An Open And Civil Debate Before 11:00 AM

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
Apparently, they don't always stay sealed.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/

The two most recent leaks to the existing 2,143-mile pipeline, which carries crude oil from Alberta to Cushing, Okla., were much larger than the nine earlier ones that Girling described. On May 7 near Millner, N.D., the pipeline spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil and on May 29 in Atchison, Kan., it leaked about 420 gallons.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/us-canada-keystone-pipeline-hits-bumps/1#.VG4nfDCJOuY

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/04/07/its-crazy-to-think-keystone-xl-wont-leak/



when you Google, studies keystone pipeline, the first result, a study from Cornell University says
Previous Studies Are Misleading; Project May Kill More Jobs Than It Creates

It isn't exactly a thumbs up. I know you think little of organizations like NASA, so I can only guess what your opinion of Cornell is, but in typical beenthere fashion you really aren't being truthful.
Click to expand...
that was very civil, just like my debate with bugeye on this same issue after 11 am yesterday :)
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
travisw said:
Apparently, they don't always stay sealed.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/

The two most recent leaks to the existing 2,143-mile pipeline, which carries crude oil from Alberta to Cushing, Okla., were much larger than the nine earlier ones that Girling described. On May 7 near Millner, N.D., the pipeline spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil and on May 29 in Atchison, Kan., it leaked about 420 gallons.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/us-canada-keystone-pipeline-hits-bumps/1#.VG4nfDCJOuY

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/04/07/its-crazy-to-think-keystone-xl-wont-leak/



when you Google, studies keystone pipeline, the first result, a study from Cornell University says
Previous Studies Are Misleading; Project May Kill More Jobs Than It Creates

It isn't exactly a thumbs up. I know you think little of organizations like NASA, so I can only guess what your opinion of Cornell is, but in typical beenthere fashion you really aren't being truthful.
Click to expand...
Come on, everyone knows you just another UB sock puppet.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Hazydat620 said:
Study's and study's paid for by people in favor of the pipeline? Of course they wouldn't say it's bad. Furthermore how can you get opinions of the masses from a study? A poll would be what you want.
Click to expand...
WOOPS.
"The State Department released its final environmental study on the potential impact of the Keystone XL oil pipeline Friday, bringing it one step closer to approval and dealing a major blow to environmentalists."http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/keystone-xl-clears-crucial-hurdle
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Keystone pipeline doesn't do anything for Americans except pollute their environment

Considering the congress, of course it will pass
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Keystone pipeline doesn't do anything for Americans except pollute their environment

Considering the congress, of course it will pass
Click to expand...
Just about everything pollutes the environment, just like the commuter you are using and the car you are driving.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
WOOPS.
"The State Department released its final environmental study on the potential impact of the Keystone XL oil pipeline Friday, bringing it one step closer to approval and dealing a major blow to environmentalists."http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/keystone-xl-clears-crucial-hurdle
Click to expand...
Why would you cite a source that agrees with the IPCC on the issue of anthropogenic climate change, a position you vehemently disagree with, yet use that same exact source to support the idea that the keystone pipeline won't affect it?

Yeah, "woops" alright...

"ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The Department evaluated the potential construction and operational impacts of the proposed Project and alternatives across a wide range of environmental resources. The analysis discusses public and agency interests and concerns as reflected in the submissions received during the scoping period and on the 2013 Draft Supplemental EIS, and includes:

•Climate change, including lifecycle (well-to-wheels [WTW]) GHG emissions associated with oil sands development, refining, and consumption;
•Potential releases or spills of oil;
•Socioeconomics, including the potential job and revenue benefits of the proposed Project, as well as concerns about environmental justice;
•Water resources, including potential effects on groundwater aquifers (e.g., Ogallala Aquifer) and surface waters;
•Wetlands;
•Threatened and endangered species;
•Potential effects on geology, soils, other biological resources (e.g., vegetation, fish, and wildlife), air quality, noise, land use, recreation, and visual resources; and
•Cultural resources, including tribal consultation.

ES.4.1 Climate Change

Changes to the Earth’s climate have been observed over the past century with a global temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012. This warming has coincided with increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. In order for the Earth’s heat and energy to remain at a steady state, the solar energy that is incoming must equal the energy that is radiated into space (see Figure ES-9). GHGs contribute to trapping outbound radiation within the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface), and this is called the greenhouse effect.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-15

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the rate and amount of GHGs have increased as a result of human activity. The additional GHGs intensify the greenhouse effect, resulting in a greater amount of heat being trapped within the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries around the world, in its Fifth Assessment Report concludes that global warming in the climate system is unequivocal based on measured increases in temperature, decrease in snow cover, and higher sea levels.

