Kinder Morgan Pipleline Project

317 posts / 0 new
Last post
Martin N.

It's is peculiar that when I suggest strategies for individuals to minimize their carbon footprint or solutions that Canada can pursue, there is no reaction but tip over one of the sacred cows of climate doom and judgemental zealots come out of the woodwork, making great disingenuous leaps of logic to falsely paint me as THE ENEMY. I suppose the frisson of delight at outing a potential heretic and wiggling out on the rascal is irresistible compared to engaging one's brainbox to contemplate solutions.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

It is disingenuous to portray me as a 'denier' by manipulating semantics although I've always entertained the perception of myself as a Jamaican Alfred E Neumann. Don't worry, be happy.!....... What I doubt is the 'sky is falling' worst case scenarios promoted by the whackadoodles. Human enginuity and advancing technology will deal with it and the earth has tremendous capacity to heal itself.

Those "whackadoodles" are scientists. Your doubt that we have a critical problem flies in the face of the available evidence. The planet is in trouble. However, while humans are capable of great things, greed and denial-for-profit will prevent us from applying the resources we have to fixing the problem. That is if it is not already too late.

You don't want to be called a climate change denier but in fact this statement you have just made makes you just one more varient of that: a denier of the seriousness and urgency of the problem. Your opinion is not founded on anything more than the ravings of the mad orange king. It is no less dangerous. Your denial of the problem is one of the types of denials that will destroy the planet. You may think that it is more of a procrastination (we can do it later so let's roll back over to sleep) as opposed to saying there is an emerging catastrophe and we need to address it.

For the supposed intelligence of humans, we are able to see what is coming but are too arrogant about our abilities to recognize the need to take urgent action until it is too late.

Sorry, you are part of the problem not the solution. You are only a shade different than the mad orange king.

No, the whackadoodles are not scientists. They are the alarmists that take science out of context and render every possibility in absolute terms, allowing no room for debate.......Individuals who judge others as unworthy if the slightest deviation from accepted climate change dogma is suggested....Individuals who leap to over the top hyperbole like suggesting any deviating from climate change ideology is based on "the ravings of a mad orange king". The only raving happening here is about the mad orange king. My opinions have nothing to do with him or your finger pointing paranoia.

No you come here trying to sell the idea that there is no problem with the climate that we cannot solve-- the science that is widely accepted shows this is not actually our position. There is some speculation about how deeply screwed we are, how much damage is avoidable at this point, how bad it will get. There is no debate that we have not caused enough damage that the change will be serious nor a debate that we need to move quickly to mitigate what else is coming. Your statements are only another brand of denial.

We can disagree but agreeing with me is the body of consensus among independent scientists. Agreeing with you is mostly bullshit studies paid for by the fossil fuels industry and climate confusers.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:
It's is peculiar that when I suggest strategies for individuals to minimize their carbon footprint or solutions that Canada can pursue, there is no reaction but tip over one of the sacred cows of climate doom and judgemental zealots come out of the woodwork, making great disingenuous leaps of logic to falsely paint me as THE ENEMY. I suppose the frisson of delight at outing a potential heretic and wiggling out on the rascal is irresistible compared to engaging one's brainbox to contemplate solutions.

"Sacred cow of climate doom" Wow did you get lost on the way to Briebart news?

I am not a zealot.

I engaged with strong disagreement with you but I was not judgmental about you. Past tense. I am now.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Its fun sometimes Sean to see what happens when you cut to the chase with people like MartinN.  He is a climate denier and when pressed resorts to insults because he has no facts on his side.  He only talks oil industry talking points. If he isn't already receiving a stipend from the industry he should apply for a job with their internet crew because he is pretty good at disseminating its bullshit.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Its fun sometimes Sean to see what happens when you cut to the chase with people like MartinN.  He is a climate denier and when pressed resorts to insults because he has no facts on his side.  He only talks oil industry talking points. If he isn't already receiving a stipend from the industry he should apply for a job with their internet crew because he is pretty good at disseminating its bullshit.

