Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
SpringVelocity said:
Only in BC..Where is tourism in those graphs??
Click to expand...

I would think that tourism is spread across two of those amounts.
- Information, Culture and Recreation
- Accommodation and Food Services

Perhaps some Transportation also
 
I think it's important to report how NG industry is doing with the challenges of their GHG emissions.
Here is the report from Encana for Canada. I don't have anything for just BC but at this point this looks positive. Except that flaring bit on the new East Coast off shore project......
More info on the link below.
http://www.encana.com/pdf/sustainability/corporate/reports/2013/sustainability-report-metrics.pdf

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]AIR [/TD]
[TD]2011[/TD]
[TD]2012[/TD]
[TD]2013[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total energy use[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total energy use (Canada) (103 GJ)[/TD]
[TD]36,562[/TD]
[TD]31,001[/TD]
[TD]32,571[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total energy use (USA) (103 GJ)[/TD]
[TD]NPR[/TD]
[TD]5,264[/TD]
[TD]5,550[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Emissions intensity – Canada[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Production energy intensity (GJ/m3 OE[/TD]
[TD]2.03[/TD]
[TD]1.86[/TD]
[TD]1.78[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Direct carbon intensity (tonnes/m3 OE)[/TD]
[TD]0.16[/TD]
[TD]0.17[/TD]
[TD]0.14(1)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Production carbon intensity (tonnes/m3 OE)[/TD]
[TD]0.17[/TD]
[TD]0.17[/TD]
[TD]0.15(2)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Emissions intensity – USA[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Direct carbon intensity (tonnes/m3 OE[/TD]
[TD]0.09[/TD]
[TD]0.07[/TD]
[TD]0.09(3)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Production carbon intensity (tonnes/m3 OE)[/TD]
[TD]0.10[/TD]
[TD]0.9[/TD]
[TD]0.10(4)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
GHG emissions – Canada[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Direct CO2 e (103 tonnes)[/TD]
[TD]3,074[/TD]
[TD]3,037[/TD]
[TD]2,889[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total purchase electrical consumption (MWh)[/TD]
[TD]413,790[/TD]
[TD]368,068[/TD]
[TD]358,284[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Indirect CO2 e (103 tonnes)[/TD]
[TD]177[/TD]
[TD]136[/TD]
[TD]117(5)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
GHG emissions – USA[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Direct CO2 e (103 tonnes)[/TD]
[TD]2,373[/TD]
[TD]1,583[/TD]
[TD]1,899(6)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total purchased electrical consumption (MWh)[/TD]
[TD]457,152[/TD]
[TD]678,412[/TD]
[TD]377,153(7)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Indirect CO2 e (103
tonnes)[/TD]
[TD]389[/TD]
[TD]577[/TD]
[TD]322(8)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Emissions (tonnes)[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]17,724[/TD]
[TD]11,361[/TD]
[TD]9,179(9)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]1,948[/TD]
[TD]1,485[/TD]
[TD]1,753(10)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions (tonnes)[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]2,747[/TD]
[TD]2,475[/TD]
[TD]3,578(11)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6(12)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total gas flared (103 m3/yr)[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]50,102[/TD]
[TD]34,662[/TD]
[TD]79,460(13)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]25,482[/TD]
[TD]55,938[/TD]
[TD]64,935(14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Total gas vented (103 m3/yr)[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Canada[/TD]
[TD]2,742[/TD]
[TD]3,184[/TD]
[TD]1,822(15)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]USA[/TD]
[TD]88,409[/TD]
[TD]111,001[/TD]
[TD]127,684(16)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]


(1) The decrease in Direct Carbon Intensity is due to a decrease in direct greenhouse gas emissions resulting from changes in Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2
O), coupled with an increase in production. Our 2012 intensity value has been revised to reflect the GWP changes in order to increase accuracy and consistency.


(2) The decrease in Production Carbon Intensity is due to a decrease in direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from changes in Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), coupled with an increase in production. Our 2012 intensity value has been revised to reflect the GWP changes in order to increase accuracy and consistency.


(3) The increase in Direct Carbon Intensity is due to an increase in direct greenhouse gas emissions coupled with a decrease in production. Our 2012 intensity value has been revised to reflect the GWP changes in order to increase accuracy and consistency.


(4) The increase in Production Carbon Intensity is due to an increase in direct greenhouse gas emissions coupled with a decrease in production. Our 2012 intensity value has been revised to reflect the GWP changes in order to increase accuracy and consistency.


(5) Indirect emissions decreased due to reductions in electrical grid emission factors used for our BC facilities in 2013.


(6) The increase in our U.S. direct greenhouse gas emissions is due to ongoing refinement of our calculation methodology and equipment inventory, as well as operational factors. As well, changes to Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) for methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) were mandated by regulatory reporting in 2013. These changes significantly affected our emission inventory, and were retroactively applied to our 2012 inventory to maintain consistency in our inventory and to comply with regulations.


(7) Our U.S. operations experienced general reductions in purchased electricity across our Business Units, with a significant reduction in our Mid-Continent Business Unit associated primarily with divestitures of our East Texas assets during the last quarter of 2012.


