Northern Gateway APPROVED

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jealous? Of what? lol You live in this waste land, slave for the oil bosses, sold out your conscience, your soul, your environment for a bundle of dirty money. All that dirty money can buy you is a 4 day lodge stay on our still beautiful coast to enjoy what we can have everyday. Then you have to go back to your waste land to slave another year to afford another 4 day stay here. Nice life indeed! I may not make as much as you but man am I glad I don't have to live like you. Who is really the HAVE NOT? Think about it!

Lol,, what the heck man,, are you really that naïve and ignorant to what the rest of the country is like that you think there is nothing out here but waste land lol.. Actually you are kind of right,, there is probably more untouched land (wasted land) than there is in BC.. I will guarantee you if you take all the housing and development in the lower island and Gulf Islands alone that would cover more ground than our oilsands development,, if you took all the housing and development from the lower mainland and the Island that would be more than all of Alberta put together.. Get out once and a while my friend,, it would do you some good.. Yup all those sewers being flushed into the ocean,, no harm there,, all those green house gasses from all those vehicles an boats poisoning the water and air,, no harm there..

No problem I will always come back to Alberta,, its a beautiful place,, lots of wild country out here my friend lots. Those mines are in a very small corner of our province and did you not read some of the articles,, they will only remain in a very small part,, its a very small part that can be open pit mined..

Yah waste land Alberta what an ugly place.

IMG_0320.jpg


IMG_0042.jpg


IMG_0545.jpg


IMG-20120720-00028.jpg


BonnyvilleNo87-20120807-00042.jpg


IMG_0644.jpg


IMG_0211.jpg


IMG_0992.jpg


Yup,, pretty tough place to live in..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's awesome bro! Heres a few of mine...
 

Attachments

  • 123.jpg
    123.jpg
    93.9 KB · Views: 158
  • Alberta Gold 025.jpg
    Alberta Gold 025.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 152
  • Calling lake 091.jpg
    Calling lake 091.jpg
    98.2 KB · Views: 155
  • Rd Trip Sock Fishery 021.jpg
    Rd Trip Sock Fishery 021.jpg
    94.6 KB · Views: 154
and yours goes where??

All sewage discharged into a naturally occurring waterway such as the Bow River or the North Saskatchewan River goes back to the ocean (which you obviously know), the difference being, walleyes most likely is "treated" to meet strict guidelines before they re-introduce it back to whatever river. I know this for a fact! Unfortunately, in Victoria, my home, they discharge approximately 100+ million litres A DAY of "untreated" but screened sewage strait out into the ocean - two kilometers straight out from McCauley Point.

This disgusts me to no end! Dilution factors be damned! To me it's the equivalent of me pissing in some families back yard every day but I tell them the rain will wash it away, you'll be fine. :(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know Englishman I wont even respond to your comments socialists don't have the intelligence to carry on a conversation with,, they are blind.
Its easy to live in your world,, you just appose everything,, its simple.
The Socialist utopia you dream of doesn't work,, its been tried many times,, it doesn't work.
For those more intelligent people,, some more reading for you..

LONG LIVE CAPITILISM..
Walleyes, you a making a big leap there.

In the case of climate change, you keep trying to politicise a scientific subject. One’s political opinions or beliefs are completely irrelevant to the topic. All that matters are the data, the facts and the evidence and that is simply overwhelming.

Regarding the topic of Alberta’s failure to set aside decent funds through the collection of royalties and revenues as discussed in the GLG post, it seems totally short sighted to me. Even capitalists save for a rainy day. Perhaps you do not care even for your children or grand children? You may be able afford to send them to private hospitals now, but what about those that cannot? And what of the future?
This one is not even worth commenting on. It is another of the “conspiracy theorist” global warming denier sites that claim it is all a “hoax”. That’s right it seriously claims the entire scientific community across the global has perpetuated some kind of fraud!! To what end it never explained. It is such a bizarre and perverted position to take that it beggars belief. It is another “shoot the messenger “ variant where in this case they denigrate the entire scientific community, not just one person.
Ditto this one, although this site is for those of even lower intellectual powers.
This article is from a journal that supports right wing causes and is anti-science in general. The first part of the article is a rant on Obamacare and their political leanings are totally evident.

The second part of the article somewhat hysterically tries to discredit the science of claim change by implying dark conspiracies about increase “government control” of the energy industry.

Just taking one piece of so-called “scientific” information in here. I quote:-

Arctic sea ice has historically fluctuated in regular cycles. While it did decline during the 1978 to 1998 period, that decline has now reversed, falsifying alarmist predictions that the North Pole would be free of ice by 2013. Globally, some glaciers have been melting and receding. Others have been growing and expanding. Overall, the total extent of global sea ice has not been declining at any enhanced rate since the end of the Little Ice Age around 150 years ago.”