I make a practice of not wondering outloud who, if anyone, is paid but certainly his rhetoric suggests that he is not the moderate he pretends to be. I am very passionate about respecting facts and science and to people like him that could make me a zealot. That puts him in the fake news, propaganda, alt right domain as far as I am concerned. I will not respond well to people being so disdainful of science. We do rely on it.

Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Its fun sometimes Sean to see what happens when you cut to the chase with people like MartinN.  He is a climate denier and when pressed resorts to insults because he has no facts on his side.  He only talks oil industry talking points. If he isn't already receiving a stipend from the industry he should apply for a job with their internet crew because he is pretty good at disseminating its bullshit.

I make a practice of not wondering outloud who, if anyone, is paid but certainly his rhetoric suggests that he is not the moderate he pretends to be. I am very passionate about respecting facts and science and to people like him that could make me a zealot. That puts him in the fake news, propaganda, alt right domain as far as I am concerned. I will not respond well to people being so disdainful of science. We do rely on it.


Well, Sean, if you misrepresent my position as a moderate to fit your narrative, you are a zealot. I'm rather surprised at your loss of control because, while I was expecting this sort of response from the more juvenile folks, I wasn't expecting it from you. Contrary to your attempts to misrepresent my positions, I prefer to use reason and logic rather than ideological indoctrination to form a position. I do not deny climate change but I am unsure of its consequences and prefer not to predict the future based on worst case scenarios extrapolated from incomplete data.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Its fun sometimes Sean to see what happens when you cut to the chase with people like MartinN.  He is a climate denier and when pressed resorts to insults because he has no facts on his side.  He only talks oil industry talking points. If he isn't already receiving a stipend from the industry he should apply for a job with their internet crew because he is pretty good at disseminating its bullshit.


"People like Martin"? I see you have found your groove, k. If ignoring all my posts as industry talking points and branding me a climate denier floats your boat, who am I to spoil your smug moral superiority? ( I suppose any reference to anything other than ideological orthodoxy is considered an insult, huh?) ......The problem for climate zealotry and anti-tar-gook activism is that rather than building support with moderates, you prefer to burn them at the stake as heretics and, when decisions are made on industrial projects, you do not have nearly the support you claim..... it is quite obvious to me from meeting attended on Fantasy Island, among other venues than many people do not agree with you but are afraid to speak out because of precisely the reaction I received from you and Sean. ...... we shall find out in a few months what the electorate thinks of KM, much like the last election.....As I have stated before, I don't disagree with you but find the choice is not between good and bad but between bad and worse. Carry on.

Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
It's is peculiar that when I suggest strategies for individuals to minimize their carbon footprint or solutions that Canada can pursue, there is no reaction but tip over one of the sacred cows of climate doom and judgemental zealots come out of the woodwork, making great disingenuous leaps of logic to falsely paint me as THE ENEMY. I suppose the frisson of delight at outing a potential heretic and wiggling out on the rascal is irresistible compared to engaging one's brainbox to contemplate solutions.

"Sacred cow of climate doom" Wow did you get lost on the way to Briebart news?

I am not a zealot.

I engaged with strong disagreement with you but I was not judgmental about you. Past tense. I am now.

. Yeah, I notice how non-judgemental you are. Judge away, Sean, iI don't mind a bit of flowery embellishment either. Consider this space a whine-free zone.....
I am not disagreeing about the science, I am disagreeing with the future consequences of the science extrapolated by non-scientists to formulate the sacred cows of climate doom™

Edzell Edzell's picture

Quote:
I ....  prefer not to predict the future based on worst case scenarios extrapolated from incomplete data ....

.....extrapolated by non-scientists ....

But:

Quote:
.... Human enginuity and advancing technology will deal with it and the earth has tremendous capacity to heal itself.

?? Hmmmm. Looks a lot like a prediction extrapolated from - ?? - by a ? non-scientist.

My view is that even if the dire predictions turn out to be over-stated, the risk that the scientists are mostly right (and I suspect they are mostly right) is far too great to be ignored.

