidies fix pricing at the pump, i don't want to hear anyone being "pro" on that vote.

Rigs11
06-26-2013, 01:11 PM
If someone can give me a $ figure on how much the subsidies fix pricing at the pump, i don't want to hear anyone being "pro" on that vote.

Beavis and Cutthead, I would like to know this as well.

cutthemdown
06-26-2013, 02:08 PM
Solar power just isn't very powerful thats all. You get more bang for your buck with oil.

W*GS
06-27-2013, 06:23 AM
Years of scientific data showing vastly less warming than the doomsday models predicted? Only one side is currently ignoring the data.

Yeah. Your side.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 07:31 AM
O.K., it’s still not clear whether any of this will happen. Some of the people I talk to are cynical about the new climate initiative, believing that the president won’t actually follow through. All I can say is, I hope they’re wrong.

Near the end of his speech, the president urged his audience to: “Invest. Divest. Remind folks there’s no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth.” Normally, one would be tempted to dismiss this as the sound of someone waving away the need for hard choices. But, in this case, it was simple good sense: We really can invest in new energy sources, divest from old sources, and actually make the economy stronger. So let’s do it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/krugman-invest-divest-and-prosper.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=0

BroncoBeavis
06-28-2013, 07:43 AM
Yeah. Your side.

Lolz

No You-AH! LOL

cutthemdown
06-28-2013, 08:02 AM
O.K., it’s still not clear whether any of this will happen. Some of the people I talk to are cynical about the new climate initiative, believing that the president won’t actually follow through. All I can say is, I hope they’re wrong.

Near the end of his speech, the president urged his audience to: “Invest. Divest. Remind folks there’s no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth.” Normally, one would be tempted to dismiss this as the sound of someone waving away the need for hard choices. But, in this case, it was simple good sense: We really can invest in new energy sources, divest from old sources, and actually make the economy stronger. So let’s do it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/krugman-invest-divest-and-prosper.html?ref=paulkrugman&_r=0

Meanwhile some Obama donor and a competing oil pipeline stand to gain from Keystone being killed. Are you sure Obama not just totally full of **** and still fooling you?

cutthemdown
06-28-2013, 08:08 AM
obama has shown he lies about how he really feels to get a political advantage. This is all talk just to get the focus off the scandals, take control of the issues, and make liberals all happy. In the end he won't do much and will be building his library in only 4 more yrs lol.

houghtam
06-28-2013, 08:11 AM
obama has shown he lies about how he really feels to get a political advantage. This is all talk just to get the focus off the scandals, take control of the issues, and make liberals all happy. In the end he won't do much and will be building his library in only 4 more yrs lol.

We told you the "scandals" wouldn't go anywhere. Now you're pussy because we were right. :yayaya:

cutthemdown
06-28-2013, 08:21 AM
Where did I say they will go? All scandals burn out and i said early on it won't get back to the White House. Since Nixon went down all presidents make sure they are protected when it comes to scandals. You will never see, ever again, a USA President go down like Nixon. So the issue is what does the White House do to get things moving the direction they want again. So this is the plan. Lie about how we are going to reduce co2 and cool the earth. lie about keystone when a donor has a competing pipline on the other side of Canada. Obama a big fat liar and that has been shown over and over again. But unlike the Who song you will get fooled again.

Rohirrim
06-28-2013, 10:26 AM
Where did I say they will go? All scandals burn out and i said early on it won't get back to the White House. Since Nixon went down all presidents make sure they are protected when it comes to scandals. You will never see, ever again, a USA President go down like Nixon. So the issue is what does the White House do to get things moving the direction they want again. So this is the plan. Lie about how we are going to reduce co2 and cool the earth. lie about keystone when a donor has a competing pipline on the other side of Canada. Obama a big fat liar and that has been shown over and over again. But unlike the Who song you will get fooled again.

What are you talking about? Clinton was impeached. Geez, read something, will ya?

cutthemdown
06-29-2013, 08:09 AM
What are you talking about? Clinton was impeached. Geez, read something, will ya?

Sex stuff like Clinton IMO is different. Not official business.