Arctic sea ice has NOT reversed and continues to decline. The true figures with lots of graphs are here.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#seaIce


No one has ever said the North Pole would be ice free by 2013. That is a popular deception propagated by climate science deniers and explained here.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013

The bit about the “some glaciers melting and receding. Others have been growing and expanding” is so facile and deceptive of the real truth it is pathetic. The real data on loss of glacial ice worldwide and the actual ration of declining to growing ones is given here:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

When I can pick up on lies and false information in just one small section like this, it needs no further examination to know the article is complete lies and totally the imaginings of a right wing lunatic. But sadly Walleyes actually believes this stuff!!
Ah yes the Heartland Institute. A completely right wing nut bar organisation that had been totally discredited. It publishes selective information, false information , and the deluded realities of certain climate change deniers. The truth about these guys is all revealed here.
climate change deniers. The truth about these guys is all revealed here.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/
http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/alternative-reality-heartland-institute-s-nipcc-report-0015140

Walleyes, you do not get any of your information from SCIENCE based sites. You get it all from right wing media opinion sites, which are low brow and politically motivated. No wonder you are so ill-informed!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget these....:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11][12][13]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[14]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[15]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [16]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[17]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [18]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[20]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[21][22]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[23]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[24]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[25]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[26]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[27]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[28]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[29]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[30]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[31]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[32]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[33]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[34][35]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[36]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[37][38]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[39]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[40][41][42]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[43]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[44]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[45]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[46]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[47]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[48]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[49]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC.[50][51]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[52]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[53]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[54]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[55]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [56]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[57]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[58]
 
This article is written by Robert M. Carter, who is a notorious climate change denier.
This is short Guardian article for those short on time who want to know a bit more about Carter and his cherry picking of facts.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/nov/30/climate-change-sceptic-bob-carter

This next link below is fascinating. It started out as book review by a climate science prof of Carter’s tome about how climate change science is supposedly wrong. He comprehensively debunks the book.

He then wrote a follow up 30,000 word essay detailing the science even more clearly and in great detail showing with FACTS and DATA why Carter’s words are false, misleading and outright wrong. A neat table at the end of the essay lists about 30 instances where he answer YES Carter to the question is Carter “IS THIS CHERRY PICKING,PARTIAL TRUTH OR MISREPRESENTATION”?

Again sadly Walleyes is getting his information from sources like the link he posted and actually believes it! He never back tracks, or reads any real science at all and would never read a 30,000 word scientific essay. EVER! So much easier to digest and believe Ezra Levant’s idiotic rants.

http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The Climate counter consensus 9-Carter.pdf

All Carter’s preposterous arguments for no climate change are further analysed here.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-alternate-reality.html

Interesting. Two donations are for flood relief. Only just and proper, since the companies concerned are contributing, albeit in a small way now but ever growing, to bringing watery Armageddon onto High River. I hope they are as a generous in the future!
One donation is for a park. Good for them!
Another donation is for an engineering lab that is going to research heavy oil boilers among other things. Self interest and of course entirely misplaced. We need donations to labs that will research solar powered boilers. But they won’t go there of course!

Well here is my analysis of the remainder of the donations. A mixed bag to be sure. Some self interest, some philanthropic.


  1. Oil and gas technology centre. No solar here!
  2. Power engineering at college. Not clear what type of engineering.
  3. Cardiovascular centre . Great!
  4. Engineering school. Seems to only focus on conventional natural resources. No solar, wind or tidal power research here as far as I can see.
  5. Multiplex centre - running track. Well and good.

I wonder what these donations are as a %tage of profit? And the overriding fact is these donations can never outweigh the economic costs of the damage being created, and that will be created in larger measure to come.
 
Don't forget these....:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

That's a heck of a list there Soxy......
Did you read that first part....
Scientists in this section have made comments
Is that like an opinion?
If it's an opinion poll why not put the graph from that website.....

729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png


Looks like you lost again....
What's wrong... Neil got you down...
 
Well Englishman my socialist friend like I said those were just a few examples most can't be found because they don't find it necessary to blow their own horn all of the time. These companies and many more build our soccer fields our community centres our swimming pools,, huge donations all the time. Along with the education centres,, cause remember we are educating our children to run this place with long term secure jobs.. I understand you have no concept of what that is,, nor the value in that but we do out here.

The articles you refer too are simple left wing, socialist nut bag fear mongering.. You say ones political views have nothing to do with it,, it has everything to do with it,, or is David Sazuki a right wing conservative,, how bout All Gore,, or any of your other left wing counter parts.. These goof balls are making huge money off of this BS and you are feeding them.

