Jump to content
Indian Motorcycle Community

No Pipeline - Anyone Surprised?


Recommended Posts

Trucks and trains are much more at risk for spills... and yet he sites environmental issues as the reason for his veto (even this has already been studied at length and given a clean bill of health).

 

Over on whacko lib sites the fawning masses are kissing his feet saying "thank you, thank you Mr President for saving us". Those clueless idiots also site environmental issues and object to oil companies making money.

 

Global warming... idiots who have never studied history or likely have cracked open a book. People tend to consider their own life spans when they think about changes on the earth. We are extremely short lived in comparison..it would be like taking a second out of your life time to determine the direction your life is taking.

 

The truth is that global warming is happening... the dispute is whether or not we are having any impact on it.

 

The earth has been warming for thousands, probably hundred of thousands of years. Our ancestors once lived in a lush and wet grassland that spanned the area occupied by the Sahara Desert today. Apparently they were driving too many SUV's back then and the earth heated up.. those people migrated to the Nile River Valley to form the Egyptian civilization.

 

But even then the SUV driving didn't stop. Recently an Egyptian city was discovered about 50 feet under water.. and the foundations of Roman Villas have been found under 20 feet of water off the shore of Italy.

 

Stone and bronze age villages have been found off the shore of Europe. The land bridge between Asia and Alaska is under water now.

 

Obviously this is all the fault of the oil companies and SUV drivers.

 

And now the Idiot in Charge thinks he's going to save the planet from global warming by vetoing the construction that would give us more jobs, boost our economy, and make us less dependent on foreign oil supplies.

 

SMH.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya the Idiot in charge is trying and getting away with it in screwing everything up as best he can. It will take years and years to pull the USA out of this. Makes me fart everytime I see that skinny SOB. Never have called a President of the USA that till this SOB cam along cept maybe that fag clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya the Idiot in charge is trying and getting away with it in screwing everything up as best he can. It will take years and years to pull the USA out of this. Makes me fart everytime I see that skinny SOB. Never have called a President of the USA that till this SOB cam along cept maybe that fag clinton.

There was a report on the news tonight about a train derailment last fall , the cause was no maintenance on the track. They said we have more spills by rail then we ever do by pipeline . C.N and C.P. have derailments all the time up ,no money in maintenance.

Afterfour(Rick)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That worthless piece of shit will go off during the next 700 days to "fundamentally transform" ( destroy). America as fast as he can. I wonder WHY he hasn't been removed from office for the multitude of laws he has broken , damn I'm pissed

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the repubs have no balls. The dems are in the minority but refuse to act like it. They are controlling all discussions. Right now there is no one looking out for the citizens. Amnesty will pass because the repubs are afraid of confrontation. Obamacare will become so ingrained because the repubs cannot coalesce a united plan. Retirement plans will be taxed, if not seized, to fund new and improved entitlement plans. Sharia law is becoming common in pockets of this country and will spread as Christianity will become a social stigma. Congress will confirm Lynch. She is a giant FU to people that dislike Holder, and will provide even less constitutional constraints to the administration. As the dem rep said, if amnesty passes, dems will control the country for the next 30 years.

 

I hear Paraguay is lovely this time of year

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trucks and trains are much more at risk for spills... and yet he sites environmental issues as the reason for his veto (even this has already been studied at length and given a clean bill of health).

 

Over on whacko lib sites the fawning masses are kissing his feet saying "thank you, thank you Mr President for saving us". Those clueless idiots also site environmental issues and object to oil companies making money.

 

Global warming... idiots who have never studied history or likely have cracked open a book. People tend to consider their own life spans when they think about changes on the earth. We are extremely short lived in comparison..it would be like taking a second out of your life time to determine the direction your life is taking.

 

The truth is that global warming is happening... the dispute is whether or not we are having any impact on it.

 

The earth has been warming for thousands, probably hundred of thousands of years. Our ancestors once lived in a lush and wet grassland that spanned the area occupied by the Sahara Desert today. Apparently they were driving too many SUV's back then and the earth heated up.. those people migrated to the Nile River Valley to form the Egyptian civilization.

 

But even then the SUV driving didn't stop. Recently an Egyptian city was discovered about 50 feet under water.. and the foundations of Roman Villas have been found under 20 feet of water off the shore of Italy.

