1. Did Ukraine make a mistake giving up it's nuclear weapons in 1994? Yes
2. What was the most egregious scientific hoax of the 20th century? Anthropogenic global warming aka climate change. 3. Should biological males who self identify as female be allowed to compete against biological females in athletic events? Of course not. The whole idea is nonsense. Males and females compete separately, not so everybody can feel all warm and fuzzy because they're competing against their own gender, but because male bodies are on average bigger, stronger, heavier and faster than female bodies. Competing against each other can be dangerous to someone with a female body in some sports, and even when it's not dangerous there is no possibility of equal competition. So what matters is the body, not the chosen gender. If you have chosen to be a girl but you live in a male body, you should compete against other male bodies. Be a girl in every other aspect of your life if that's what you want, but for physical competition gender doesn't matter, physical body does. The same should apply to housing people in public institutions such as jails. There are too many women being raped by the "women" housed with them who have fully intact male bodies. If you have a penis you belong in a male housing unit, not among female bodies. Simple. I don't understand why there is even a controversy over this, it is so obvious. If you have made the full commitment to being a girl by having male parts surgically removed, then you could be housed with female inmates. But for sports competitions, if your body was male through puberty it has grown bigger and stronger muscles and longer arms and legs that will not change; your natural competitors are other male bodies. I predict that a lot of these male athletes who have become girls for competition will suddenly decide, after their competitive careers are finished, that they don't really want to be girls after all, and reverse their "conversions". There are too many of them for this to be anything other than taking advantage of their physical advantage over girls with female bodies. And the ones in jails have claimed to be women in most cases specifically to get into women's prisons so they can freely commit rape. True gender dysphoria is very rare. The epidemic of trans happening now is driven by other things, those mentioned above among others. Adolescent girls are claiming to be trans in ridiculous numbers, absolutely impossible to happen naturally. In part, all this is being pushed by "woke" teachers who should all be fired. It's also the only way to get yourself into one of the "special" groups under the despicable doctrine of woke. Being "oppressed" is the only thing that gives you status in the woke world. To be classed as oppressed you must be either black, homosexual, or trans. Being female ranks if you're a black or lesbian female but not if you're white. So, to be part of the "in" crowd, which every teenager has always craved, they must declare themselves trans. A generation ago young girls were killing themselves with eating disorders and life-threatening weight loss to be "in". Now they are destroying their lives just as thoroughly by taking hormones or having surgery to become trans, leaving them mutilated and infertile when they finally grow up and realize what they have done. The big difference is that, last generation, adults recognized the danger girls were putting themselves in, and tried to help them recover. Now, there are no adults in the woke world; teachers, therapists, and even doctors encourage them and give the harmful drugs and surgeries without adequate psychological testing or counselling. The only solution is to defeat the woke movement and get the world back in the hands of adults.
4. Who will be out of power first - Putin or Trudeau?Good question. In personality and character the 2 of them are almost identical, ruthless narcissistic psychopaths. At the moment, Putin is by far the more dangerous. He has training and experience, and operates in a country that is accustomed to authoritarian rule and corruption. Trudeau has neither the training nor the experience, and is operating in a country accustomed, until the last 6 and 1/2 years, to freedom, autonomy, and good governance. And Trudeau's natural incompetence makes him less dangerous. He doesn't inflict all of the harm that he wants to because he simply doesn't know how to get things done. Really, his incompetence is his only positive quality. But that only answers which one SHOULD be taken out of power first, not which one will be. Trudeau has just announced a deal with Canada's 3rd political party, the NDP, to prop up his minority government and keep him in power until 2025, when an election must be held. This deal doesn't really change anything; the NDP have been propping him up all along, voting with the Liberals on every question. This deal just formalizes what they were already doing. But it means we know the government won't fall to a non-confidence vote. The Liberal caucus could still remove Trudeau in an instant, but they won't, not unless he does something to really make them angry, and they weren't bothered a bit by his authoritarian treatment of the Freedom Convoy; they all went along with all of his lies. So don't hold your breath. Putin, who knows? He will only be removed if his own people decide he's a liability. Even then, he seems to take a lot of precautions to keep them far away from him; he would be hard to take out. Are they unhappy with him? He appears to be losing the war in Ukraine, but is that true? Maybe he's playing NATO like a card shark, holding back most of the strength of his army until NATO, thinking the Russian army is weak, makes a move that he can retaliate against. Personally, I would like to see both of them gone, and I don't care how it happens in either case.
5. Does the current situation in eastern Europe remind you of June 1914?I don't remember 1914.
------ Original Message ------
From: chapman@...
To: chapman@...; [email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 11:20 AM
Subject: [M-Powered] Friday Five Mar 25
1. Did Ukraine make a ,mistake giving up it's nuclear weapons in 21994?
2. What was the most egregious scientific hoax of the 20th century?
3. Should biological males who self identify as female be allowed to compete against biological females in athletic events?