(8) Our U.S. operations experienced general reductions in purchased electricity across our Business Units, with a significant reduction in our Mid-Continent Business Unit associated primarily with divestitures of our East Texas assets during the last quarter of 2012.


(9) The reduction in our Canadian NOx emissions is due to lower reported fuel usage in 2013 coupled with increased accuracy in our calculation methodology resulting from ongoing refinement of equipment and fuel data.


(10) The increase in our USA NOx emissions is due to ongoing refinement of our calculation methodology. In 2013 a comprehensive review and update of NOx emission factors was undertaken for our USA facilities, and this review coupled with ongoing refinements to the accuracy of our equipment data, resulted in a NOx emission increase. These methodology improvements were retroactively applied to our 2012 NOx inventory to increase accuracy and consistency.


(11) The increase in our Canadian SO2 emissions is due to the inclusion of our Deep Panuke offshore sour gas facility which came into production in August 2013. Currently at Deep Panuke acid gas is flared with plans for underground injection at a later date.


(12) The increase in our USA SO2 emissions is due to ongoing refinement of our calculation methodology. In 2013 a comprehensive review and update of SO2 emission factors was undertaken for our USA facilities, and this review coupled with ongoing refinements to the accuracy of our equipment data, resulted in an SO2 emission increase. These methodology improvements were retroactively applied to our 2012 SO2 inventory to increase accuracy and consistency.


(13) Our Canadian operations experienced increased flaring for well testing in 2013.Additionally; a significant contribution to the increase in flaring is due to flaring of acid gas at our Deep Panuke offshore sour gas facility.


(14) Increased flaring in our USA operations is primarily due to two factors: (1) an increased focus on the development of new oil plays in our Mid-Continent Business Unit with an attendant increase in associated gas flaring during initial phases of well development, and (2) the addition of new emission controls that increase the volume of flared gas in our South Rockies Business Unit as part of Colorado state regulatory changes. The new emission controls were retroactively applied to our 2012 inventory to increase accuracy and consistency.


(15) The decrease in Canadian vented gas volumes is due to reduced venting for well testing in 2013.


(16) The increase in our USA vented gas volumes is due to ongoing refinement of our calculation methodology and equipment inventory, as well as operational changes in our Business Units. In 2013 a comprehensive review and update of pneumatic pump emission factors was undertaken as part of our ongoing data QAQC processes. The updated emission factors were retroactively applied to our 2012 inventory to increase accuracy and consistency. In 2013 our North Rockies Business Unit increased completions activities, and our South Rockies Business Unit was required to meet new Colorado state regulatory requirements for emission controls.
 
http://www.thenation.com/blog/18152...st-these-climate-activists-most-stunning-way#
Charges Were Just Dropped Against These Climate Activists in the Most Stunning Way
Wen Stephenson on September 8, 2014 - 5:35 PM ET
Share

Decrease text size Increase text size

Sam Sutter
Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter (photo credit: Peter Bowden)

“Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary…” —Henry David Thoreau, “Civil Disobedience”

Henry’s jaw would’ve dropped. This morning, for a moment, at least, a higher law—the law of conscience—held sway in Massachusetts.

OK, I know that sounds a bit much. But something truly remarkable, a kind of blessed unrest, took place today at the Bristol County courthouse in Fall River, Massachusetts, where climate activists Ken Ward and Jay O’Hara (Nation readers will remember them from this piece last year) were going to trial for blockading a coal freighter at Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset—using an old wooden lobster boat christened the Henry David T.—for the sole reason of addressing the climate crisis. In what looked to be an unprecedented case in the United States, they were set to be the first to use a “necessity defense” in a direct-action civil disobedience case centered on climate change, arguing that what they did was justified for the sake of public health and safety. James Hansen, one of the world’s top climate scientists, and 350.org’s Bill McKibben, among others, were lined up as expert witnesses.

And what happened, the truly remarkable thing, was this: the prosecutor, Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter, not only dropped the charges (which could have resulted in months, or even years, of jail time); he then proceeded out to the courthouse plaza where he made a statement to the media and to the hundred or more people gathered in support of Ken and Jay. Here’s what he said:

The decision that Assistant District Attorney Robert Kidd and I reached today was a decision that certainly took into consideration the cost to the taxpayers in Somerset, but was also made with our concerns for their children, and the children of Bristol County and beyond in mind.

Climate change is one of the gravest crises our planet has ever faced. In my humble opinion, the political leadership on this issue has been gravely lacking. I am heartened that we were able to forge an agreement that both parties were pleased with and that appeared to satisfy the police and those here in sympathy with the individuals who were charged.

I am also extremely pleased that we were able to reach an agreement that symbolizes our commitment at the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office to take a leadership role on this issue.

The crowd (myself included) went wild.

Then, if possible, it got better. When the cheering settled down, someone asked. “Will you be a model for across the country?”

“Well,” Sutter said, “I certainly will be in New York in two weeks,” referring to the much-anticipated People’s Climate March on September 21, just ahead of the UN climate summit convened by Ban Ki-Moon. “How’s that?”