This Supplemental EIS evaluates the relationship between the proposed Project with respect to GHG emissions and climate change from the following perspectives:

•The GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project and its connected actions;
•The potential increase in indirect lifecycle (wells-to-wheels) GHG emissions associated with the WCSB crude oil that would be transported by the proposed Project;
•How the GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project cumulatively contribute to climate change; and
•An assessment of the effects that future projected climate change could have in the proposed Project area and on the proposed Project."
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Just about everything pollutes the environment, just like the commuter you are using and the car you are driving.
Click to expand...
"Everything does, so fuck it!" is not a valid excuse for bullshit that won't help Americans

A better question is, why are you for it?
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Why would you cite a source that agrees with the IPCC on the issue of anthropogenic climate change, a position you vehemently disagree with, yet use that same exact source to support the idea that the keystone pipeline won't affect it?

Yeah, "woops" alright...

"ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The Department evaluated the potential construction and operational impacts of the proposed Project and alternatives across a wide range of environmental resources. The analysis discusses public and agency interests and concerns as reflected in the submissions received during the scoping period and on the 2013 Draft Supplemental EIS, and includes:

•Climate change, including lifecycle (well-to-wheels [WTW]) GHG emissions associated with oil sands development, refining, and consumption;
•Potential releases or spills of oil;
•Socioeconomics, including the potential job and revenue benefits of the proposed Project, as well as concerns about environmental justice;
•Water resources, including potential effects on groundwater aquifers (e.g., Ogallala Aquifer) and surface waters;
•Wetlands;
•Threatened and endangered species;
•Potential effects on geology, soils, other biological resources (e.g., vegetation, fish, and wildlife), air quality, noise, land use, recreation, and visual resources; and
•Cultural resources, including tribal consultation.

ES.4.1 Climate Change

Changes to the Earth’s climate have been observed over the past century with a global temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit between 1880 and 2012. This warming has coincided with increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. In order for the Earth’s heat and energy to remain at a steady state, the solar energy that is incoming must equal the energy that is radiated into space (see Figure ES-9). GHGs contribute to trapping outbound radiation within the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface), and this is called the greenhouse effect.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary

Keystone XL Project

ES-15

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the rate and amount of GHGs have increased as a result of human activity. The additional GHGs intensify the greenhouse effect, resulting in a greater amount of heat being trapped within the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries around the world, in its Fifth Assessment Report concludes that global warming in the climate system is unequivocal based on measured increases in temperature, decrease in snow cover, and higher sea levels.

This Supplemental EIS evaluates the relationship between the proposed Project with respect to GHG emissions and climate change from the following perspectives:

•The GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project and its connected actions;
•The potential increase in indirect lifecycle (wells-to-wheels) GHG emissions associated with the WCSB crude oil that would be transported by the proposed Project;
•How the GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project cumulatively contribute to climate change; and
•An assessment of the effects that future projected climate change could have in the proposed Project area and on the proposed Project."
Click to expand...
Have you ever used the WSJ, Forbes or Fox in any of your citations?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Have you ever used the WSJ, Forbes or Fox in any of your citations?
Click to expand...
Never to back up a scientific claim

And if I have used any of those sources it's because the claims made were from credible sources already, and one of those sources also published the report

You're making a scientific claim about the environment from a source that makes a scientific claim about the climate. So if you accept one that attempts to use science to back up your claim, you have to accept the other scientific claim from that same source otherwise it would be intellectually dishonest of you to use it.

You're basically saying "see, this part right here, I agree with that, but this other part over here is bullshit!", they're both scientific claims, if one is right, so is the other one, if one is wrong, so is the other one. So which is it?
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Never to back up a scientific claim

And if I have used any of those sources it's because the claims made were from credible sources already, and one of those sources also published the report

You're making a scientific claim about the environment from a source that makes a scientific claim about the climate. So if you accept one that attempts to use science to back up your claim, you have to accept the other scientific claim from that same source otherwise it would be intellectually dishonest of you to use it.

You're basically saying "see, this part right here, I agree with that, but this other part over here is bullshit!", they're both scientific claims, if one is right, so is the other one, if one is wrong, so is the other one. So which is it?
Click to expand...
When the State Dept says the environment impact studies show no harm to the environment, what is your argument?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
We need Jobs.
Click to expand...
I agree, but the potential environmental damage it can cause outweighs the amount of jobs it will create (by most estimates, less than 50 full time positions)

This study from the State Dept. says 35;http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf

Politifact confirms, 35; http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/10/van-jones/cnns-van-jones-says-keystone-pipeline-only-creates/

"Whatever the number, these jobs are temporary, lasting only for the year or two that it would take to complete the project. The number of permanent jobs is much lower. “The proposed Project would generate approximately 50 jobs during operations,” according to State’s analysis."

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top