4. Who will be out of power first - Putin or Trudea?
5. Does the current situation in eastern Europe remind you of June 1914?
|
Re: [M-Positive} Re: [PhilosophicalM] Trudeau at the EU parliament
My big concern is that not enough people are really tuned into just how bad the fake news media is.? Trump made it a front-page issue but I'm not sure there will be a strong enough personality to maintain the knowledge among the vast middle.? Most of those I talk to about these issues still get their news from the fake news MSM.? Sure, they think they see thru some of it, but when you suggest to them that Joe Blow Media who's got something up on youtube might have some useful info their reaction is always that Joe Blow isn't a real Jounalist, or isn't part of some institution that gives credibility, etc.? You can present counter-narrative to the MSM narrative till you're blue in the face to the people in the vast middle (VM) but they go back to their ABC newshour and get reindoctrinated.? The MSM often presents unsupported opinion as fact but the VM accepts it.? If the alt-media presents documented facts the VM folks say "how do I know it's true?".? They constantly question Alt media but almost always accept the pronouncements of MSM. ========= From:? David SmithDate: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 23:41:29 EDT
?
?
?
Well, at least the people have been shown clearly over the past two years that "the news" has in our time become effectively a propaganda arm of the ruling establishment. ?Whether or not the people have learned what's been shown them is another matter. ?The past two years have also shown us how gullible people are likely to be, especially when the deceptions being foisted on them come from sources they have come to regard as authoritative.
?
|
1. Did Ukraine make a ,mistake giving up
it's nuclear weapons in 21994 [sic]?
Yes, of course they did.
2.? What was the most egregious scientific hoax of the 20th
century?
Piltdown Man
3.? Should biological males who self identify as female be
allowed to compete against biological females in athletic
events?
Currently there's not enough evidence to conclude that they
shouldn't be allowed. Time will tell, though.
4.? Who will be out of power first - Putin or Trudea [sic]?
Putin
5.? Does the current situation in eastern Europe remind you of
June 1914?
Not so much
Aloha,
Celeste
|
?
?
1. Did Ukraine make a ,mistake giving up it's nuclear weapons in 1994?
Emphatically yes - there is a saying about the future of sheep who sit down to dinner with wolves
2.? What was the most egregious scientific hoax of the 20th century?
What the South Sea islanders did to Margaret Mead - convinced her that the older women taught the younger men all the ways that sex could be fun
3.? Should biological males who self identify as female be allowed to compete against biological females in athletic events?
Emphatically no.? Incidentally the individual in the news lately came in fourth in the NCAA finals last week
4.? Who will be out of power first - Putin or Trudea?
Hopefully Putin - but more realistically Trudeau.? Though both being gone would be of great benefit to the? world
5.? Does the current situation in eastern Europe remind you of June 1914?
Very much so
|
1. Did Ukraine make a ,mistake giving up it's nuclear weapons in 21994?
2.? What was the most egregious scientific hoax of the 20th century?
3.? Should biological males who self identify as female be allowed to compete against biological females in athletic events?
4.? Who will be out of power first - Putin or Trudea?
5.? Does the current situation in eastern Europe remind you of June 1914?
|
Re: [M-Positive} Re: [PhilosophicalM] Trudeau at the EU parliament
Well, at least the people have been shown clearly over the past two years that "the news" has in our time become effectively a propaganda arm of the ruling establishment. ?Whether or not the people have learned what's been shown them is another matter. ?The past two years have also shown us how gullible people are likely to be, especially when the deceptions being foisted on them come from sources they have come to regard as authoritative.
?
You understand absolutely nothing about modern civilisation unless you first admit that it is a universal conspiracy against all interior life. - Georges Bernanos
It is our duty to resist the crowd in this age of mob thinking. ?It is our duty to think freely in an age of conformity. ?It is our duty to speak truth in an age of lies. - Bari Weiss
‘Live long enough and you watch everyone go mad,’ the man said to me gloomily. It was around 2009, and I was listening to a former senior civil servant tell me what he had learned from a life spent in diplomacy. - David Patrikarakos, in the Spectator
https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/
https://collateralglobal.org/
——
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:43, Pat Trivers <pat_trivers@...> wrote:
? Post Script - just watched a clip from tonight's CBC National news, in which they report on the meeting at the EU today. They talked about how Trudeau addressed parliament, but just showed him close up, and no mention that the room was almost empty. And not the slightest mention of the reaming he got immediately after. The CBC is hilarious; Trudeau's personal PR service. Anyone with no other source for information would have a totally fictitious view of the world in which Trudeau is a hero that the whole world listens to with rapt attention. Pat
------ Original Message ------
From: pat_trivers@...
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; m-positive@...