The crowd thought that was pretty swell, too.

He added: “I’ve been carrying around Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone”—and brandished the magazine (Jack White and all).

OK, maybe this guy’s running for office.

Still, I didn’t think it could get any better, but it did. A reporter then asked if he was sending a message condoning this kind of action violating the law. He said no, that’s not the message. “I’m sending a message that this was an act of civil disobedience, that we had to reach an agreement. I’m not at all disputing that the individuals were charged, but this was the right disposition, it was reduced to a civil infraction.” (To be precise, there were four charges: conspiracy, disturbing the peace, failure to act to avoid a collision, and negligent operation of a motor vessel. Sutter dropped the conspiracy charges and reduced the other charges to civil infractions. Ken and Jay will also pay $2,000 each in restitution, not fines, to the Town of Somerset).

“Just to be clear,” the reporter asked, “what would you say if people say in fact you’re encouraging other people to blockade tankers?”

“This is one case, one incident, at a time,” Sutter responded. “I think I’ve made my position very clear. This is one of the gravest crises the planet has ever faced. The evidence is overwhelming and it keeps getting worse. So we took a stand here today.”

Please support The Nation. Donate now!

And so, sometimes we win. It’s a small victory, in the scale of the climate. But it’s something.

Meanwhile, as Ken and Jay are quick to point out, the Brayton Point plant burns on. The announced 2017 closure (which came a few months after their action and a wave of protests they inspired) doesn’t come nearly soon enough—for the climate, or for the plant’s neighbors suffering its pollution.

What’s more, as Ken noted to me in an e-mail, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration, the Brayton Point plant essentially doubled its coal consumption last year, and reduced its use of natural gas, making it the first or second largest source of carbon emissions in New England, New York and New Jersey. And Ken says observed shipments of coal to the plant in recent months were increased over the previous year.

So here’s my message to DA Sutter, should he ever want to run for office as true climate champion: some people may think coal is dying a “natural” (market-driven) death in the Northeast, and therefore not much needs to be done. But if we really want to put an end to coal, we’re going to have to drive a stake through its heart, otherwise it will keep on rising from the grave.
 
Michael Mann VS National Review & Competitive Enterprise Institute & Mark Steyn
Sept 3, 2014
Two years ago, a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) analyst said something incredibly nasty about Penn State University climate researcher Michael Mann:
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”
​
Mark Steyn at the National Review passed on those comments in a blog post and added that Dr. Mann is “behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph…”
Dr. Mann subsequently sued both institutions and court filings have been flying back and forth ever since. Dr. Mann’s lawyers have just filed a response to scientific and legal claims from the National Review and CEI. As their new brief makes clear, any claim that Dr. Mann’s research is “fraudulent” is pure bunk.
The Serengeti strategy at work

In his book chronicling the attacks he’s faced, Dr. Mann compares climate contrarians’ strategy to the one used by predator animals he saw in Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. Rather than trying to take on all the world’s climate scientists, they pick out someone from the herd who they think they can attack effectively. He’s faced many over-the-top criticisms of his research—and his character—from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and a whole host of front groups, political actors and online haters.
Why all the fuss? In the late 1990s, Dr. Mann and his colleagues found that much of world is warmer than it used to be. The key graph from their research looks like an upturned hockeystick, a nickname that stuck. At the time, it was groundbreaking work. It also blew a hole in a standard contrarian talking point: that it used to be warmer in the Middle Ages.
Fifteen years after Dr. Mann and colleagues published their initial research, climate contrarians are still attacking it as if it’s the keystone that holds up the entire edifice of climate science.
Climate science goes to court

The National Review’s last filing in this case devotes a section to rehashing whether or not research Dr. Mann’s original research is valid. They largely cite contrarian books, statements from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), an article from the Telegraph newspaper and Congressional testimony from a contrarian climate scientist. Nothing in their brief substantiates an accusation of “fraud.”
CEI has done the same in some of its filings, though it takes a more sophisticated approach. CEI does more to dress up its accusations in the language of science, but their brief emphasizes typical scientific uncertainties and nitpicking while downplaying the fundamental soundness of the original hockeystick. Again, there’s no evidence of “fraud” in their brief.
What’s missing, of course, from all their briefs, are legitimate scientific citations rejecting or refuting Dr. Mann’s work. That’s because those don’t exist.
As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, follow-up studies have “not only replicated Dr. Mann’s work using the same data and methods, but independently validated and extended his conclusions using other techniques, and using newer and more extensive datasets.”
Indeed, climate scientists have more hockeysticks than an NHL locker room:

NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif


It’s fair to say that Dr. Mann’s original research is among the most scrutinized scientific papers of all time. If it were fraudulent – or even just wrong – we’d know by now.
Scientists take fraud and retractions very seriously. Look at the Andrew Wakefield case: The Lancet retracted his research on vaccines and autism and he was banned from practicing medicine. Or skim the great work over at Retraction Watch.
CEI and the National Review also pass on lame rehashings of emails that were stolen from climate scientists back in 2009. National Review’s brief largely ignores the investigations that cleared Dr. Mann and other scientists of the accusations climate contrarians lobbed at them. CEI’s brief cites these investigations, including one from the National Science Foundation (NSF), but tries to downplay them and question their credibility.
As Dr. Mann’s response brief notes, two universities and six government agencies examined the claims climate contrarians were making about the emails and rejected them. His brief cites the NSF’s conclusion that, “…no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified the results.”
Again, no fraud.
Never the less, National Review’s Steyn has tripled-down on his initial accusations. In a recent post on the case, he called Mann “Doctor Fraudpants.” I suppose in some circles, that’s hilarious. But the humor of accusing a scientist of living a lie is lost on me.
Different worlds

I attended a hearing related to this case last June. It was disturbing to listen to lawyers for CEI and the National Review accuse Dr. Mann of conducting fraudulent research while he was sitting right there. I squirmed in my seat more than once and quietly shook my head at their presentations. It was clear that the lawyers didn’t understand the scientific research they were discussing. I felt like I had stepped way, way down a rabbit hole.
After the hearing concluded, one of the lawyers for the defendants walked up to Dr. Mann outside the court room and asked to shake his hand. He was aghast when Dr. Mann politely declined – as if the lawyer was the one who just had his honor and integrity insulted.
From the lawyers’ perspective, perhaps this was just another day at the office. But for Dr. Mann it was an affront to his character, ethics and work as a scientist.
Crossing the line with attacks on science

I’m not a libel lawyer or a First Amendment scholar. Unlike Dr. Mann’s detractors, I’m not so convinced of my own righteousness that I claim to have expertise on topics that are well outside my wheelhouse. I’m just a guy who loves science and appreciates everything scientists do to inform us about our world.
It’s worth noting that other judges have previously sided with Dr. Mann. Litigants in those cases, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, also did not have a leg to stand on when it came to accusing Dr. Mann of fraud.
Generally, courts and judges have shown respect for the weight of the evidence on a range of scientific issues, including climate, tobacco and asbestos. In this case, it’s abundantly clear to me that the attacks on Dr. Mann are the result of ideological thinking run amok, not any real dispute about the science. Steyn, National Review and CEI can argue against government policies all they want, but misrepresenting scientific research to make their case simply degrades public discourse.
Finally, comparing a scientist to a child molester and accusing him of fraud is ethically indefensible. Whether or not it is legally defensible remains to be seen, of course, but I’ll be watching this case closely.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-mann-responds-to-misleading-filings-in-climate-change-lawsuit-641
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Mann DC Appeals Court brief lays out defamation case and seeks to move toward trial

