Oilsands And Acid Rain

[DudeRainbowLove]

Will Alberta ever get the McLobster?

[SupremeLeader]

One more note about CBC.

 

They sensationalize the news, absolutely, but they are not bias.

 

Rutherford, CNN, and FOX news are bias.

[Hawgstoppah]

I LIKE CAKE!

 

thought this post has degenrated to that point and suprised no one has come in with the "I like cake" yet

 

On a more serious note: c'mon guys you gonna beleive the big oilfeild companies research? They hire guys to do this and only pay 'em if they get the results they want to see... or no "bonus" for you!

 

Give it a break. I'll take the non profit org's research anyday.

 

Oil is a neccessary evil. Until you all stop driving cars and start walking everywhere you go, and stop buying your food from the grocery stores and grow it in your garden (trucks and farm tractors need fuel too), we NEED OIL. wish there were beter and less harmfull ways to produce it though!

[Harps]

On a lighter solution note... Exxon has finally bought into the biofuel idea.

 

Prelim research has shown that algae can produce large amounts of biofuels (suitable for diesel engines). Think of all the stormwater ponds that could have algae producing fuel instead of having perch from the bucket bozos.

 

Everybody sell you gas cars, push for more diesel engines (bio-diesel ready) in N. America and push for the development of diesel hybrids.... better fuel efficiency, better torque- drive a little slower and pull more with less fuel consumption!

 

There is a reason the diesel is big (as popular or more than petrol) everywhere else.

[reevesr1]

It is amazing how many people in this community seem to continually question and doubt impartial scientific research. The research non-profit environmental groups most often use in their assessments come from Universities. University research is publicly funded, and free for anyone to use. If you really understood the scientific community in these institutions you would know that they stand nothing to gain by slanting their research.

 

Ok, I'll admit to liking to hear myself speak too. Not that that should surprise anyone.

 

A couple of points. Some of the most politically charged atmospheres anywhere is the scientific community. I am not saying that they are biased by default, but I will say that once many of the researcher/professors stake their reputation to any position it is very, very difficult to get him to abandon that position. And it is not hard to find examples of data being massaged or abandoned when it did not meet the foregone conclusion. Read Stephen Hawking sometime. He talks about it. I will say there is very little unbiased research happening anywhere. That does not make their results wrong, but to say they are not biased by default in just inaccurate.

 

Rutherford, CNN, and FOX news are bias.

 

I agree, though I would say CNN is biased both ways. Guys like Lou Dobbs lean way, way right. Most of them (Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer) lean left.

 

One more note about CBC.

 

They sensationalize the news, absolutely, but they are not bias.

But what I can't understand is how every single entity you point out as biased has opinions that seem to be different than yours and any news org or research community you seem to agree with is fair and impartial?

 

If anyone says they will believe a study from a non-profit, scientific community, or whoever before they believe an oil company study, then that my friends is called bias.

 

Everyone is biased to some degree. You need to listen to all sides (though this is somewhat impossible today), take what you believe from each (of course trying to remain unbiased yourself) and draw you own conclusions. If you can figure out how to do that, please let me know. I haven't figured it out yet, and I'm not as dumb as I seem.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hawgstoppah]

If anyone says they will believe a study from a non-profit, scientific community, or whoever before they believe an oil company study, then that my friends is called bias.

 

Rickr.

 

I base my statement of the above, on fact, from a good friend of mine, who has been involved in many such "studies".

 

cheers.

 

[Hawgstoppah]

Though, to be fair, either side sensationalizes THEIR opinions!

[SupremeLeader]

Ok, I'll admit to liking to hear myself speak too. Not that that should surprise anyone.

 

A couple of points. Some of the most politically charged atmospheres anywhere is the scientific community. I am not saying that they are biased by default, but I will say that once many of the researcher/professors stake their reputation to any position it is very, very difficult to get him to abandon that position. And it is not hard to find examples of data being massaged or abandoned when it did not meet the foregone conclusion. Read Stephen Hawking sometime. He talks about it. I will say there is very little unbiased research happening anywhere. That does not make their results wrong, but to say they are not biased by default in just inaccurate.

 

 

 

I agree, though I would say CNN is biased both ways. Guys like Lou Dobbs lean way, way right. Most of them (Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer) lean left.