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 2:19 AM
Subject: [PhilosophicalM] Trudeau at the EU parliament
Justin Trudeau has been swanning around Europe lately, meeting with world leaders, pretending to be helping to solve the Russia/ Ukraine problems. We Canadians here at home wonder why the world leaders bother to invite him. Surely they know by now what a useless piece of garbage he is. Maybe they don't invite him; maybe he's crashing their gatherings. Anyway, we were gratified last week to see that he was met and followed by crowds in London waving Canadian flags and shouting the slogan made famous by the Freedom Convoy in February - F?ck Trudeau. Today, we got full value for the cost of sending him to Europe again this week. He was at the EU Parliament. First, he got up and made a speech to an almost empty room. Funny, the room is always empty when he speaks at the UN as well. During the speech he whined again about the Freedom Convoy, and once again yapped about how democracy is unfortunately not quite being upheld everywhere the way it should be. He does this with a straight face, apparently completely unaware that he himself is the biggest offender. One wonders whether his speech writers are as completely lacking in self-awareness as he is, or if they're making a joke at his expense. And then when he finished, an EU politician from Croatia stood up and absolutely reamed him. It is such a joy to behold; I have watched it over and over and enjoy it just as much every time. Worth whatever it cost to send him there. I just wish they would keep him. The link to the well-deserved reaming is below. I especially like the not-so-veiled threat at the end. Enjoy.
Pat ?
|
Re: [M-Positive} Trudeau at the EU parliament
America and Canada are both ruled by fools. ?This is possible because of two things. ?The first is that both use majority rule. ?The second, which follows on from the first, is that both have become majoritarian democracies.??(In a majoritarian democracy, the candidate or party that receives a majority of the votes has implicit permission to run the country as a dictatorship.)
Neither majority rule nor majoritarianism is an essential component of democracy, which is simply rule according to the will of the people.
?
You understand absolutely nothing about modern civilisation unless you first admit that it is a universal conspiracy against all interior life. - Georges Bernanos
It is our duty to resist the crowd in this age of mob thinking. ?It is our duty to think freely in an age of conformity. ?It is our duty to speak truth in an age of lies. - Bari Weiss
‘Live long enough and you watch everyone go mad,’ the man said to me gloomily. It was around 2009, and I was listening to a former senior civil servant tell me what he had learned from a life spent in diplomacy. - David Patrikarakos, in the Spectator
https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/
https://collateralglobal.org/
——
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 24, 2022, at 02:20, Pat Trivers <pat_trivers@...> wrote:
? Justin Trudeau has been swanning around Europe lately, meeting with world leaders, pretending to be helping to solve the Russia/ Ukraine problems. We Canadians here at home wonder why the world leaders bother to invite him. Surely they know by now what a useless piece of garbage he is. Maybe they don't invite him; maybe he's crashing their gatherings. Anyway, we were gratified last week to see that he was met and followed by crowds in London waving Canadian flags and shouting the slogan made famous by the Freedom Convoy in February - F?ck Trudeau. Today, we got full value for the cost of sending him to Europe again this week. He was at the EU Parliament. First, he got up and made a speech to an almost empty room. Funny, the room is always empty when he speaks at the UN as well. During the speech he whined again about the Freedom Convoy, and once again yapped about how democracy is unfortunately not quite being upheld everywhere the way it should be. He does this with a straight face, apparently completely unaware that he himself is the biggest offender. One wonders whether his speech writers are as completely lacking in self-awareness as he is, or if they're making a joke at his expense. And then when he finished, an EU politician from Croatia stood up and absolutely reamed him. It is such a joy to behold; I have watched it over and over and enjoy it just as much every time. Worth whatever it cost to send him there. I just wish they would keep him. The link to the well-deserved reaming is below. I especially like the not-so-veiled threat at the end. Enjoy.
Pat ?
|
Re: [PhilosophicalM] Trudeau at the EU parliament
Post Script - just watched a clip from tonight's CBC National news, in which they report on the meeting at the EU today. They talked about how Trudeau addressed parliament, but just showed him close up, and no mention that the room was almost empty. And not the slightest mention of the reaming he got immediately after. The CBC is hilarious; Trudeau's personal PR service. Anyone with no other source for information would have a totally fictitious view of the world in which Trudeau is a hero that the whole world listens to with rapt attention.
Pat
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
------ Original Message ------
From: pat_trivers@...
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; m-positive@...