In a brief filed today in the DC Court of Appeals as part of his defamation lawsuit against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michael Mann once again argued his case and requested that the Court proceed to adjudicate the merits of Defendants' appeal of the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. The stated intention of Dr. Mann's request is to expedite moving to trial on a case that has been long-delayed in procedural tangles.
In January 2014 District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Weisberg found that Dr. Mann's lawsuit should not be dismissed pursuant to the District Of Columbia's Anti-SLAPP statute. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently is a factual allegation that can be proven true or false, not mere hyperbolic opinionating. If it is false it is defamatory, and if it is made with actual malice it is actionable. So said Judge Weisberg in tossing out motions by defendants National Review et al. to dismiss Prof. Michael Mann's defamation complaint. This should have moved the case toward discovery proceedings and a jury trial. Then, on January 24, 2014, Defendants appealed Judge Weisberg's denial of their motion to dismiss. That further delayed movement toward discovery and trial.
Since then, briefs have been filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, on the matter of the Defendants' appeal, and in particular on the Court's jurisdiction with regard to the appeal. Today, Dr. Mann's lawyers filed a 64-page brief with the Court, which says, on the question of jurisdiction:
For the reasons articulated in Dr. Mann's April 25, 2014 Opposition to Appellants' Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, an appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss under the Act does not meet the stringent requirements of the collateral order doctrine, and also substantially delays the progression of meritorious lawsuits such as Dr. Mann. However, in light of the fact that Dr. Mann's lawsuit has been effectively stayed for almost two years, and the fact that this Court has sought briefing on the merits of Defendants' motions to dismiss[,] at this juncture Dr. Mann no longer opposes Defendants' arguments that this Court has jurisdiction. Dr. Mann respectfully requests that this Court proceed to the merits of Defendants' appeal so that his lawsuit can move forward to trial.
If the Court of Appeals accepts this request, presumably it would review de novo the Superior Court's denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss under the DC Anti-SLAPP Act. Of course, Dr. Mann's brief concludes that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed, i.e., that the Superior Court correctly found that Dr. Mann's lawsuit should not be dismissed pursuant to the Anti-SLAPP statute.
For those who are not familiar with this case, or could use a review of some essential points, Dr. Mann's brief filed today contains a 16-page Statement of Facts and a 28-page Argument (the latter is outlined below).
In its Introduction, Dr. Mann's brief says (with underlining added):
Defendants' and amici assert that this case is a threat to freedom of expression and involves a "scientific controversy" which courts are "ill-equipped" to referee. ... They are mistaken. The issues in this case are simple, straight&shy;forward, and certainly capable of an effective judicial resolution. This is not a referendum on global warming, or climate change, or even the accuracy of Dr. Mann's conclusions. This is a defamation case, no more and no less: did Defendants defame Dr. Mann when they accused him of fraud? As in any defamation case, the issues are limited: were the defendant's statements true or false; did the defendant make a defamatory allegation of fact concerning the plaintiff; and did the defendant act with the requisite degree of fault? Those are the essential questions in this case as well—and they do not involve a search for "scientific truth, as Defendants claim. Nor is there, as Defendants suggest, any broad-based "science exclusion" in defamation law.
Here, there is no question that Defendants' assertions were false, and Defendants do not even attempt to argue that their statements about Dr. Mann were true. They have accused him of "academic and scientific misconduct," "data manipulation," "molesting and torturing data," and "corruption and disgrace"—all the while gloating in a disgraceful comparison to Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester who worked at the same institution that employs Dr. Mann. And they made these statements knowing that Dr. Mann's research has been reviewed repeatedly and replicated by other scientists, and that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated: no fraud: no misconduct; no molestation; no corruption. Importantly, Dr. Mann brought this lawsuit not to squelch public debate, but rather to protect himself against those who have recklessly accused him of fraud and misconduct.
Rather than defending the falsity of their words, because they cannot, Defendants attempt to hide behind the inapposite "opinion defense" and the unsupported position that accusations of fraud are an accepted part of political discourse and thus protected under the First Amendment. Defendants say that their words are "protected speech" because they are "pure opinion and hyperbole" and cannot be construed, by any reasonable reader, to be assertions of fact. Not so, and the U.S. Supreme Court has been clear on this opinion defense. ...
Defendants also argue that they really did not intend to accuse Dr. Mann of fraud. They now claim that they were just engaging in hyperbole; and that, in any event, their readers (or at least their reasonable readers) did not construe their statements to be factual assertions of fraud, but rather to be legitimate criticism of Dr. Mann's scientific conclusions. These arguments are not only factually unsupported, they are flatly contradicted by the evidence. Defendants' own subsequent statements make it clear that they intended to—and did—accuse Dr. Mann of fraud. ...
Defendants' secondary challenge to this lawsuit is that it should be dismissed because Dr. Mann is not likely to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. ... The allegations already of record without access to discovery demonstrate overwhelmingly that Defendants knew that there was no fraud, and, at the very least, proves that Defendants acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or a "deliberate effort to avoid the truth." [emphasis added]
The brief has a multi-part Statement of Facts, then this outline of the Argument to the Court of Appeals:
The Superior Court Correctly Found That Dr. Mann's Lawsuit Should Not Be Dismissed Pursuant To The District Of Columbia's Anti-SLAPP Statute.
Relevant Legal Standard
The Superior Court Correctly Found That Dr. Mann Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of His Defamation Claims.
The First Amendment Does Not Immunize Defendants' False Statements Regarding Dr. Mann.
Defendants' Specific Accusations Of Fraud And Misconduct Are Not Constitutionally Protected Opinion.
Defendants' Statements Do Not Qualify As "Rhetorical Hyperbole."
Defendants Acted With Actual Malice.
The Superior Court Correctly Found That Dr. Mann Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits Of His Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claim.
National Review Is Liable For Steyn's Statements.
National Review Failed To Raise With The Superior Court That It Was Immune From Suit Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The CDA Does Not Provide Immunity For National Review.
We think Dr. Mann has a good argument. Now the ball is in the Court of Appeals' court, so to speak. Hopefully the Court will move expeditiously on this long-delayed case.
 
And from the other side.......