 

 

But what I can't understand is how every single entity you point out as biased has opinions that seem to be different than yours and any news org or research community you seem to agree with is fair and impartial?

 

If anyone says they will believe a study from a non-profit, scientific community, or whoever before they believe an oil company study, then that my friends is called bias.

 

Everyone is biased to some degree. You need to listen to all sides (though this is somewhat impossible today), take what you believe from each (of course trying to remain unbiased yourself) and draw you own conclusions. If you can figure out how to do that, please let me know. I haven't figured it out yet, and I'm not as dumb as I seem.

 

Rickr,

 

You should go up to the U of C and say what you just said to me; you have certainly mastered the art of passive /aggressiveness. If we were discussing any other issue; diabetes research for instance; would you question the results? Would it be bias? Acid rain apparently is a different matter however, because the source is from something your livelihood depends on; therefore the research is bias.

 

This discussion has been shifted from acid rain in Saskatchewan to how people are bias; doesn't surprise me. This is the typical corporate spin doctoring I would expect from people in the oil industry.

 

There is another article on the GF board someone posted concerning Sockeye returns to the Fraser; must be bias research...it came from the Globe and Mail. At least that’s what a lot of the commercial fisherman might say.......

 

Rubbish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[reevesr1]

I've been involved in studies as well. I've actually contracted one myself, though I must say it was not for environmental reasons, but safety reasons. We contracted the company we thought were the best in their field, which I promise did not make them the cheapest in their field. I do not think that I, or any of my team, biased the outcome of the study at all. Or at least I hope not. Their recommendations cost us pretty significant dollars. We implemented all of them.

 

Many studies are contracted not to get a pre-set answer but to protect the company from future liability. The implementation of results from these studies can be massively expensive not to mention the cost of the study itself. But the cost of not following the recommendations and then being faced with the environmental liability later can be company ending. So all I'm saying is don't just discount an oil companies study because you think they have ulterior motives. Their ulterior motives (protecting the environment for example) can be the same as yours, they are just doing it for economic reasons.

 

Now do I think all studies are commissioned to get a real answer not a pre-conceived one? Of course not. But more are commissioned in good faith than not.

 

[reevesr1]

SL,

If you honestly believe that there is no bias in university research, then you and I debating is useless.

 

Good luck to you.

 

 

 

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

SL,

If you honestly believe that there is no bias in university research, then you and I debating is useless.

 

Good luck to you.

 

And good luck to you.

[bigbowtrout]

What it's over? aw man this sucks

[Castuserraticus]

A large problem with smart people is that they're used to being right. There are many smart people on this board who think they are right. When my son transferred to a gifted school for junior high, he was astounded at the intensity of discussions and arguments between the other students on just about every subject. These kids were used to being right.

 

I worked with a guy for a couple of years who told me several times he was one of the smartest guys around. I thought of him immediately when I saw some of Supremeleader's posts. This guy would have loved that handle and would have had no problem adopting it.

 

In the energy industry we have a rotary bullshit detector for geoscientists called a drill bit. Some of us learn from it and some don't.

 

There's a powerful human behaviour called confirmational bias. We all tend to view people who espouse opinions similar to our own as being smarter. We look through the keyhole of life with both eyes because of this (narrow minded). It takes tremendous effort to listen to and hear opposing opinions.

 

I generally lurk in these discussions because I don't see them going anywhere. "If you torture the data long enough it will confess anything" is one of the most important quotes for a scientist to remember. The general public is generally ignorant that all scientific data is subject to interpretation and manipulation. EVERYONE HAS BIAS. Even dummies think they're smart.

[reevesr1]

Castus,

Are you calling me a dummy who thinks he's smart? Thats it, I refuse to golf with you.

 

And isn't it called Confrontational Bias?

 

Actually, there is a book called Freakonomics (not written by Glen Beck-it helped me learn to think for myself) where confirmation bias is discussed. Anyone who wants an interesting read on causality, among other things, I highly recommend it. Tries to teach that just because there is A then B does not necessarily mean A causes B.

 

And I loved the rotary bullshit detector line!

[wtforward]

Since the subject of bias came up then have a look

at the link below. It may help to change or discount

some of our perceptions based on how bias you

think the report is.

