Federal Court of Appeal quashes construction approvals for Trans Mountain

Status
Not open for further replies.
They also haven’t seemed to grasp how futile any change would be even if we were changing the climate.

I mean seriously, the projected “cut off” dates, are so close that there is no possible way of weaning off our carbon love in time, EVEN if we had the tech to do it now.

That is unless they wanna go and kill half the population in fairly short order. I wouldn’t put it past some.
 
Fortunately most Albertans and for that matter most British Columbians understand the synergy of Canada. We are stronger when we word together, despite the protests from the special interest groups.
 
ILHG said:
Fortunately most Albertans and for that matter most British Columbians understand the synergy of Canada. We are stronger when we word together, despite the protests from the special interest groups.
Click to expand...
are the touts for the pipeline also "special interest groups", or do they not count ?
Fact is: like it or not , a set of rules was established in order for industry to proceed with such projects. The court found that the rules were not followed, the court inferred that they should reapply, and do so following the rules..
 
Last edited:
Floater said:
If I were to tell you that when we tick over to the year 2000 that the world was going to end, then it didn’t. I lose credibility.
Click to expand...

Trying to attach the so-called Y2K problem to the scientifically proven climate change case is just dumb. Y2K was a computer problem which had to be addressed and yes some pundits predicted serious problems if nothing was done at the time. However, it was nothing to do with climate research science.

Floater said:
If I told you in the 70’s that we were going to freeze to death in the next couple decades, and we didn’t. I’d lose credibility.
Click to expand...

This is an absolute myth and the fact you believe it shows you are reading climate science denialist literature and right wing nut bar propaganda. Here are links to reviews of what the actual science said at the time.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

Between 1965 and 1979 there were just 7 scientific papers that predicted cooling. In contrast there were 42 papers predicting global warming, so even back then there was an overwhelming consensus that climate change was going in a warming direction, just as we see now!

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

Floater said:
If I told you that the polar caps would be gone by 2014 and they were still there, one is even bigger. I lose credibility.
Click to expand...

The fact that predictions have been made about the dates of ice free Arctic summers which were too pessimistic does not negate the science or the data. The late August Arctic ice extent between 1979 and 2018 shows a steady decline of 10% per decade.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The Arctic will be ice free in the summer eventually; the only question is how quickly?

Floater said:
I can keep going and going and going with the absolute lies that you guys seem to keep lapping up. The ever present hysteria and doomsday tales you seem to love. The ability for you to be able to look down your nose at fellow citizens and humans, I feel, makes you giddy with delight.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, you can keep going telling us lies and mis-representations like those above because you are member of a cult that believes it knows better than all the climate scientist throughout the world. You are a super glaciologist, atmospheric physicist, geologist, and sedimentologist all rolled into one. Why I don’t know why you haven’t won a Nobel Prize since you know so much!

Bah! Your nauseating ability to dismiss all of the published science and by implication all of the scientists working for such organisations as NASA and NOAA is nothing more than the worst kind of “ad hominem” attack.

Since you are ignorant of the science and have not informed yourself of what it actually says, you resort to trying to denigrate the messenger.

Floater said:
The projections have ALWAYS been wrong. The models are ALWAYS wrong. Your cult is so gullible it takes local anecdotal evidence of increasing human population and sucks up the propaganda because IT MAKES YOU FEEL SUPERIOR. Sorry for the caps, but sheesh.
Click to expand...

On the contrary again. For over thirty years the consensus has been that the world would get warmer and that weather events would get more unpredictable and extreme. And this is exactly what has happened!

Again for you to dismiss scientific evidence and data such as this-

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

and this:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/climate-change-in-ten-graphs

and this:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

is just an incredible delusional effort of denial that it is on par with holocaust denial.

Floater said:
Why wasn’t any opposition science allowed at the Paris accord???? I’ll tell you why, because this is POLITICAL. They don’t want an honest debate. They sure as hell don’t fund any scientists that go against the pre ordained results they want to see.
Click to expand...

You don’t even know what the Paris Accord was about. It was not a “debate” because you cannot debate facts and evidence that is overwhelming. The facts and data are in. The world is warming and politicians from every country in the world know that because they understand what the science is telling them. The “debate” is what to do about it, and when. Decisions around that formed the work which led to the Paris Accord.

As for that funding myth fed out to the gullible who don’t know how science works, it is laughable. Science is funded to gather data and do research. The conclusions follow from the evidence and the data, not the other way round!! Peer reviews and further research by other scientists then either confirms the conclusions or revises them over time. Science is self correcting and that is it’s strength. Science is also very competitive and if a body of evidence was built up that cast doubt on climate change we would know about it. Instead the evidence for climate change just grows and grows and gets stronger every year


Floater said:
If after all this time, after all the fails that climate “scientists” have given us, you still BELIEVE, like this **** is a religion or something, then we really can’t have an honest discussion.
Click to expand...