Edit: Reference to site C removed.

Martin N.

Edzell wrote:

Quote:
I ....  prefer not to predict the future based on worst case scenarios extrapolated from incomplete data ....

.....extrapolated by non-scientists ....

But:

Quote:
.... Human enginuity and advancing technology will deal with it and the earth has tremendous capacity to heal itself.

?? Hmmmm. Looks a lot like a prediction extrapolated from - ?? - by a ? non-scientist.

My view is that even if the dire predictions turn out to be over-stated, the risk that the scientists are mostly right (and I suspect they are mostly right) is far too great to be ignored.

Edit: Reference to site C removed.


If you are confused, it is simpler to ask for clarification than depending on trolling the murky waters of semantics...... Human ingenuity as in solar, wind, tidal,electric vehicles, battery storage, advancing home energy use tech. Leveraging the earth's capacity to heal itself by investing in tree planting, biodiversity, enhancing recovery of cod stocks, salmon and other biomass. Finding solutions, rather than ignoring solution in order to fling merde and play games with semantics.

Edzell Edzell's picture

My view is that even if the dire predictions turn out to be over-stated, the risk that the scientists are mostly right (and I suspect they are mostly right) is far too great to be ignored.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin: Here is my conclusion and we will leave it at that. I came to the convo criticizing a position you took and the rather anti-science tone you brought and you went personal. Your posts are a brand of client change denial -- the one that says yes it is changing but it is no big deal we can fix it. This position is not based on any facts or science.

Instead of actually going to substance you said I was whining, juvenile, a zealot, wiggling, raving...

You accuse others of "trolling the murky waters of semantics" when that is exactly what you are doing.

This bullshit way of saying you technically believe in climate science so can't be called a denier but then refuse the conclusions of that science. It is a contradiction wrapped in a rhetorical pretzel.

"do not deny climate change but I am unsure of its consequences"

The consensus of the reviewed science is that we do not have a solution and human activity is not in control and that some of the change may already be irreversible. You deny that so you are a climate change denier who simply lacks the willingness to wear the label.

Okay so I do judge you now. You are not worth my time and neither are any of your posts and I will no longer read them.

Martin N.

Alrighty then. Everyone is entitled to an opinion as long as its yours. Got it. Carry on.

Martin N.

Edzell wrote:

My view is that even if the dire predictions turn out to be over-stated, the risk that the scientists are mostly right (and I suspect they are mostly right) is far too great to be ignored.


Gee whiz, that's my view too but since I can't see into the future the only thing I can do is go solar and plant trees.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Edzell wrote:

My view is that even if the dire predictions turn out to be over-stated, the risk that the scientists are mostly right (and I suspect they are mostly right) is far too great to be ignored.

Gee whiz, that's my view too but since I can't see into the future the only thing I can do is go solar and plant trees.

So is this sarcasm or have you abandoned the idea that burning all the tar sands gunk can be done with few consequences. 

Martin N.

Its not sarcasm. Not one of my views on reducing personal carbon footprints has been acknowledged, much less discussed in the frenzy to burn the heretic at the stake. My views have been distorted to fit the closed minded narrative of Sean, who assumed the mantle of victim for 'insults' that were not necessarily directed at him.....I am consistent in my views that whether or not climate change is real is moot because it makes sense to wean off of hydrocarbons in any event. This weaning will take time because hydrocarbons are pervasive in society but I have faith that human ingenuity and technology can make hydrocarbon use redundant......In the meantime, I see no point in beggaring our economy when such sacrifice will make no difference......My point is that if everyone shifted their energies toward solutions rather than climate doom a century from now, we can address change in the present rather than doom in the future.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:
Its not sarcasm. Not one of my views on reducing personal carbon footprints has been acknowledged, much less discussed in the frenzy to burn the heretic at the stake. My views have been distorted to fit the closed minded narrative of Sean, who assumed the mantle of victim for 'insults' that were not necessarily directed at him.....I am consistent in my views that whether or not climate change is real is moot because it makes sense to wean off of hydrocarbons in any event. This weaning will take time because hydrocarbons are pervasive in society but I have faith that human ingenuity and technology can make hydrocarbon use redundant......In the meantime, I see no point in beggaring our economy when such sacrifice will make no difference......My point is that if everyone shifted their energies toward solutions rather than climate doom a century from now, we can address change in the present rather than doom in the future.