 

Stone and bronze age villages have been found off the shore of Europe. The land bridge between Asia and Alaska is under water now.

 

Obviously this is all the fault of the oil companies and SUV drivers.

 

And now the Idiot in Charge thinks he's going to save the planet from global warming by vetoing the construction that would give us more jobs, boost our economy, and make us less dependent on foreign oil supplies.

 

SMH.

I 1000% agree with your post, but one question. From where did you get the info that the only dispute about global warming is weather man has any had any impact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The climate changes constantly with periods of warmth and periods of cold and as been happening since the beginning of time. I feel that man overstates his own importance in this world and underestimates Mother Nature. The earth will adapt to most things we can throw at it, save massive nuclear war. Larger and more catastrophic threats come from objects (asteroids, not little green men) from outer space and volcanic activity. Why can't people that believe in evolution believe that the earth will evolve as well?

 

It is the nature of sponsored science to reach conclusions that guarantee your funding, not necessarily the truth. Has the Salt Institute ever put out a report that sodium is bad for you? Did skin get ripped from our bones if we exceeded 28 mph as predicted by the horse and buggy committee? Or the article written by an Alzheimer's non-profit head that I read this morning that said Alzheimer's will cost 20.7 TRILLION dollars over the next 20 years if we do not fund it now? Any sales pitch is rarely altruistic, but rather vested in the self interest of the one doing the presenting**. Climate advocates are no exception as evidenced by their manipulating data to support their conclusions. If they came out and said there is no evidence of man made climate change, funding should dry up (though with the government sponsorship, it may take a couple hundred years). So they do whatever they need to do to support their endeavors, even if it involves lying, cheating and stealing.

 

Machiavelli said the end justifies the means. This has certainly come back in a big way with the "every kid gets a trophy" generation. I am special because my mommy told me so, so everyone else need to think that too. Self esteem is not given, it must be earned by ones self. Because I think the climate will end life as we know it, everybody must agree with and support me and do nothing to harsh my buzz. This is the reason that politics at all levels (from neighborhood associations to the POTUS) is so dysfunctional. Because I am right and you are wrong. If you disagree with me, too bad because the science is settled. End of discussion. Bye now. Lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!

 

I believe that the true nature of the climate movement is rooted in communism. Communists long ago realized that they could not successfully attack capitalism directly. They joined forces with the hippie movement to cripple the means of production through onerous rules and regulations. Capitalism, like Mother Nature is very good at adapting and business has done a fairly good job at the environmental issues. Unfortunately, the goal keeps moving as evidenced by the vilification of the clean coal industry. Another example is gun control. Politicians cannot take on the 2nd amendment directly, so guns no longer are their main focus. Ammunition is. They are regulating the snot out of it, including shutting down the last lead smelter in the country.

 

Summmabitch.... I gave up ranting for lent!

 

** Oh yeah, the footnote. I also believe that Freud was correct that all actions are based on sex. If you don't buy my product, my boss will fire me and I will have no money to buy nice things for my wife so she will give me sex. If I do not make the big play in the game, my girlfriend will be ashamed of me and her friends will make fun of us and she will not give me sex. If I don't save the world from evil capitalists creating global warming all the unshaven hippie girls will not worship me and if I don't they won't worship me, they will not rip off their clothes and give me sex. Siggy was a smart man.....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can discern from sites on the "internet" on the subject, the pipeline is already in place and functioning, albeit in a circuitous route. The proposed shorter route, (with a larger pipe) is the portion in question, and could be approved if it was moved from crossing the Ogallala Aquifer and the sand hills in Nebraska. This portion of the line would also be able to pick up the Bakken crude from a terminal in Baker Montana, which would be a plus using US resources.

 

Obama actually endorsed and approved the extension of the pipeline from Cushing Okla, to Nederland Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The climate changes constantly with periods of warmth and periods of cold and as been happening since the beginning of time. I feel that man overstates his own importance in this world and underestimates Mother Nature. The earth will adapt to most things we can throw at it, save massive nuclear war. Larger and more catastrophic threats come from objects (asteroids, not little green men) from outer space and volcanic activity. Why can't people that believe in evolution believe that the earth will evolve as well?