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 2:19 AM
Subject: [PhilosophicalM] Trudeau at the EU parliament
Justin Trudeau has been swanning around Europe lately, meeting with world leaders, pretending to be helping to solve the Russia/ Ukraine problems. We Canadians here at home wonder why the world leaders bother to invite him. Surely they know by now what a useless piece of garbage he is. Maybe they don't invite him; maybe he's crashing their gatherings. Anyway, we were gratified last week to see that he was met and followed by crowds in London waving Canadian flags and shouting the slogan made famous by the Freedom Convoy in February - F?ck Trudeau. Today, we got full value for the cost of sending him to Europe again this week. He was at the EU Parliament. First, he got up and made a speech to an almost empty room. Funny, the room is always empty when he speaks at the UN as well. During the speech he whined again about the Freedom Convoy, and once again yapped about how democracy is unfortunately not quite being upheld everywhere the way it should be. He does this with a straight face, apparently completely unaware that he himself is the biggest offender. One wonders whether his speech writers are as completely lacking in self-awareness as he is, or if they're making a joke at his expense. And then when he finished, an EU politician from Croatia stood up and absolutely reamed him. It is such a joy to behold; I have watched it over and over and enjoy it just as much every time. Worth whatever it cost to send him there. I just wish they would keep him. The link to the well-deserved reaming is below. I especially like the not-so-veiled threat at the end. Enjoy.
Pat ?
|
Trudeau at the EU parliament
Justin Trudeau has been swanning around Europe lately, meeting with world leaders, pretending to be helping to solve the Russia/ Ukraine problems. We Canadians here at home wonder why the world leaders bother to invite him. Surely they know by now what a useless piece of garbage he is. Maybe they don't invite him; maybe he's crashing their gatherings. Anyway, we were gratified last week to see that he was met and followed by crowds in London waving Canadian flags and shouting the slogan made famous by the Freedom Convoy in February - F?ck Trudeau. Today, we got full value for the cost of sending him to Europe again this week. He was at the EU Parliament. First, he got up and made a speech to an almost empty room. Funny, the room is always empty when he speaks at the UN as well. During the speech he whined again about the Freedom Convoy, and once again yapped about how democracy is unfortunately not quite being upheld everywhere the way it should be. He does this with a straight face, apparently completely unaware that he himself is the biggest offender. One wonders whether his speech writers are as completely lacking in self-awareness as he is, or if they're making a joke at his expense. And then when he finished, an EU politician from Croatia stood up and absolutely reamed him. It is such a joy to behold; I have watched it over and over and enjoy it just as much every time. Worth whatever it cost to send him there. I just wish they would keep him. The link to the well-deserved reaming is below. I especially like the not-so-veiled threat at the end. Enjoy.
Pat ?
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
?
For purposes of reatity - virtually all energy that humans use come from the sun - the only exceptions are geothermal and tidal.
Marvin
Well, hello Tom. Haven't heard from you in years. Sorry to see you're still just as far-left as you used to be.
Yes, Canada has developed the cleanest methods in the world for extracting the oil from the oil sands. Environmental standards are very high across the entire Alberta oil and gas industry. So when Canada reduces its production and instead imports oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, places where standards are considerably lower, we are causing an increase in net worldwide emissions.
No parts of Alberta or anywhere else have been turned into wasteland. That again is leftist propaganda. The oil sands are exactly that - sand or soil saturated with oil, including right on the surface. In its natural state these areas are dangerous to wildlife, and can't be used or enjoyed. Basically, they are wasteland in their natural state. During the extraction process, they are unsightly, of course. Extracting the oil requires digging up or disturbing all of the soil in the area, running it all through steam and other processes. But after the oil has been extracted from an area, the land is clean and useable. It is restored by the industry to a much better condition than it was before it was ever touched. There are herds of buffalo in Alberta living and grazing on the grasslands of what once was oil sands. Those scary pictures you see from the likes of Leo di Caprio (who by the way thought a chinook in Alberta was global warming!!) are taken during the extraction process, not after it is completed.
How many birds are killed by windmills compared to those killed by waste ponds? How many birds are killed per unit of energy produced by windmills versus waste ponds? I haven't seen a study, but the numbers of birds killed by windmills is massive and growing. Only a handful are killed or harmed by the waste ponds, and while that is sad, even in its natural state the oil sands areas are dangerous to birds and to animals as well. Removing the oil, restoring the land to grassland or forest, removes those dangers. Actually, its not restoring since the land was never safe or useable before. They are producing new useable and safe land, while supplying us with oil to heat our homes. Win-win.
Producing oil is going in the wrong direction? For what, and by whose decree? Personally, I don't see any problem with producing oil. CO2 has minimal impact at most on the climate, so CO2 emissions are not an actual problem. Canada is a cold country, we need the oil to heat our homes. The unicorns-and-rainbows idea that anything can be powered by wind and/or solar is just nonsense. We need oil. The high environmental standards in Alberta mean the actual pollutants from extracting oil, which does not include CO2, are minimized. They minimize CO2 emissions too but CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a colourless, odourless, harmless plant food. Additional CO2 in the atmosphere has not changed the climate, but it has turned the earth much more green than it used to be, by increasing plant growth, a greening that can be seen and has been documented from the space station. That also means the earth can produce more food for the population. Draconian efforts to curtail and reduce CO2 could reduce food production and lead to starvation.