 

 

http://alberta.pembina.org/pub/1839

[LynnF]

Wow....go away for a couple of days and you boys are still all in the sandbox.

 

I typed out this huge, long reply and then deleted it. I'm done with wading into anything but a river - especially when it comes to this topic. BUT....I really feel compelled to say this. Certain people who believe that they can live and/or work in Alberta and not be affected by the boom and bust of the oil and gas industry is delusional and hypocritical and need a smack in the head with the baseball bat of reality.

 

Case in point: I lost my job with an oilfield services company - whose work contracts in the oil and gas industry represented 45% of revenue. The other 55% was affected as well...company spiralled downwards, me and lots of others are gone. Case in point #2: my husband runs a construction company. When things fell in Alberta late last year and early this year, so did his business - oil companies aren't spending money, everything comes to a halt...just starting to recover. Case in point #3 - my son works for Tim Hortons. Up until this spring he had alot of hours and a good paycheque. Now he's barely getting 4 hours a week, if that. All across the board in terms of jobs and industries - ALL AFFECTED BY THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY. Careful what we wish for.

 

So...in short....did anyone write any letters to anybody that matters or to anyone of influence or is the discussion merely contained to this board once again.

 

I gotta go find that dead horse graphic now.

[tonyr]

Wow....go away for a couple of days and you boys are still all in the sandbox.

 

I typed out this huge, long reply and then deleted it. I'm done with wading into anything but a river - especially when it comes to this topic. BUT....I really feel compelled to say this. Certain people who believe that they can live and/or work in Alberta and not be affected by the boom and bust of the oil and gas industry is delusional and hypocritical and need a smack in the head with the baseball bat of reality.

 

Case in point: I lost my job with an oilfield services company - whose work contracts in the oil and gas industry represented 45% of revenue. The other 55% was affected as well...company spiralled downwards, me and lots of others are gone. Case in point #2: my husband runs a construction company. When things fell in Alberta late last year and early this year, so did his business - oil companies aren't spending money, everything comes to a halt...just starting to recover. Case in point #3 - my son works for Tim Hortons. Up until this spring he had alot of hours and a good paycheque. Now he's barely getting 4 hours a week, if that. All across the board in terms of jobs and industries - ALL AFFECTED BY THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY. Careful what we wish for.

 

So...in short....did anyone write any letters to anybody that matters or to anyone of influence or is the discussion merely contained to this board once again.

 

I gotta go find that dead horse graphic now.

 

all of your arguments are based on money and yes i am aware of its importance but it is far from everything,

stop believing there is no other way then oil.yes we are all linked in someway, but that does not mean my job is balancing on the oilsands. come to my house and hit me with a bat of reality. 535 8ave se buzzer 082

 

 

oh yea im pretty sure sl wont be back. now you in the oil industry rickr can go unchecked on here and can dominate these debates with your superior writing skills.he said what i wish i could. just like you did for your side only he uses facts oh guess you rick couldnt let sl have the last word.

 

[LynnF]

all of your arguments are based on money and yes i am aware of its importance but it is far from everything,

stop believing there is no other way then oil.yes we are all linked in someway, but that does not mean my job is balancing on the oilsands. come to my house and hit me with a bat of reality. 535 8ave se buzzer 082

 

 

oh yea im pretty sure sl wont be back. now you in the oil industry rickr can go unchecked on here and can dominate these debates with your superior writing skills.he said what i wish i could. just like you did for your side only he uses facts oh guess you rick couldnt let sl have the last word.

 

Are you kidding me? Money is far from everything???? Tell that to the masses who have been laid off this year who are losing their homes, their cars, their ability to feed their families and keep their kids healthy. And I'm not being melodramatic - this is happening all over the place - watch the news. I am certain that money can't buy happiness but money is the catalyst and the key to being able to live life. Without it...where are you? Doesn't matter what the facts or factors are in this great oil and gas debate that keeps occurring on this board, at the very base of it is money and people's livelihoods - and that will always matter most - to most.