In fact you are the religious fundamentalist because you are denying the science, just like the Catholic Church denied the work of Galileo and evangelical nut bars deny the work of Darwin and thousands of other scientist providing evidence for evolution.

We cannot have an honest discussion because you simply cannot and will not recognise the evidence presented before you out of sheer devotion to your right wing cults and a world view shaped by false stories and propaganda.

Floater said:
I’m a skeptic by nature, but give me the real deal and I’m happy to swing either way. This climate movement, as far as I can see, is flawed to the bone and if you don’t have reservations, your not paying attention. Either that, or your just looking for an opportunity to look down your nose at people.
Click to expand...

The opposite is true. The denialists and the right wing cult media are the fanatics here. They refuse to see facts and evidence in front of them. Some are simply ignorant because they don’t understand the science. Some are wilfully ignorant because what is happening goes against their interests of larger profits or continuing with industrial development that will make our planetary climate warmer still.

So they obfuscate, they deny, they spread myths and falsehoods and make up conspiracy theories about “socialists” or they demonise “environmentalists”.

In fact the “business as usual” forces are the dangerous radicals, because they ignore, lie about and deny overwhelming scientific evidence collected over three decades by thousands of scientists from all over the world. History will prove what dangerous and deluded radicals the climate change denialists were!
 
O look, bright shiny thing!

Typical.





california said:
I've seen some bizarre arguments from climate deniers before, but never seen the Titanic used as evidence there is no climate change! The titanic wasn't a weather event, and there is some speculation the calm winds contributed to the accident. Most of the other shipwrecks you cite as "evidence" wouldnt occur today in modern ships with modern navigation aids either. Your arguments on climate change are just as nonsensical as the footline on every one of your posts.
Click to expand...
 
Alright.

Politically motivated science gives you the Paris Agreement.

Can anyone here name a benefit to Canada being in this agreement?
 
NEGATIVE, Floater. Leadership responding to a global need gives you the Paris Agreement, and many other similar world agreements - like the Montreal Protocol, as but one example: https://globalnews.ca/news/3950335/ozone-hole-recovering-nasa/

Which was successful btw.

Also, just because you slap the term "political" on an action does not necessarily degrade nor diminish that action - the activities of the individual leadership or governance mechanisms might, tho.

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικά, translit. Politiká, meaning "affairs of the cities") is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group.[1]

It refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community, particularly a state.[2]

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

Science on the other hand is used to inform decisions - or should be used to. - like tackling the issue of global warming or even designing your truck or the computer you use to post on this forum, or read the Financial Post, Rebel or Breitbart online - even providing the shadows on that magic box of shadows ...

Happy to clear-up that confusion for you. :)
 
Last edited:
Floater said:
Alright.

Politically motivated science gives you the Paris Agreement.

Can anyone here name a benefit to Canada being in this agreement?
Click to expand...

Well there is this...... Canada is slowly removing subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Currently around 4 billion a year to an industry that's been here for over 75 years. Kind of like having a child living in the basement of their 100 year old parents.
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/12211.pdf
 
GLG said:
Well there is this...... Canada is slowly removing subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Currently around 4 billion a year to an industry that's been here for over 75 years. Kind of like having a child living in the basement of their 100 year old parents.
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/12211.pdf
Click to expand...

Well, I guess that’s the mentality we are butting heads with.

If we give Corporations, or individuals a tax break, people of your mind see that as Government giving them money. I see it as them keeping more of their own money.

“Subsidies” in the Oil and Gas world is fairly misleading, on purpose I would suspect. One example is they get to claim off of their exploration costs. So here we prob disagree on whether that’s a subsidy, technically it is. But that’s not really helpful to your narrative to call it a tax break. Like statistics, accounting terms mean anything can be skewed for whatever reason with the general public.

Now think of that near 50% tax I pay of gas here in Vancouver. Well, I think that’s a fairly good money pot the oil/gas companies are supplying the public with. Out of their own pockets of course, but it’s public funds raised and god knows what excuse they will come up with to fill that gap.

Maybe pressure your politicians to spend that cash wisely on researching new tech? Nope, just more welfare/social programs.

Aaanyway. Pretty flimsy answer to my original question.

I’m wondering what benefit (making “climate change” a political ideal), there is to Canada being in the Paris Agreement.

We have no ability (or intention) to hit our targets and will pour hundreds of millions, eventually into the Billions, into this scheme.

I’ll bet anything, when targets aren’t met, that brings on the excuse for guess what.....MORE TAXES, because that solves everything.

Come on man, you say I’m the gullible one?!
 
Last edited:
Weird. I would have thought someone would have at least a half baked reason that joining the Paris accord was a good idea.

Vicious circle you Lefty/Greenies live in. You all pump each other up and it always ends in who can be the most hysterical.

Anyone who even questions the narrative is punished so you all just sit back and let it flow.
 
I have to keep reminding myself .......

1244.jpg


“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top