I expect that, some day, all of our energy will come from the sun. Forget wind, it's never going to work, and constructing those windmill monstrosities is insane. They don't last long enough to generate enough power to cover what was used to produce them. There is no way to dispose of those giant blades after the windmill wears out, which only takes a few years. They kill masses of birds, including many endangered species. They are ugly, blocking out the scenery. They are a plague. But we will, someday, use the sun. It's there, it's a huge energy source, why not use it? The problem is, we don't have the technology yet to do it. We need cheap ways to collect, store and transport the energy. Subsidizing the industry, as governments are doing now, is not the way to get there. Good old free market capitalism is what will solve the problems, if left alone and allowed to do its thing. The ingenuity that is motivated by profit will invent the technology we need. But until that happens, we need oil, and Canada can provide much more of it than we do now.
Note: here's a hint - any time you see anyone calling the oil sands "tar sands", you know they are spouting leftist anti-oil propaganda. Take anything they say with a giant grain of salt.
Pat
------ Original Message ------
From: tom@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
?
On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 13:33 re:
Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellati …
?
>Actually, Canada could produce significantly more oil than we do. The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to allow
>increased production. Canada's oil patch is in Alberta, and Alberta is landlocked. We have other problems besides the
>Keystone cancellations, all of them caused by the environmental alarmist industry. We have refineries on the east
>coast, but Quebec won't allow pipelines to be built across it to get there. Pipelines to the west coast are fought by
>environmental activist/alarmists, often funded by US organizations. Shipping at west coast ports is restricted,
>especially oil tankers.
?
>Canada has the 3rd largest oil and gas deposits in the world, and can't harvest it because of idiocy over a fake
>environmental issue. The oil sands produce the cleanest oil available,
?
Cleanest oil????
- It takes about 30% of the energy to run the extraction from tar.
- Huge areas of Alberta have been turned into wasteland.
- Many migrating birds die from landing on the waste ponds.
- And producing oil is going in the wrong direction!
?
>yet production there is fought by crowds of Hollywood celebrities drunk on
>self-importance. Canada has a vacuous moron for a Prime Minister, who does everything
>in his power to shut down the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Building the Keystone
>pipeline certainly would increase the oil available to the world, lower prices, and reduce
>the leverage Putin has over other countries. It is the right thing to do.
>Pat
>
>
>------ Original Message ------
>From: HomeOfLove69@...
>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:54 AM
>Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
>
><<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and
>it's a major exporter.
>We're talking exports, not usage.
>If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional
>capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably
>keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. Every pipeline,
>like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day
>of bad weather is blamed on climate change. If the world didn't need the oil,
>there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >>
>
>The pipeline wouldn’t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be
>producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline
>would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This
>“extra” 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via
>train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency
>(which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn’t increase the total
>amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it.
>
>Rhonda
>
>
>
?
?
?
--
Absum! -- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
|
|
tOM Trottier +1 613 860-6633
601-567 Cambridge ST. S,
Ottawa ON K1S 4J5 Canada
Skype:Abacurial
?
?
P Est-ce c'est necessaire d'imprimer ce courriel ?
Do you really need to print this email?
PUBLIC NOTICE: Any use of this message, in any manner whatsoever, will increase the amount of disorder in the universe. Although no liability is implied herein, the consumer is warned that this process will ultimately lead to the heat death of the universe.
|
?
?
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
Well, hello Tom. Haven't heard from you in years. Sorry to see you're still just as far-left as you used to be. Yes, Canada has developed the cleanest methods in the world for extracting the oil from the oil sands. Environmental standards are very high across the entire Alberta oil and gas industry. So when Canada reduces its production and instead imports oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, places where standards are considerably lower, we are causing an increase in net worldwide emissions. No parts of Alberta or anywhere else have been turned into wasteland. That again is leftist propaganda. The oil sands are exactly that - sand or soil saturated with oil, including right on the surface. In its natural state these areas are dangerous to wildlife, and can't be used or enjoyed. Basically, they are wasteland in their natural state. During the extraction process, they are unsightly, of course. Extracting the oil requires digging up or disturbing all of the soil in the area, running it all through steam and other processes. But after the oil has been extracted from an area, the land is clean and useable. It is restored by the industry to a much better condition than it was before it was ever touched. There are herds of buffalo in Alberta living and grazing on the grasslands of what once was oil sands. Those scary pictures you see from the likes of Leo di Caprio (who by the way thought a chinook in Alberta was global warming!!) are taken during the extraction process, not after it is completed. How many birds are killed by windmills compared to those killed by waste ponds? How many birds are killed per unit of energy produced by windmills versus waste ponds? I haven't seen a study, but the numbers of birds killed by windmills is massive and growing. Only a handful are killed or harmed by the waste ponds, and while that is sad, even in its natural state the oil sands areas are dangerous to birds and to animals as well. Removing the oil, restoring the land to grassland or forest, removes those dangers. Actually, its not restoring since the