Please support us in our legal fight against Michael Mann

Dear Friends,
We end the year, a long and struggling year for us on the business side, with this final appeal to NRO denizens. To help.
Specifically: To help National Review boot our litigious adversaries right in the briefs.
Which is the not-potty-mouthed way of us saying, we’re being sued, and we need your help so we can kick some legal a**.
I refer, of course, to the Nobel Prize non-winner Michael Mann, he the Penn State professor and climatologist, the hockey-stick-temperature-chart-maker, who is suing National Review, Mark Steyn, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The background is here.
Formally sued and served, we’ve been to court, had our say, and paid a lot to say so, and now we stand on the cusp of a trial and discovery and depositions, which will cost a lot more.
Out of pocket.
Sure, we have insurance, and the insurer is paying the bills. But the insurer doesn’t pay the full fare, and I have to tell you, it is quite a fare. Quite. And now as we enter an intense phase of this case, where the legal hours will rise like the sea levels in Professor Mann’s dreams, that fare will become . . . stratospheric.
I’m expecting this will cost a couple hundred grand. And maybe more. Again, this is out of pocket.
Justice can be expensive.
We could settle or reach some deal where this annoying and costly case goes away. But: We are in this fight to win it. We find ourselves (as do a number of media acquaintances — check out these amicus briefs) at the forefront of defending not only NR but also the First Amendment and freedom of the press.
It is a good position to be in, for a website that is based on principle. But not a good position to be in if you already happen to be an entity that loses money every year, and survives thanks to the generosity of its readers, subscribers, and friends.
On top of the expected and all-too-necessary requests that I would usually make at this time of year to help us pay the bills, I now have the added burden of seeking even greater help to offset the legal costs we are incurring.
We find the suit against us to be a preposterous undertaking in a free society, and that just frosts our glaciers. So we are fighting. And we are determined to fight harder.
And: We are determined, as I said, to kick legal heinie. We can and will — with your help.
Would you help? Your financial support of National Review’s defense against the Mann suit is truly needed.
I ask for one reason: Our cause is truly righteous.
If you come to NRO again and again, as so many of you do, but have refused or failed to be moved by our past appeals, for whatever reason, even should it be a principled stand against paying for content, well, I am hoping you will find this time to be that one time when you respond to our plea. Not only with sentiments (“Win one for the Gipper, NR!”), but with real cash. Take this as your motivation: Our foes are intolerant, well-heeled, and determined to use the courts to gag NR, Mark Steyn, and any institution or writer (in their jargon, “deniers”) who questions any aspect of Global Warming science.
For 58 years NR has been in the business of sacred cow–tipping. Not genuflecting to the liberal establishment and its dogmas.
Please be generous to NRO. You can give here.
On behalf of Rich Lowry and all of our colleagues, I deeply appreciate your assisting our ongoing efforts to defend NRO, Mark Steyn, and free speech. And also on behalf of Rich and the NR Gang, I wish all of you — as you celebrate Hanukkah and Christmas, and as you look ahead to the new year — God’s blessings, His graces, His peace, and the happiness and goodwill that comes with this special season.
Best,
Jack Fowler
Publisher
P.S.: In a previous NRO appeal, I asked you to “please help National Review in its fight to kick Professor Michael Mann’s legal heinie.” At our D.C. court hearing earlier this year, Mann’s counsel, in his remarks (and in court motions), took umbrage at our use of “legal heinie”–kicking to raise support. It was a comical moment in the history of jurisprudence, and we are hoping, via this appeal, to see history repeat itself. Be part of that.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365372/help-us-kick-some-jack-fowler
 
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/VIDEO-detail/lng-tankers-pose-safety-risk-howe-sound-chemistry-phd/
LNG tankers pose safety risk to Howe Sound: Chemistry PhD, resident
1
PostedSeptember 9, 2014 by Damien Gillis in BC

Retired KPMG partner, chemistry PhD and My Sea to Sky member Eoin Finn on the safety risks posed by the planned Woodfibre LNG plant in Howe Sound.

He and The Common Sense Canadian’s Damien Gillis discuss the battle over social licence for the industry now playing out amongst various Howe Sound and Sunshine Coast municipal and regional governments.

Meanwhile, at last night’s council meeting – after grilling representatives from Woodfibre LNG - West Vancouver reaffirmed an earlier vote it took calling for a ban on LNG tankers in Howe Sound.LNG tankers pose safety risk to Howe Sound: Chemistry PhD, resident
1
PostedSeptember 9, 2014 by Damien Gillis in BC

Retired KPMG partner, chemistry PhD and My Sea to Sky member Eoin Finn on the safety risks posed by the planned Woodfibre LNG plant in Howe Sound.

He and The Common Sense Canadian’s Damien Gillis discuss the battle over social licence for the industry now playing out amongst various Howe Sound and Sunshine Coast municipal and regional governments.

Meanwhile, at last night’s council meeting – after grilling representatives from Woodfibre LNG - West Vancouver reaffirmed an earlier vote it took calling for a ban on LNG tankers in Howe Sound.<iframe width="616" height="375" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GEzYVd8Om7U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fr...ars+recover+from+pipeline/10189506/story.html

Fraser River would take up to five years to recover from pipeline oil spill

Kinder Morgan study estimates where oil would go after pipeline rupture

BY LARRY PYNN, VANCOUVER SUN SEPTEMBER 10, 2014

Pin It 0

STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )

Fraser River would take up to five years to recover from pipeline oil spill

The study looks at how oil spilled into the Fraser River near the Port Mann Bridge (shown before disassembly of the old bridge began) would behave.
Photograph by: Gerry Kahrmann , Vancouver Sun
The environmental recovery from a “full bore” oil pipeline rupture into the lower Fraser River could take up to five years.

That’s according to a study done as part of Kinder Morgan’s planning for its proposed $5.4-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The study examined the environmental impact of a spill of 1.25 million litres of diluted bitumen into the Fraser River just below the Port Mann Bridge.

If the spill occurred from May to July, during high flows on the Fraser, the oil would largely miss nearby environmentally sensitive areas such as Sturgeon Banks in Richmond and Roberts Bank near Tsawwassen and be carried all the way across the Strait of Georgia to the Gulf Islands as well as sweeping around to Point Roberts, Wash., just south of Tsawwassen, the study predicted.

The study, which includes the experience from spills such as the 2010 Enbridge spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, assumes that oil from a pipeline rupture adjacent to railyards on the south side of the Fraser, a few hundreds metres from the shoreline, would flow through culverts and ditches directly into the river.