Again one can not have an intelligent conversation with a Socialist nor a liberal,, they are brain dead.. They keep trying their useless policies over and over and they don't work. Their ideals are based on human emotion,, it all sounds good on paper but it can't work. Same as this Climate Change BS,, yah you can tell a person anything and scare the crap out of them and play on their emotions and they believe you,, because most people are more emotional than they are rational and that's what is happening here. I have proved you wrong on very statement you have all made here you just don't want to see it cause your blind you live by emotion not by rationality. The real world feeds you, houses you takes care of you. Your weak individuals that need the government to look after you, you need a policy, a guide line for very action in your life. You need someone to feed you your thoughts because you can't create your own line of thought,, so which line of thought do you adopt,, the emotional one of course.. The socialist dream !!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I knew that graph was there. Why do you think I posted the link? It just shows how easily led GLG and Eman are. If so called scientists say it it must be true. So the scientists that aren't in the majority have got it wrong? See what I'm getting at? You two nutcases cant think for yourselves. I wonder if the graph was the other way would you be championing it as you are now. I think I know the answer to that.
Walleeyes and Dennis T. have got it right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those socialists at Insurance Bureau of Canada.
What do they know compared to you tinfoil hat fellas.
After all they aren't digging ditches in the patch they are in offices behind desks sending out cheques to the folks in High River, Calgary and Toronto.

It is no secret that the frequency and severity of natural disasters is on the rise in Canada and worldwide. Hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires and severe rainstorms are happening more often than ever before and costing us dearly. Canada’s property and casualty insurers are leading the charge to encourage communities, households and individuals to adapt the way they live and build to minimize the impact of natural disasters associated with our changing climate.
http://www.ibc.ca/en/Media_Centre/Hot_Topics.asp

The purpose of this report is to provide a greater understanding, based on the best available peer reviewed science, about how weather patterns have changed in the past and how they are expected to change in the future. In doing so, the report aims to provide decision makers with the information they need to better adapt public and private infrastructure to the realities of the changing climate, while allowing home and business insurers to plan for future claims scenarios.

http://www.ibc.ca/en/Natural_Disasters/Weather_Story.asp
 
I knew that graph was there. Why do you think I posted the link? It just shows how easily led GLG and Eman are. If so called scientists say it it must be true. So the scientists that aren't in the majority have got it wrong? See what I'm getting at? You two nutcases cant think for yourselves. I wonder if the graph was the other way would you be championing it as you are now. I think I know the answer to that.
Walleeyes and Dennis T. have got it right.

If that's what you think.....
Why don't you give us your theory or point me to your scientist that has your answer as to why GW is all wrong... You must be able to backup your claims with some kind of evidence. If not, well your just being silly and your argument is nothing more then simple name calling....

Got Neil?
 
Well Englishman my socialist friend like I said those were just a few examples most can't be found because they don't find it necessary to blow their own horn all of the time. These companies and many more build our soccer fields our community centres our swimming pools,, huge donations all the time. Along with the education centres,, cause remember we are educating our children to run this place with long term secure jobs.. I understand you have no concept of what that is,, nor the value in that but we do out here.
All you are doing here is practicing the reverse of the “kill the messenger” emotional response. The donations are all good therefore the companies are all good, their work is all good and perfect, and their morals and motives are all good and above reproach. And most silly of all, that climate change is not happening because the companies and their mouthpieces say it isn’t.
That’s like someone saying in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century that the slaveholder plantation owners all donated money to their church and communities so slavery must be a good thing because it provides money for the people. Just like the Northern Gateway (and the tar sands) provide some good for some people but at a huge cost to other Canadians and people around the world.

The articles you refer too are simple left wing, socialist nut bag fear mongering.. You say ones political views have nothing to do with it,, it has everything to do with it,, or is David Sazuki a right wing conservative,, how bout All Gore,, or any of your other left wing counter parts.. These goof balls are making huge money off of this BS and you are feeding them. !!
Walleyes by this little rant you have demonstrated the weird conservation right wing propaganda has twisted your logic. You cannot see how ridiculous it is to claim NASA, the IPCC, the American Metrological Society, the American Geophysical Union and many other scientific bodies are ALL socialist fear mongers. It is mad conspiracy theory writ large and everyone knows you cannot argue with a conspiracy theorist because they just keep enlarging the conspiracy, just like you are.

Here is the NASA site put together by those unthinking NASA socialists… LOL
http://climate.nasa.gov/

Here is the real climate site put together by a group of distinguished climate scientists from various academic institutions. But you and Ezra know more than all these guys right Walleyes? LOL

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Here is the National Snow and Ice Data Center site. Bet they are left wing conspirators who are hiding the fact that the world is cooling so they have more snow and ice to study eh? LOL LOL!!
http://nsidc.org/

Here is the IPCC site. A hot bed of UN left wingers and plotters to undermine democracy!! LOL
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UtwqcLTTm00

And here is a list of all the distinguished scientific bodies in the U.S. who all support the fact of climate change. They must all be Democrats eh Walleyes? LOL
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Here is an article on global scientific opinion. And you really believe all these scientists from all over the world are all left wing conspirators?! The utterly incredible irrationality of your views Walleyes beggars belief!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

In reality climate change has nothing to do with politics, politicians, journalists, beliefs or opinions. It is solely based on facts, evidences and data produced by SCIENCE. You can ignore reality all you like. You can accuse all the folks at NASA of being part of the socialist conspiracy all you like. The more you do that the more irrational, illogical and crazy your views are exposed to be.