 

It is the nature of sponsored science to reach conclusions that guarantee your funding, not necessarily the truth. Has the Salt Institute ever put out a report that sodium is bad for you? Did skin get ripped from our bones if we exceeded 28 mph as predicted by the horse and buggy committee? Or the article written by an Alzheimer's non-profit head that I read this morning that said Alzheimer's will cost 20.7 TRILLION dollars over the next 20 years if we do not fund it now? Any sales pitch is rarely altruistic, but rather vested in the self interest of the one doing the presenting**. Climate advocates are no exception as evidenced by their manipulating data to support their conclusions. If they came out and said there is no evidence of man made climate change, funding should dry up (though with the government sponsorship, it may take a couple hundred years). So they do whatever they need to do to support their endeavors, even if it involves lying, cheating and stealing.

 

Machiavelli said the end justifies the means. This has certainly come back in a big way with the "every kid gets a trophy" generation. I am special because my mommy told me so, so everyone else need to think that too. Self esteem is not given, it must be earned by ones self. Because I think the climate will end life as we know it, everybody must agree with and support me and do nothing to harsh my buzz. This is the reason that politics at all levels (from neighborhood associations to the POTUS) is so dysfunctional. Because I am right and you are wrong. If you disagree with me, too bad because the science is settled. End of discussion. Bye now. Lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!

 

I believe that the true nature of the climate movement is rooted in communism. Communists long ago realized that they could not successfully attack capitalism directly. They joined forces with the hippie movement to cripple the means of production through onerous rules and regulations. Capitalism, like Mother Nature is very good at adapting and business has done a fairly good job at the environmental issues. Unfortunately, the goal keeps moving as evidenced by the vilification of the clean coal industry. Another example is gun control. Politicians cannot take on the 2nd amendment directly, so guns no longer are their main focus. Ammunition is. They are regulating the snot out of it, including shutting down the last lead smelter in the country.

 

Summmabitch.... I gave up ranting for lent!

 

** Oh yeah, the footnote. I also believe that Freud was correct that all actions are based on sex. If you don't buy my product, my boss will fire me and I will have no money to buy nice things for my wife so she will give me sex. If I do not make the big play in the game, my girlfriend will be ashamed of me and her friends will make fun of us and she will not give me sex. If I don't save the world from evil capitalists creating global warming all the unshaven hippie girls will not worship me and if I don't they won't worship me, they will not rip off their clothes and give me sex. Siggy was a smart man.....

 

Umm...no. Sorry but you are way off. There are 1000's of scientists working on climate change, there will be a few un-ethical guys as there is in any other occupation. However I am very good friends with three climate scientists. Not technicians, full blown publishing , researching scientists. To imply that any of these guys base there conclusions on anything other than the data is total crap. If you think otherwise please back it up with facts, not what you think. One of my friends is a climatologist / physicist. I remember him telling me years ago he didn't buy into the assumption that man is the cause. We spoke again about it recently, he told me " you cannot dispute the data, there is so much of it that points to a man-made cause.

 

One of the other guys (Scott) was the first one to put weather radar on a vehicle, thus spawning the tornado chasers. Anyway, another Climate guy I know only casually told me a story about Scott having an aurgument with the owner of Accuweather who is a deny-er. I was told it as a massacre, Scott kicked his ass with FACTS, not assumptions and conjecture. They ended up agreeing that what is in dispute is the rate of change and its effect, not the cause.

 

For those who think this is natural cycle, two things wrong with that idea. One is a rate of change is far faster than can be explained by natural causes. There is a long historical record of this, that is exactly what another friend is working on, refining the historical records of temperature and carbon. Remember, we are talking about Global warming, not a shift in weather patterns, two different things. Second is the clear link between the rate of change and man made carbon in the atmosphere.

 

I am a pretty right wing guy, but I do not understand how politic and science got so mixed up. I would really like for someone to explain this to me. I mean Scot Walker couldn't state his position on evolution? Fucking embarrassing.