land was never safe or useable before. They are producing new useable and safe land, while supplying us with oil to heat our homes. Win-win. Producing oil is going in the wrong direction? For what, and by whose decree? Personally, I don't see any problem with producing oil. CO2 has minimal impact at most on the climate, so CO2 emissions are not an actual problem. Canada is a cold country, we need the oil to heat our homes. The unicorns-and-rainbows idea that anything can be powered by wind and/or solar is just nonsense. We need oil. The high environmental standards in Alberta mean the actual pollutants from extracting oil, which does not include CO2, are minimized. They minimize CO2 emissions too but CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a colourless, odourless, harmless plant food. Additional CO2 in the atmosphere has not changed the climate, but it has turned the earth much more green than it used to be, by increasing plant growth, a greening that can be seen and has been documented from the space station. That also means the earth can produce more food for the population. Draconian efforts to curtail and reduce CO2 could reduce food production and lead to starvation. I expect that, some day, all of our energy will come from the sun. Forget wind, it's never going to work, and constructing those windmill monstrosities is insane. They don't last long enough to generate enough power to cover what was used to produce them. There is no way to dispose of those giant blades after the windmill wears out, which only takes a few years. They kill masses of birds, including many endangered species. They are ugly, blocking out the scenery. They are a plague. But we will, someday, use the sun. It's there, it's a huge energy source, why not use it? The problem is, we don't have the technology yet to do it. We need cheap ways to collect, store and transport the energy. Subsidizing the industry, as governments are doing now, is not the way to get there. Good old free market capitalism is what will solve the problems, if left alone and allowed to do its thing. The ingenuity that is motivated by profit will invent the technology we need. But until that happens, we need oil, and Canada can provide much more of it than we do now. Note: here's a hint - any time you see anyone calling the oil sands "tar sands", you know they are spouting leftist anti-oil propaganda. Take anything they say with a giant grain of salt. Pat
------ Original Message ------
From: tom@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
On Monday, March 21, 2022 at 13:33 re: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellati … >Actually, Canada could produce significantly more oil than we do. The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to allow >increased production. Canada's oil patch is in Alberta, and Alberta is landlocked. We have other problems besides the >Keystone cancellations, all of them caused by the environmental alarmist industry. We have refineries on the east >coast, but Quebec won't allow pipelines to be built across it to get there. Pipelines to the west coast are fought by >environmental activist/alarmists, often funded by US organizations. Shipping at west coast ports is restricted, >especially oil tankers. >Canada has the 3rd largest oil and gas deposits in the world, and can't harvest it because of idiocy over a fake >environmental issue. The oil sands produce the cleanest oil available, Cleanest oil???? - It takes about 30% of the energy to run the extraction from tar.
- Huge areas of Alberta have been turned into wasteland.
- Many migrating birds die from landing on the waste ponds.
- And producing oil is going in the wrong direction!
>yet production there is fought by crowds of Hollywood celebrities drunk on >self-importance. Canada has a vacuous moron for a Prime Minister, who does everything >in his power to shut down the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Building the Keystone >pipeline certainly would increase the oil available to the world, lower prices, and reduce >the leverage Putin has over other countries. It is the right thing to do. >Pat > > >------ Original Message ------ >From: HomeOfLove69@... >Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:54 AM >Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation > ><<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and >it's a major exporter. >We're talking exports, not usage. >If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional >capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably >keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. Every pipeline, >like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day >of bad weather is blamed on climate change. If the world didn't need the oil, >there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >> > >The pipeline wouldn’t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be >producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline >would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This >“extra” 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via >train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency >(which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn’t increase the total >amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it. > >Rhonda > > >
-- Absum! -- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. | | tOM Trottier +1 613 860-6633 601-567 Cambridge ST. S, Ottawa ON K1S 4J5 Canada Skype:Abacurial
P Est-ce c'est necessaire d'imprimer ce courriel ? Do you really need to print this email? PUBLIC NOTICE: Any use of this message, in any manner whatsoever, will increase the amount of disorder in the universe. Although no liability is implied herein, the consumer is warned that this process will ultimately lead to the heat death of the universe. |
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
On? Monday, March 21, 2022 at 13:33 re:
?Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellati …
>Actually, Canada could produce significantly more oil than we do. The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to allow
>increased production. Canada's oil patch is in Alberta, and Alberta is landlocked. We have other problems besides the
>Keystone cancellations, all of them caused by the environmental alarmist industry. We have refineries on the east
>coast, but Quebec won't allow pipelines to be built across it to get there. Pipelines to the west coast are fought by
>environmental activist/alarmists, often funded by US organizations. Shipping at west coast ports is restricted,
>especially oil tankers.
>Canada has the 3rd largest oil and gas deposits in the world, and can't harvest it because of idiocy over a fake
>environmental issue. The oil sands produce the cleanest oil available,
Cleanest oil????