Stop characterizing me. We do not have a conversation. Take your comments to people who want a conversation with you.

Edzell Edzell's picture

Martin made both of the following incompatible statements

Quote:
I ....  prefer not to predict the future ....

And
Quote:
.... Human enginuity and advancing technology will deal with it.

When I pointed this out, rather than considering his own inconsistency he said I was confused (which was certainly reasonable under the circumstances.) But he went on in his response to imply that I was "trolling the murky waters of semantics" and "ignoring solution in order to fling merde and play games with semantics." These are plainly defensive and hyperbolic rhetorical statements devoid of value - dare I say Trump-like - and I will weigh his general sincerity on the forum, accordingly.

 

NorthReport

Among many things this is why we need to employ First Nations to monitor pipelines We also need to double barrel the pipelines, and install monitoring stations much more frequently than they are now

https://news.google.ca/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Famp%2F1....

Martin N.

Edzell wrote:

Martin made both of the following incompatible statements

Quote:
I ....  prefer not to predict the future ....

And
Quote:
.... Human enginuity and advancing technology will deal with it.

When I pointed this out, rather than considering his own inconsistency he said I was confused (which was certainly reasonable under the circumstances.) But he went on in his response to imply that I was "trolling the murky waters of semantics" 'and "ignoring solution in order to fling merde and play games with semantics." These are plainly defensive and hyperbolic rhetorical statements devoid of value - dare I say Trump-like - and I will weigh his general sincerity on the forum, accordingly.

 


Dare I say that if you spent as much time discussing the issue as you do parsing my posts for 'incompatible' statements or in "plainly defensive and hyperbolic rhetorical statements devoid of value", searching for faggots with which to feed the fire, you may find we are not far apart on the subject at hand. It is plain that you and Sean are unhappy with the heretic and simply trying to smear me with your picayune grievances.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Among many things this is why we need to employ First Nations to monitor pipelines We also need to double barrel the pipelines, and install monitoring stations much more frequently than they are now

https://news.google.ca/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Famp%2F1....

Good you give us a link to where the pipelines are going to be forced to double barrel the pipelines or install more monitoring devices? 

Martin N.

Edzell wrote:

Martin made both of the following incompatible statements

Quote:
I ....  prefer not to predict the future ....

And
Quote:
.... Human enginuity and advancing technology will deal with it.

When I pointed this out, rather than considering his own inconsistency he said I was confused (which was certainly reasonable under the circumstances.) But he went on in his response to imply that I was "trolling the murky waters of semantics" and "ignoring solution in order to fling merde and play games with semantics." These are plainly defensive and hyperbolic rhetorical statements devoid of value - dare I say Trump-like - and I will weigh his general sincerity on the forum, accordingly.

 


Ignoring the message to attack the messenger.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Among many things this is why we need to employ First Nations to monitor pipelines We also need to double barrel the pipelines, and install monitoring stations much more frequently than they are now

https://news.google.ca/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Famp%2F1....

Good you give us a link to where the pipelines are going to be forced to double barrel the pipelines or install more monitoring devices? 


Pipes are thicker wall for riparian zones etc. Shut off valves on stream crossings. This is a really good point because the shut offs are an expensive installation and the pipeline companies try to reduce their numbers. This info is likely in the NEB report.

Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Its not sarcasm. Not one of my views on reducing personal carbon footprints has been acknowledged, much less discussed in the frenzy to burn the heretic at the stake. My views have been distorted to fit the closed minded narrative of Sean, who assumed the mantle of victim for 'insults' that were not necessarily directed at him.....I am consistent in my views that whether or not climate change is real is moot because it makes sense to wean off of hydrocarbons in any event. This weaning will take time because hydrocarbons are pervasive in society but I have faith that human ingenuity and technology can make hydrocarbon use redundant......In the meantime, I see no point in beggaring our economy when such sacrifice will make no difference......My point is that if everyone shifted their energies toward solutions rather than climate doom a century from now, we can address change in the present rather than doom in the future.

Stop characterizing me. We do not have a conversation. Take your comments to people who want a conversation with you.


Is this a pout or a flounce? You wrote dishonest posts about my position and I have a right to address your dishonesty.

Edzell Edzell's picture

Martin N. wrote:
Is this a pout or a flounce?

In response you could flout & pounce.

(Hits the ignore button.)

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Its not sarcasm. Not one of my views on reducing personal carbon footprints has been acknowledged, much less discussed in the frenzy to burn the heretic at the stake. My views have been distorted to fit the closed minded narrative of Sean, who assumed the mantle of victim for 'insults' that were not necessarily directed at him.....I am consistent in my views that whether or not climate change is real is moot because it makes sense to wean off of hydrocarbons in any event. This weaning will take time because hydrocarbons are pervasive in society but I have faith that human ingenuity and technology can make hydrocarbon use redundant......In the meantime, I see no point in beggaring our economy when such sacrifice will make no difference......My point is that if everyone shifted their energies toward solutions rather than climate doom a century from now, we can address change in the present rather than doom in the future.

Stop characterizing me. We do not have a conversation. Take your comments to people who want a conversation with you.

Is this a pout or a flounce? You wrote dishonest posts about my position and I have a right to address your dishonesty.

I have not been adding to the content of the discussion and yet you keep going. I did attack your position but instead of defend it you went after me personally. You are doing what a(n) [read the worst thing anyone has called you in the last month here] would do.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Edzell wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Is this a pout or a flounce?

In response you could flout & pounce.

(Hits the ignore button.)

Edzell, you are on a roll. First "pithing match", then "flout and pounce". Well done, sir/madam. Laughing

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Hard not to get pissed at two cute by half climate change deniers.

Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Its not sarcasm. Not one of my views on reducing personal carbon footprints has been acknowledged, much less discussed in the frenzy to burn the heretic at the stake. My views have been distorted to fit the closed minded narrative of Sean, who assumed the mantle of victim for 'insults' that were not necessarily directed at him.....I am consistent in my views that whether or not climate change is real is moot because it makes sense to wean off of hydrocarbons in any event. This weaning will take time because hydrocarbons are pervasive in society but I have faith that human ingenuity and technology can make hydrocarbon use redundant......In the meantime, I see no point in beggaring our economy when such sacrifice will make no difference......My point is that if everyone shifted their energies toward solutions rather than climate doom a century from now, we can address change in the present rather than doom in the future.

I

Stop characterizing me. We do not have a conversation. Take your comments to people who want a conversation with you.

Is this a pout or a flounce? You wrote dishonest posts about my position and I have a right to address your dishonesty.

I have not been adding to the content of the discussion and yet you keep going. I did attack your position but instead of defend it you went after me personally. You are doing what a(n) [read the worst thing anyone has called you in the last month here] would do.

Yeah right. Calling my position the same as the "ravings of a mad orange king" is perfectly logical.
If you want to get out of a hole, stop digging. You didn't attack my position, you misrepresented it in order to determine me an enemy. We will discover how much support the anti-KM sentiment has soon enough with the BC election.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Hard not to get pissed at two cute by half climate change deniers.


Even harder to address the issues you raise yourself, I see.

Martin N.

Edzell wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Is this a pout or a flounce?

In response you could flout & pounce.

(Hits the ignore button.)