Edited by Blu
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average temperature of the earth has increased by .3 degrees F in the past 100+ years, that's POINT 3 degrees and I agree that its not due to mans involvment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The average temperature of the earth has increased by .3 degrees F in the past 100+ years, that's POINT 3 degrees and I agree that its not due to mans involvment

From where did you source your information?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blu,

 

I respect your viewpoint, and read your reply with great interest (not to prove you wrong, but to understand what has influenced you so much in this discussion that I may have missed...learning, always learning), but the thought that kept cruising through my mind was what if the data that your friends were using was wrong (ie Mann manipulated)? In his book "Capital in the 21st Century" Thomas Piketty states that left wing economics are right and this is treated as fact by the dems. He overwhelms the reader with data. Data and calculations that has been proven inaccurate. Given a conclusion, if one section of the data used to reach that conclusion is suspect, all the data becomes suspect. I am not saying that you or your friends are wrong, but the appearance of manipulation makes the whole argument suspect in my book. And because the cause is being rammed down our throats without civil discourse makes the whole issue appear to me to be a scam. It is my belief is one of the fundamental tenets of science is that it is never settled. If it was, the world would still be flat, tobacco would be good for you and bleeding would be an accepted barberic (Barbaric??) practice.

 

Everybody in this world has an agenda. In tough topics such as these, my method has been to follow the money. And not to believe anything until I have done everything in my limited power to prove it true....because everyone has an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blu,

 

I respect your viewpoint, and read your reply with great interest (not to prove you wrong, but to understand what has influenced you so much in this discussion that I may have missed...learning, always learning), but the thought that kept cruising through my mind was what if the data that your friends were using was wrong (ie Mann manipulated)? In his book "Capital in the 21st Century" Thomas Piketty states that left wing economics are right and this is treated as fact by the dems. He overwhelms the reader with data. Data and calculations that has been proven inaccurate. Given a conclusion, if one section of the data used to reach that conclusion is suspect, all the data becomes suspect. I am not saying that you or your friends are wrong, but the appearance of manipulation makes the whole argument suspect in my book. And because the cause is being rammed down our throats without civil discourse makes the whole issue appear to me to be a scam. It is my belief is one of the fundamental tenets of science is that it is never settled. If it was, the world would still be flat, tobacco would be good for you and bleeding would be an accepted barberic (Barbaric??) practice.

 

Everybody in this world has an agenda. In tough topics such as these, my method has been to follow the money. And not to believe anything until I have done everything in my limited power to prove it true....because everyone has an agenda.

Good point about Mann, I had asked about that when it was news. So here is what was explained to me. There are many sets of data available of any particular type. So there are a lot of people making measurements of the same thing. When you have multiple sets of data that agree, it starts to look reliable. However there is more. The smart guys look to see how the data was collected, how it was compiled and so on. Then it is reviewed by many to make sure nothing is missed. To see how a particular data set is thought of by the scientific community you can see how often it was cited, or used in by another researcher. Mann was not well cited and one guy ( close friend) said " we knew he was clown, no one worthshile used his data". Like I said, losers in every bunch. Everyone gets to believe what they want, but I am telling you that these guys are truthful. If there was good data that the warming is no manmade, they would be sceaming it. You want to give a scientist a hard-on, give him data that proves another guy wrong. It just isn't there.

 

Here is a another scientist tibit, the first time I went to one the parties, I am in a room with 50 PHD's of various disciplines. I was shocked how many hot female scientists there are, like most of them. I was talking to one girl about material physics, I don't know what the fuck she was saying, but I was listening. Another thing, A drunk French nuclear physicist is a just another drunk French girl who likes oral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science & politics have always been tangled up together since get go.

 

If the Sun snuffed out, all life on earth would cease within 18 hours ~ scientific fact.

 

Work that into your other facts.

 

 

 

I gave up worry for lent.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Providing Insight
Into Climate Change
Myths / Facts

 

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

 

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

 

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise

 

 

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.aHKiypdd.dpuf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We (as humans) have these big brains and so we assume that we understand everything and can predict anything the world can and will do.

 

There is always dispute in science - that's the nature of the beast. But many believe we assume too much, in that we say we know what we have no way of knowing with certainty.

 

The earth is very old

 

In it's time the climate has fluctuated between "snow-ball earth" and a tropical earth with no polar ice caps. This cycle probably happened many times. It's very likely that the climate is never static, but moves through cycles at what seems to us to be very a very slow rate. It's possible that the climate will change relatively quickly for awhile, then slows. It's a very complex system and we (as humans) are not as smart as we think we are.

 

We've only been measuring climate changes for about 100 years, and (the best guess is that) the earth is 4,500,000,000 years old. So how is even remotely reasonable that we can assume that our measurements can even apply to very long term cycles of climate changes that we actually don't understand?