Again one can not have an intelligent conversation with a Socialist nor a liberal,, they are brain dead.. They keep trying their useless policies over and over and they don't work. Their ideals are based on human emotion,, it all sounds good on paper but it can't work. !!
Uh, I think I just highlighted the opposite above. You cannot argue with a right wing fanatic. They ignore all facts, science and evidence because it undermines their world view. They are fundamentalists by nature and it is no accident that the vast majority of religious fundamentalists who deny evolution, denigrate gays, and belittle women are rabid right wing conservatives like you.
Same as this Climate Change BS,, yah you can tell a person anything and scare the crap out of them and play on their emotions and they believe you,, because most people are more emotional than they are rational and that's what is happening here. I have proved you wrong on very statement you have all made here you just don't want to see it cause your blind you live by emotion not by rationality. The real world feeds you, houses you takes care of you. Your weak individuals that need the government to look after you, you need a policy, a guide line for very action in your life. You need someone to feed you your thoughts because you can't create your own line of thought,, so which line of thought do you adopt,, the emotional one of course.. The socialist dream !!
Walleyes you are being so ridiculous you are comical. I have posted many scientific links on this post above and earlier ones, and you have not refuted any of them with science. Instead you post links to Ezra Levant or make personal attacks on Suzuki, Gore etc. The only thinking rational people in the world are the scientists and those who take the trouble to actually read and understand the scientific evidence. They live in the real world because that is what science is all about. The study of the physics and chemistry of the natural world, and the universe and how it actually works.

But right wing conservative fundamentalists like yourself remain ignorant of, or willfully ignore scientific evidence, and continue to make ridiculous conspiracy theory posts and simple minded political rants like yours. As I have said in an earlier post Walleyes ironically you could be the best ally rationality and sane thinking could have, because your posts demonstrate so clearly the weird mentality of those that cannot accept the evidence for climate change.
 
I knew that graph was there. Why do you think I posted the link? It just shows how easily led GLG and Eman are. If so called scientists say it it must be true. So the scientists that aren't in the majority have got it wrong? See what I'm getting at? You two nutcases cant think for yourselves. I wonder if the graph was the other way would you be championing it as you are now. I think I know the answer to that.
Walleeyes and Dennis T. have got it right.

I just utterly demolished Walleyes weird right wing attempt to create conspiracy theories and ignore all logic, evidence and science in the above post.
All the scientific sites and all the thousands of scientists and their work represented in those links prove you, Walleyes and Dennis T. completely wrong!
 
I just utterly demolished Walleyes weird right wing attempt to create conspiracy theories and ignore all logic, evidence and science in the above post.
All the scientific sites and all the thousands of scientists and their work represented in those links prove you, Walleyes and Dennis T. completely wrong!
Didn't read a single word of your novel. Get a life, go fishing...
 
Well like I said boys,, as far as the pipeline goes that is totally the people's choice,, it's your ground it's your property,, one way or another our product will make its way out of here,, and if these companies can't expand to the size they want,, no big deal,, there's enough as it exists now for us to make an awesome living on.. I mentioned before,, even us out here feel it's going to fast,, wouldn't bother us if it slowed some.

And Englishman in the end I really don't mind left wing socialist nor Eco freaks as they are called.. Between their far left far green attitudes and us far right, capitalists we find a middle ground and make this place work. Between BC, Alberta and Sask there really are no better places in this world to live.. I truly would hate to see anything terrible happen to either place..

Peace my brothers and maybe we will see each other out on the water some day,, I know I am looking forward to my time out west this summer again, probably even make it out this spring,, who knows. For now I got a rig to run,, drilling some exploratory wells getting our geology all mapped out for our up coming pads for this year.. Take care boys..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't read a single word of your novel. Get a life, go fishing...



How witty of you....
We understand your handicap perhaps reading isn't your strong point.
May suggest watching TV...... That right wing Thatcher....
[Fys5Z63xCvA] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fys5Z63xCvA
 
... we find a middle ground and make this place work. Between BC, Alberta and Sask there really are no better places in this world to live.. I truly would hate to see anything terrible happen to either place.. Peace my brothers and maybe we will see each other out on the water some day...Take care boys..

Well said - I think that's what we all want to see. Good luck! See you on the water...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top