Not my style. Everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Its not sarcasm. Not one of my views on reducing personal carbon footprints has been acknowledged, much less discussed in the frenzy to burn the heretic at the stake. My views have been distorted to fit the closed minded narrative of Sean, who assumed the mantle of victim for 'insults' that were not necessarily directed at him.....I am consistent in my views that whether or not climate change is real is moot because it makes sense to wean off of hydrocarbons in any event. This weaning will take time because hydrocarbons are pervasive in society but I have faith that human ingenuity and technology can make hydrocarbon use redundant......In the meantime, I see no point in beggaring our economy when such sacrifice will make no difference......My point is that if everyone shifted their energies toward solutions rather than climate doom a century from now, we can address change in the present rather than doom in the future.

I

Stop characterizing me. We do not have a conversation. Take your comments to people who want a conversation with you.

Is this a pout or a flounce? You wrote dishonest posts about my position and I have a right to address your dishonesty.

I have not been adding to the content of the discussion and yet you keep going. I did attack your position but instead of defend it you went after me personally. You are doing what a(n) [read the worst thing anyone has called you in the last month here] would do.

Yeah right. Calling my position the same as the "ravings of a mad orange king" is perfectly logical. If you want to get out of a hole, stop digging. You didn't attack my position, you misrepresented it in order to determine me an enemy. We will discover how much support the anti-KM sentiment has soon enough with the BC election.

I don't like bullshit. I do like accuracy with words.

This is what I said.

"in fact this statement you have just made makes you just one more varient of that: a denier of the seriousness and urgency of the problem. Your opinion is not founded on anything more than the ravings of the mad orange king."

I did not say your position was the SAME as the ravings of the mad king I said it was not founded on ANYTHING MORE. You had provided nothing more than speculation. and since then you have provided nothing more than insults. Instead of contradicting me by providing a factual basis you went personal.

So let's be clear: I did not say your position was the same as the ravings of a mad orange king -- that is, until now. When asked to back up you go personal and that is the same as the ravings of a mad orange king.

My position is based on years of reading science and there is lots to debate -- for those who want to discuss science rather than trade insults -- just a brief google search brings this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99888903

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-reversible-but-stoppable...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-is-critical-technology-to...

There are research articles of optimism but they are not conclusive. The consensus is not that we will have some solution later but that we need to apply as much now and then MAYBE we can get away with reducing the effects so that we can survive.

But we are not debating facts you went personal. So now I will say your position is not only supported on no more than the ravings of the mad orange king (as I said before). Your position is now the same as the ravings of a mad orange king.

So great you got me round to saying what I did not say before.

Also you are acting like a jerk and not just to me here. If that was your intention, you did well.

 

Martin N.

You must get a lot of nosebleeds way up on that pedestal. ....Yeah, you portray yourself as an innocent victim simply stating the obvious truth when in fact your hostility to any opinion but your own led you to teach the heretic a lesson.......Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest about ' insults ' when you were flinging plenty yourself while simultaneously claiming sainthood. I'm the jerk for defending myself from attack? While St. Sean is purity itself safe in the righteousness of his noble cause. All hat and no cattle.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So Martin You never did answer my question? How much of the tar sands gunk do you think we can burn over the next 50 years and still prevent the major catastrophes that climate change will bring?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Martin N. wrote:
You must get a lot of nosebleeds way up on that pedestal. ....Yeah, you portray yourself as an innocent victim simply stating the obvious truth when in fact your hostility to any opinion but your own led you to teach the heretic a lesson.......Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest about ' insults ' when you were flinging plenty yourself while simultaneously claiming sainthood. I'm the jerk for defending myself from attack? While St. Sean is purity itself safe in the righteousness of his noble cause. All hat and no cattle.

This post has nothing to do with Kinder Morgan. Please stay on topic.

NorthReport

Support for Kinder Morgan from a Vancouver City Councillor.

Affleck supports Kinder Morgan’s pipeline projectNPA councillor is only one from his caucus with clear position

 

http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/affleck-supports-kinder-morgan-s-pipel...