 

Historically we know that Asians crossed into North America via a land bridge that is now very far under water. We find stone age monuments in Europe that extend far out into the sea. Villages have been found off the coast of Britain that have been dated into the bronze age - these are deep under water. Archaeologist tell us of cave paintings in the Sahara desert depicting hunting scenes showing wetlands. An Egyptian city was recently found underwater. Roman ruins have been found under water. These things are known - so it seems obvious that the "global warming" has been going on for quite some time.

 

Coincidentally our ability to measure global temperature changes happened at the same time as we became an industrial society. So we see the changes and assume (wrongly) that industrialization is the cause. We are associating a false cause to a phenomenon we don't fully understand.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From where did you source your information?

 

 

I'm sorry Blu, I do not recall where i read that, possible an NOAA site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Blu, I do not recall where i read that, possible an NOAA site

Not saying anyone is wrong or right or what you read was wrong, but without provenance its meaningless. That applies to everything, like the guy at Branson who told me synthetic oil is too slippery. I asked him what he based that on, some mechanic told him. So to make that scientific you would have to run engines with and without synthetic under controlled conditions and measure the wear. Then some other researcher will tell you that you over-measured ring wear and under measured the rocker arm scoring. Then another guy will tell you that the whole experiment was wrong because you didn't vary the air temperature and rev's correctly. Then someone else will repeat the experiment so now you have another data set. And then someone else will tell you your results are good but you misinterpreted the data. And on and on and on. When you start to seethe majority of proper guys saying the same thing, then you have something to go on. That's how the scientist do it, one guy saying something is worthless. It ain't like TV, eureka! Edited by Blu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a bit of knowledge on the construction of pipelines, with the newest fed mandated procedures for the welding process, the fact that every weld has to be x-ray'd and that every so often the pipeline has to have a smart-pig run thru the inside of it to verify that the line is still in good shape, I can't see an issue here.

 

That said, I don't think that all the EASEMENT issues have been settled, I say think because I don't know for sure, I have heard that some of the property that it was to run through was acquired by eminent domain and that's basically telling the land owner we will take the land "like it or not" and we will use your private property to run our construction rigs back & forth to complete this job, this is done for the good of the nation.

 

I haven't spent enough time reading & researching this to make an educated decision or enough to say it is a good thing or bad thing, but if people are having land taken from them, IT IS WRONG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's also important to check for motivation behind opinions. Do they have skin in the game?

 

Many / most scientists make their living on grants - and it's true that a lot of good information comes from that, but it's also true that there is some motivation there to want to keep that grant money coming.

Edited by KenB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blind leading the blind who agree among themselves that there is no such thing as the unknowable darkness.

 

It's a scam pure & simple.

 

The trillion dollar Carbon credits market is driving this.

 

Pure bullshit wrapped in officially sanctioned scientific politically correct trappings.

 

Data is cherry picked from politically favorable source only.

 

Data from conflicting sources is thrown out.

 

Junk science, politically motivated & if anyone needs to go green it's China & Russia who do nothing.

 

Why tell the truth and terminate your livelihood?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's also important to check for motivation behind opinions. Do they have skin in the game?

 

Many / most scientists make their living on grants - and it's true that a lot of good information comes from that, but it's also true that there is some motivation there to want to keep that grant money coming...

 

The research funding is limited to issues that are heavily lobbied for by special interest groups.

 

Researchers are highly specialized in specific fields. If there is no funding for a specific field of study, what to do?

 

Without research grants, they'd be back flippin' burgers at some fastfood joint.

 

Specialization in a certain field of endeavor limits a researcher's skill set to the extent of being unemployable anywhere else.

 

Research scientists have to tow the 'official line' or they get blacklisted from employment in research period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's also important to check for motivation behind opinions. Do they have skin in the game?

 

Many / most scientists make their living on grants - and it's true that a lot of good information comes from that, but it's also true that there is some motivation there to want to keep that grant money coming.

I mentioned this earlier. There will always be bad apples, but I have I know a few of these guys personally. What you are saying is that they are rigging the data to provide a predetermined conclusion. No, no way. That is not why people make the extreme effort to get into these fields. These guys can make WAY more money in the private sector, so that argument falls flat. They are in research to follow the truth, I know these guys, take it as a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...