Most of the oil in a June spill would travel to the river mouth in one day and more would remain on the surface, compared with a spill in winter when river flows are low and more oil would collect on the shoreline.

River flows range from between 7,000 and 12,000 cubic metres a second in June, while winter flows are 2,000 cubic metres a second or lower.

The study estimates that “the process of restoration and recovery (to pre-spill condition) could take anywhere from 12 months to five years,” depending on the area affected and that “a considerable amount of the spilled oil” would become stranded along shorelines.

Project manager Greg Toth said in an interview Tuesday from Calgary that the company used horizontal directional drilling during replacement of the existing 24-inch pipeline about 12 years ago, just downstream of Port Mann Bridge. The pipeline run about 35 metres below the deepest part of the river.

The new 36-inch line would be installed using a similar process, although the exact location is up in the air after protests over the proposed use of Colony Farm Regional Park in Port Coquitlam as a staging area.

Toth said it would take about 15 minutes to recognize a full-bore rupture had happened and shut down the pipeline. He noted that the study is intended to show how oil would behave after a spill and does not taken into account emergency spill-response and cleanup measures that could speed up recovery.

“With any kind of pipeline there is an element of risk,” he noted. “Any spill is of very significant consequence.”

He noted the risks can be reduced in higher-risk areas such as near the Fraser River through measures such as “heavier-wall pipe,” location of valves to reduce the amount of oil that might spill, and burying the pipe deeper.

“A lot of our focus will be on preventing the spill from occurring.”

In a summer spill, the probability of oil floating on the Fraser River surface would exceed 90 per cent between Port Mann Bridge and a point downstream of the George Massey Tunnel, 60 to 80 per cent from there to the river mouth, and 40 per cent in the side channels and marshes near Ladner and Port Guichon, the study estimated.

The chance of shoreline oiling is 60 to 100 per cent along the south shore of the river between Port Mann Bridge and the upstream end of Annacis Island, 40 to 60 per cent along the west and south shorelines of Annacis Island and along the north shoreline of the Fraser River from the lower end of Annacis Island to the tunnel, 20 to 40 per cent along the balance of the main channel, and less than 10 per cent in the side channels and wetlands near Ladner and Port Guichon.

Beyond the river mouth, the oil is predicted to disperse “with considerable momentum” to the north or south and “affect shorelines on the opposite side” of the Strait of Georgia.

The study concludes there is “potential for reed beds and salt marsh vegetation to trap floating or submerged oil” and that “oil spill recovery effects may be equally damaging (as oil) to the vegetation.” Fish kills in the main stem of the river are unlikely due to high water flows.

Mortality could be high for waterfowl such as ducks and geese using the lower Fraser, including oiling of eggs, and “these effects could extend along the entire river channel, as well as affecting portions of the Delta.”

Seabirds further out into the strait would also be affexted, however most migratory birds such as sandpipers would already be on their northern nesting grounds. Marine mammals such as otter, mink, beaver and muskrat could be heavily affected, less so larger animals such as raccoons and deer.

Last month, environmentalists, with financial support from the City of Vancouver, released hundreds of plywood drift cards on the lower Fraser River in an experiment to simulate the dispersion of a pipeline oil spill.

Coastal residents who find the cards are asked to report the date and location to help researchers calculate where oil from a spill might wind up over what period of time and along what route.

Although past card tests have shown Victoria to be especially vulnerable to a spill along the Kinder Morgan tanker route, some have travelled widely along the coast, including to Cape Scott off northern Vancouver Island and farther north to Haida Gwaii.

Kinder Morgan’s expansion project involves about 987 kilometres of new pipeline, new and modified facilities, such as pump stations and tanks, and the redevelopment of 193 kilometres of existing pipeline, along with expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby.

lpynn@vancouversun.com



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fr...eline+spill/10189506/story.html#ixzz3CxbkBpMG
 
walleyes said:
You can't stop a train lol..

http://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/new...h-columbia-now-have-19-lng-projects-1.1306181
Click to expand...

I suspect the locals in the Peace are not LOL'ing with you....
http://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/news/local-news/work-camps-aren-t-adding-up-for-prrd-1.1131940

The Peace River Regional District is currently investigating how many worker camps are in the Peace Region.
You might think it would be possible for a government agency to go out into the hinterlands, make a few phone calls and roughly figure out how many facilities are housing industrial workers outside city limits. Not quite.
Figuring out how many camps there are in the Peace region is educated guess work. Some authorities figure there are upwards of 1,800 camps of varying sizes in the region. Some say more, others fewer.
A number of government agencies are charged with regulating camps, depending where they are built. The PRRD wants an overarching database. But that's proving difficult to create, officials said at Thursday’s regular meeting.
"Basically, we're just going to go out and see what data's easily and readily available so we can count work camps in our region," said Bruce Simard, the general manager of development services.
The district wants to know where these camps are, when they went in, what their size is. But even figuring out how long camps are going to be in place is difficult.
PRRD chair Karen Goodings said there are a number of issues within the PRRD's authority that it cannot address with camps – including waste disposal and weed control.
Then there are issues around booze. The district once pushed for "dry" camps, where liquor is prohibited. Now, some people who live by camps wish workers could drink inside the gates.
"We need an area in the camp where they can go and have their drink, because when they go outside that's a problem," said Goodings, who recently heard such complaints from residents in the Pink Mountain area.