NorthReport

Time for some firmness
Pipeline route through Chilliwack final, says Kinder Morgan

 

http://www.theprogress.com/news/411985766.html

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Martin You never did answer my question? How much of the tar sands gunk do you think we can burn over the next 50 years and still prevent the major catastrophes that climate change will bring?


If you can point out where you asked that question, I'll be happy to answer it. In the meantime, I am busy answering other of your 'questions' that you ignore the answers to in favour of having "fun" with the impertinent heretic.

Martin N.

montrealer58 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
You must get a lot of nosebleeds way up on that pedestal. ....Yeah, you portray yourself as an innocent victim simply stating the obvious truth when in fact your hostility to any opinion but your own led you to teach the heretic a lesson.......Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest about ' insults ' when you were flinging plenty yourself while simultaneously claiming sainthood. I'm the jerk for defending myself from attack? While St. Sean is purity itself safe in the righteousness of his noble cause. All hat and no cattle.

This post has nothing to do with Kinder Morgan. Please stay on topic.


This post has nothing to do with KM either. Many other posts are off topic as well but you single me out. Kindly address the issue rather than adding to the joys of heretic burning. Thank you. What is your opinion on the issue of technical bias in computer controlled, solar powered emergency shutoff valves?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So Martin will I get an answer from you.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Martin N. wrote:
montrealer58 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
You must get a lot of nosebleeds way up on that pedestal. ....Yeah, you portray yourself as an innocent victim simply stating the obvious truth when in fact your hostility to any opinion but your own led you to teach the heretic a lesson.......Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest about ' insults ' when you were flinging plenty yourself while simultaneously claiming sainthood. I'm the jerk for defending myself from attack? While St. Sean is purity itself safe in the righteousness of his noble cause. All hat and no cattle.

This post has nothing to do with Kinder Morgan. Please stay on topic.

This post has nothing to do with KM either. Many other posts are off topic as well but you single me out. Kindly address the issue rather than adding to the joys of heretic burning. Thank you. What is your opinion on the issue of technical bias in computer controlled, solar powered emergency shutoff valves?

Why not just use solar power for electricity generation than use pipelines for oil?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Martin N. wrote:
montrealer58 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
You must get a lot of nosebleeds way up on that pedestal. ....Yeah, you portray yourself as an innocent victim simply stating the obvious truth when in fact your hostility to any opinion but your own led you to teach the heretic a lesson.......Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest about ' insults ' when you were flinging plenty yourself while simultaneously claiming sainthood. I'm the jerk for defending myself from attack? While St. Sean is purity itself safe in the righteousness of his noble cause. All hat and no cattle.

This post has nothing to do with Kinder Morgan. Please stay on topic.

This post has nothing to do with KM either. Many other posts are off topic as well but you single me out. Kindly address the issue rather than adding to the joys of heretic burning. Thank you. What is your opinion on the issue of technical bias in computer controlled, solar powered emergency shutoff valves?

My post mentioned Kinder Morgan by name. Yours did not.

Martin N.

montrealer58 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
montrealer58 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
You must get a lot of nosebleeds way up on that pedestal. ....Yeah, you portray yourself as an innocent victim simply stating the obvious truth when in fact your hostility to any opinion but your own led you to teach the heretic a lesson.......Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest about ' insults ' when you were flinging plenty yourself while simultaneously claiming sainthood. I'm the jerk for defending myself from attack? While St. Sean is purity itself safe in the righteousness of his noble cause. All hat and no cattle.

This post has nothing to do with Kinder Morgan. Please stay on topic.

This post has nothing to do with KM either. Many other posts are off topic as well but you single me out. Kindly address the issue rather than adding to the joys of heretic burning. Thank you. What is your opinion on the issue of technical bias in computer controlled, solar powered emergency shutoff valves?

My post mentioned Kinder Morgan by name. Yours did not.


Really?

Martin N.

montrealer58 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
montrealer58 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
You must get a lot of nosebleeds way up on that pedestal. ....Yeah, you portray yourself as an innocent victim simply stating the obvious truth when in fact your hostility to any opinion but your own led you to teach the heretic a lesson.......Ignoring the issue to manufacture a snivelfest about ' insults ' when you were flinging plenty yourself while simultaneously claiming sainthood. I'm the jerk for defending myself from attack? While St. Sean is purity itself safe in the righteousness of his noble cause. All hat and no cattle.