- It takes about 30% of the energy to run the extraction? from tar.
- Huge areas of Alberta have been turned into wasteland.
- Many migrating birds die from landing on the waste ponds.
- And producing oil is going in the wrong direction!
>yet production there is fought by crowds of Hollywood celebrities drunk on
>self-importance. Canada has a vacuous moron for a Prime Minister, who does everything
>in his power to shut down the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Building the Keystone
>pipeline certainly would increase the oil available to the world, lower prices, and reduce
>the leverage Putin has over other countries. It is the right thing to do.
>Pat
>
>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
>------ Original Message ------
>From: HomeOfLove69@...
>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:54 AM
>Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
>
><<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and
>it's a major exporter.
>We're talking exports, not usage.
>If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional
>capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably
>keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. Every pipeline,
>like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day
>of bad weather is blamed on climate change. If the world didn't need the oil,
>there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >>
>
>The pipeline wouldn’t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be
>producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline
>would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This
>“extra” 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via
>train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency
>(which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn’t increase the total
>amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it.
>
>Rhonda
>
>
>
--
Absum! -- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur.
|
|
tOM Trottier +1 613 860-6633????
601-567 Cambridge ST. S,
Ottawa ON? K1S 4J5 Canada
Do you really need to print this email?
PUBLIC NOTICE: Any use of this message, in any manner
whatsoever, will increase the amount of disorder in the
universe. Although no liability is implied herein, the
consumer is warned that this process will ultimately lead to
the heat death of the universe.
|
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
Does that "cleanest"part include the burning of the oil products afterwards? I am a bit set back at the idea of clean internal combustion...
Actually, Canada could produce significantly more oil than we do. The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to allow increased production. Canada's oil patch is in Alberta, and Alberta is landlocked. We have other problems besides the Keystone cancellations, all of them caused by the environmental alarmist industry. We have refineries on the east coast, but Quebec won't allow pipelines to be built across it to get there. Pipelines to the west coast are fought by environmental activist/alarmists, often funded by US organizations. Shipping at west coast ports is restricted, especially oil tankers. Canada has the 3rd largest oil and gas deposits in the world, and can't harvest it because of idiocy over a fake environmental issue. The oil sands produce the cleanest oil available, yet production there is fought by crowds of Hollywood celebrities drunk on self-importance. Canada has a vacuous moron for a Prime Minister, who does everything in his power to shut down the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Building the Keystone pipeline certainly would increase the oil available to the world, lower prices, and reduce the leverage Putin has over other countries. It is the right thing to do.Pat
------ Original Message ------
From: HomeOfLove69@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
<<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and it's a major exporter.
We're talking exports, not usage.
If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. Every pipeline, like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day of bad weather is blamed on climate change. If the world didn't need the oil, there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >>
The pipeline wouldn’t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This “extra” 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency (which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn’t increase the total amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it.
Rhonda
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
That brings up some of the misleading points that we keep hearing about this war, that Ukraine or Russia produce a high percent of this or that commodity or food to some poor country or worse, some industrial countries, and imply that sanctions or conquest will result in widespread chaos, shortages, or starvation.? I heard on the radio this am that one of them produces sunflower oil for some middle eastern countries, and that Russia produces most of the nickel and palladium that the world uses.? The implication is that Russia and Ukraine are the only country that can produce those commodities these days and we will all have to go without stainless steel and battery cars if Russia can't supply them.
This is all nonsense, of course.? We have palladium in the USA; it's mined in Montana in a huge platinum mine.? Canada has all sorts of nickel mines, as Pat can attest, and other things like rare earths, which all come from China can be mined in places like California.? Some of these mines may be shuttered and some of the world's farms may be producing something else (like pot) due to better returns, but the globe is not going to run out of anything just because Russia and Ukraine are impaired.
As Pat wrote, Canada could step up its oil and gas production if the political motivation was otherwise, as could the USA, and europe with coal and nuclear power.? As it is, importing all these things justs shifts jobs and pollution overseas. ?
The biggest nickel complex in the world is Norilsk in the Siberia, about 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle and though I haven't been there, my colleagues who went there on business came back with some horrifying stories about how intense and widespread the pollution was there.? We're living in a fantasy if we believe that not mining nickel in Canada is somehow better for the earth. ?
I imagine the same thing is true about many other commodities, judging from how bad the pollution was on my trips in China, so all this 'save the earth' movement by shutting everything down in our backyard and sourcing from countries that don't have activists protesting every industrial complex is making things worse.? South American industrial pollution is improving, though Brazil is cutting down the Amazon rain forest as fast as African countries are letting the Sahara ruin farmland, and what I've seen of other parts of Africa is going out of control as population is growing as is the squalor and pollution.
On Monday, March 21, 2022, mrvnchpmn < chapman@...> wrote:
?
touche!