Taxes go through the roof for Charlie Lake man
If the past five years were any indication, Ron McCaughan's property tax assessment shouldn't have been noteworthy. For those five years, the assessed value of his eight-acre property and house was around $229,000.
This year, it was $540,000 – more than double, despite the fact he has made no improvements on the property. His tax also doubled, to just shy of $4,000.
McCaughan, who has lived on the property since 1985 and is a senior on fixed income, brought his plight to the PRRD at Thursday’s meeting. He got a sympathetic ear. PRRD officials discussed what they saw as a growing issue of spiking property tax assessments in the Peace. Director Arthur Hadland said the demands of industry are pushing property taxes ever higher – despite the fact the money is not going to local services. "It's great to have growth and a stimulated economy, but this is at the expense of the citizens," he said. "How can that be rationalized? Where does that money go?" Hadland continued. "All of the sudden this is a windfall for government. That's an astronomical increase." Chief Administrative Officer Chris Cvik agreed, adding, "This is not a unique phenomena. You hear often that property values go up, and people on fixed incomes have trouble paying the taxes on a fixed income." McCaughan said he's outside of the B.C. Assessment Authority's brief appeal period, and has asked the regional district for help. The PRRD plans to ask the authority to reconsider the assessment, and has asked them to attend a meeting to explain what residents in McCaughan's situation can do.

When it comes to recruiting doctors, the PRRD is trying everything
The PRRD's strategy for recruiting doctors is a bit like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. Directors say that they will need to try everything they can think of, and a few things they haven’t yet, to address the region's critical shortage of medical professionals. Chetwynd and Fort St. John recently sent representatives to a rural health conference in Penticton, and both are confident they piqued the interest of several MDs. Chetwynd will lose half its doctors in the next year, as one retires and one moves on. The region is doing what it can to find doctors to set up shop in the region. In many ways, they're still seeing what works. The PRRD moved Thursday to send letters to resource companies asking for "assistance in recruiting and retaining medical professionals." Copied on the letter are Canada Natural Resources, Progress Energy Canada, Shell Canada, Encana, Exxon, Spectra, TransCanada and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Before they sent out the letter, Chetwynd Mayor Merlin Nichols said they should add Petronas for good measure. He also suggested the region create a unified, regional medical recruitment strategy. "If we're asking someone for money, it would be wise to outline how we're going to use it," he said. He suggested other municipalities send representatives to rural health conferences, and to speak with medical schools.



You have to ask why the "medical professionals" are packing up and walking away from this area. Pehaps they are getting sick of the BS that's going on there. Happened in Alberta now carbon copy of it in BC.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know boys,, I been thinking about what you all been saying and well I figured I better get prepared for the end,, cause it's nigh I know.

I will be offering these at a reasonable rate if anyone is interested. They say it works,, can't argue with science.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 60
Let me guess... it snowed in Alberta so therefore global warming is false.
Is that a picture of you? LOL

You seem to be one of those that think your entitled to do what ever you want.
I guess that's the culture of entitlement for you.....

Pipeline west ... nope
Pipeline south .... nope
Pipeline east ..... nope
Pipeline north .... good luck with that ... LOL

Starting to see a trend there walley

What's your next plan... drill your way to China
 
Last edited by a moderator:
walleyes said:
So science isn't conclusive and is always changing,, it's not certain,, hmmm who would have thought. Oh my now what !!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...cist-explains-why-science-not-about-certainty

http://www.dosits.org/animals/advancedtopics/scientificuncertainty/

http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Feynman-Uncertainty.pdf
Click to expand...

It seems your not very clear on certainty nor consensuses.
Perhaps this would help.
[hl2lShU6zD0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0
 
[h=1]Arctic Sea Ice: The Death Spiral Continues[/h][nTUghG2Zwsk] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTUghG2Zwsk&list=UU-KTrAqt2784gL_I4JisF1w

No debate.... no models... no temp gauges needed.
Nature could care less what you think or post.
It is what it is, no matter what your feelings are there Walleyes
 
And lets not forget about ocean acidification. The climate change deniers tend to skip over that data since relative to global temperature, it is even clearer that the cause is man made CO2 is driving the changes and the chang in pH easier to measure/observe. This is already affecting our local shellfish farms and we'll see more problems related to this in the near future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SpringVelocity
Prawning Closed Again for 3 month Window
Replies
0
Views
2K
SpringVelocity
SpringVelocity
SpringVelocity
Prawn Closure
Replies
3
Views
4K
seachicken
seachicken
SVIAC
IMPORTANT: Feb. 27 Fisheries Town Hall Mtg. in Langford
Replies
13
Views
2K
PEETZcanada
PEETZcanada
CIVANO
April 1 rules
Replies
75
Views
9K
searun
searun
W
Government of Canada working to rebuild Pacific salmon populations
Replies
9
Views
3K
mbowers
mbowers
Back
Top