This post has nothing to do with Kinder Morgan. Please stay on topic.

This post has nothing to do with KM either. Many other posts are off topic as well but you single me out. Kindly address the issue rather than adding to the joys of heretic burning. Thank you. What is your opinion on the issue of technical bias in computer controlled, solar powered emergency shutoff valves?

Why not just use solar power for electricity generation than use pipelines for oil?


For power, sure, except for that baseload thingy when it's dark or cloudy. Once the technology for battery storage is advanced, ( oh, that pesky human ingenuity and technology thingy again) renewables will really advance. Also home solar grid- tie systems. This will also provide a lot of good jobs as well. Electric trains yep. Electric airplanes, not so much. Then there is the products made from oil and gas - plastics, fertilizers, explosives and countless more.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The "fuel'-based solution could be ammonia. The Japanese have done some good research on this. You can adapt a normal car to run on ammonia fuel fairly easily. The exhaust is nitrogen dioxide, which is a component of air. We also have a large ammonia infrastructure in place already.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Still no answer Martin. Again the question is how much of the tar sands gunk do you think can be safely burnt given climate change. You seem to think it is 100% so I presume you are a sophisticated climate change denier but a denier all the same. 

Martin N.

Thank you for taking the time to answer for me, setting the stage, so to speak, and misrepresenting my position. Your question is in queue and will be answered as time allows.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Martin N. wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to answer for me, setting the stage, so to speak, and misrepresenting my position. Your question is in queue and will be answered as time allows.

You want to destroy my environment so frankly I don't care much for your viewpoint. It is a nuanced one just as the oil industry talking points have become more nuanced. You say you believe in science answers and when I ask you repeatedly about the biggest scientific question and you refuse to answer. Oh well you have largely been neutralized as a voice since people have been drawing out your real opinions.  You and NR can continue on talking to each other in oilspeak.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Still no answer Martin. Again the question is how much of the tar sands gunk do you think can be safely burnt given climate change. You seem to think it is 100% so I presume you are a sophisticated climate change denier but a denier all the same. 


Since oil is traded on a global platform and the attendant emissions are global, one must look to global solutions. There is little point in ruining Canada's economy if the resulting loss of "tar sands gunk" is simply replaced with California or Venezuelan tar sands gunk.....Except, of course to the ageing hippies and failed communists who seize on pipelines to continue the fight against capitalism. Canadian pipelines only. The rest of the world and their attendant pollution get a pass.......In my opinion, Canada must strive to replace hydrocarbons with renewables as quickly as human ingenuity and advancing technology will allow but must also get the best return from its resources in the meantime......It is simply idiocy to ruin our economy based solely on a recidivist ideology. We must all work toward a new future that will come quicker if everyone makes a personal effort as well.

Martin N.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to answer for me, setting the stage, so to speak, and misrepresenting my position. Your question is in queue and will be answered as time allows.

You want to destroy my environment so frankly I don't care much for your viewpoint. It is a nuanced one just as the oil industry talking points have become more nuanced. You say you believe in science answers and when I ask you repeatedly about the biggest scientific question and you refuse to answer. Oh well you have largely been neutralized as a voice since people have been drawing out your real opinions.  You and NR can continue on talking to each other in oilspeak.

You want to destroy my country while giving the rest of the world a free pass so frankly I don't care much for your failed communist pretensions. But thank you for having "fun" with insincere 'questions' you had no intention of taking seriously. Only a closed minded ideologist will assume that simplistic solutions can solve complex issues. I am very much in favour of continued science and especially more opportunities for education in the STEM disciplines to put more resources into the solutions to global concerns and view the grievance-mongering of the usual assortment of ideologists as counter productive although the protests of activists is helpful in bringing attention to the issue.

Pages