 

[reevesr1]

all of your arguments are based on money and yes i am aware of its importance but it is far from everything,

stop believing there is no other way then oil.yes we are all linked in someway, but that does not mean my job is balancing on the oilsands. come to my house and hit me with a bat of reality. 535 8ave se buzzer 082

 

 

oh yea im pretty sure sl wont be back. now you in the oil industry rickr can go unchecked on here and can dominate these debates with your superior writing skills.he said what i wish i could. just like you did for your side only he uses facts oh guess you rick couldnt let sl have the last word.

 

I hope you are wrong to tell you the truth. I have no trouble debating with SL. His, and your writing skills are fine. I just felt that we had run our course in this matter, hence the good luck to you line. I wasn't going to change his mind and he wasn't going to change mine. Same probably holds with you as well. But the truth usually is that when you are debating with someone you are not going to change the mind of the person you are debating with. You are trying to influence the people reading the debate. Do I think that we will go at it again? I have little doubt of it. Same with you. If you guys stick around my bet is we are going to be on opposite sides of many issues. I love that *hit!

 

I don't get why if you have a debate and totally disagree with each other that means we have to be enemies? I disagree with your opinion and you with mine. So what? I grew up in a land of right wing republicans. I am a yellow dog democrat. If I was not able to debate politics with people who disagreed with me vehemently and still be their friends, I'd of had no friends. I thought they were absolutely wrong in most of their political views. Many of them are still my closest friends.

 

Finally, what do my writing skills have to do with it? Should I dumb it down? I think that would be insulting to you guys as you can both handle yourselves just fine. You say I was not going to let him have the last word? I don't really think he was going to let me either. And I wouldn't expect him to.

[SupremeLeader]

Everyone who is reading this thread; please note:

 

Rickr and the other oil cronies here have turned an article discussing factual evidence from a government source into a debate on bias; if that's not spinning the issue I don't know what is?

 

Do they teach you guys this stuff down at EnCana?

 

Now I am through; if you care to discuss Acid rain and the source no problem. If you are going to discuss how we can't trust the news, government bodies, and how every study is bias and untrue I would suggest you refrain from commenting on any other news article, scientific journal, or government study in the future; to do so would be hypocritical.

 

Regards.

[SteveM]

A large problem with smart people is that they're used to being right. There are many smart people on this board who think they are right. When my son transferred to a gifted school for junior high, he was astounded at the intensity of discussions and arguments between the other students on just about every subject. These kids were used to being right.

 

I worked with a guy for a couple of years who told me several times he was one of the smartest guys around. I thought of him immediately when I saw some of Supremeleader's posts. This guy would have loved that handle and would have had no problem adopting it.

 

In the energy industry we have a rotary bullshit detector for geoscientists called a drill bit. Some of us learn from it and some don't.

 

There's a powerful human behaviour called confirmational bias. We all tend to view people who espouse opinions similar to our own as being smarter. We look through the keyhole of life with both eyes because of this (narrow minded). It takes tremendous effort to listen to and hear opposing opinions.

 

I generally lurk in these discussions because I don't see them going anywhere. "If you torture the data long enough it will confess anything" is one of the most important quotes for a scientist to remember. The general public is generally ignorant that all scientific data is subject to interpretation and manipulation. EVERYONE HAS BIAS. Even dummies think they're smart.

 

 

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

 

 

[bigbowtrout]

You do have to admit those sources are bias.

 

And who started the bias portion of this great thread?????

 

 

[bhurt]

And who started the bias portion of this great thread?????

How true, I love it how people can spin things their way and then accuse someone of doing the samething, where I come from it calling the kettle black.

[Hawgstoppah]

Kinda like everyone fishing the bow in the heat of summer on a low water year when the temps 70F or greater, and then calling the people who go fishing at the mouth of the highwood in the spring "unethical"?? LOLOL

 

**sorry, slap me now***

[theiceman2]

SAG D is worse I think, even though optically open pit looks worse. The problem with SAG D is the water they are injecting is potable and we can never recover that water EVER. The water is sourced from rivers and streams.

 

Really not trying to start a bun fight here Rick but I am sure any Engineer can do the math to show the economics on the oil sands, heck I can do the math on it. But do they really understand the impact it will have? You don't NEED your car or truck, its nice to have don't get me worng, but you NEED fresh water to live. I am not a tree hugger or dirty hippy, but I know that thre is a fine line to walk between sacraficing a NEED resource for a NICE resource.