Actually, Canada could produce significantly more oil than we do. The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to allow increased production. Canada's oil patch is in Alberta, and Alberta is landlocked. We have other problems besides the Keystone cancellations, all of them caused by the environmental alarmist industry. We have refineries on the east coast, but Quebec won't allow pipelines to be built across it to get there. Pipelines to the west coast are fought by environmental activist/alarmists, often funded by US organizations. Shipping at west coast ports is restricted, especially oil tankers. Canada has the 3rd largest oil and gas deposits in the world, and can't harvest it because of idiocy over a fake environmental issue. The oil sands produce the cleanest oil available, yet production there is fought by crowds of Hollywood celebrities drunk on self-importance. Canada has a vacuous moron for a Prime Minister, who does everything in his power to shut down the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Building the Keystone pipeline certainly would increase the oil available to the world, lower prices, and reduce the leverage Putin has over other countries. It is the right thing to do.
Pat
------ Original Message ------
From: HomeOfLove69@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
?
<<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and it's a major exporter.
We're talking exports, not usage.
If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. Every pipeline, like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day of bad weather is blamed on climate change. If the world didn't need the oil, there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >>
The pipeline wouldn’t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This “extra” 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency (which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn’t increase the total amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it.
?
Rhonda
?
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
?
touche!
Actually, Canada could produce significantly more oil than we do. The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to allow increased production. Canada's oil patch is in Alberta, and Alberta is landlocked. We have other problems besides the Keystone cancellations, all of them caused by the environmental alarmist industry. We have refineries on the east coast, but Quebec won't allow pipelines to be built across it to get there. Pipelines to the west coast are fought by environmental activist/alarmists, often funded by US organizations. Shipping at west coast ports is restricted, especially oil tankers. Canada has the 3rd largest oil and gas deposits in the world, and can't harvest it because of idiocy over a fake environmental issue. The oil sands produce the cleanest oil available, yet production there is fought by crowds of Hollywood celebrities drunk on self-importance. Canada has a vacuous moron for a Prime Minister, who does everything in his power to shut down the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Building the Keystone pipeline certainly would increase the oil available to the world, lower prices, and reduce the leverage Putin has over other countries. It is the right thing to do.
------ Original Message ------
From: HomeOfLove69@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
?
<<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and it's a major exporter.
We're talking exports, not usage.
If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. Every pipeline, like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day of bad weather is blamed on climate change. If the world didn't need the oil, there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >>
The pipeline wouldn’t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This “extra” 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency (which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn’t increase the total amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it.
?
Rhonda
?
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
Actually, Canada could produce significantly more oil than we do. The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to allow increased production. Canada's oil patch is in Alberta, and Alberta is landlocked. We have other problems besides the Keystone cancellations, all of them caused by the environmental alarmist industry. We have refineries on the east coast, but Quebec won't allow pipelines to be built across it to get there. Pipelines to the west coast are fought by environmental activist/alarmists, often funded by US organizations. Shipping at west coast ports is restricted, especially oil tankers. Canada has the 3rd largest oil and gas deposits in the world, and can't harvest it because of idiocy over a fake environmental issue. The oil sands produce the cleanest oil available, yet production there is fought by crowds of Hollywood celebrities drunk on self-importance. Canada has a vacuous moron for a Prime Minister, who does everything in his power to shut down the oil and gas industry in Alberta. Building the Keystone pipeline certainly would increase the oil available to the world, lower prices, and reduce the leverage Putin has over other countries. It is the right thing to do.
------ Original Message ------
From: HomeOfLove69@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [M-Powered] Keystone cancellation
<<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and it's a major exporter.
We're talking exports, not usage.
If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. Every pipeline, like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day of bad weather is blamed on climate change. If the world didn't need the oil, there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >>
The pipeline wouldn’t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This “extra” 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency (which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn’t increase the total amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it.
Rhonda
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
Oh you're just trying to bury me in technicalities.? The cancelled pipeline, however specific you want you want me to be about the nomenclature, would have delivered more domestic and Canadian oil to Texas refineries: " The proposed Phase IV, Keystone XL (sometimes abbreviated KXL, with XL standing for "export limited") Pipeline, would have connected the Phase I-pipeline terminals in?, and?, by a shorter route and a larger-diameter pipe.It would have run through?, where American-produced??from the??() of??and??would have been added?to the Keystone's throughput of??(syncrude) and diluted bitumen () from the??of Canada.The pipeline became well known when Phase IV KXL attracted opposition from environmentalists, becoming a symbol of the battle over?. In 2015 KXL was temporarily delayed by??. On January 24, 2017, President??took action intended to permit the pipeline's completion. On January 20, 2021, President??signed an??to revoke the permit?that was granted to??for the Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase 4). On June 9, 2021, TC Energy abandoned plans for the Keystone XL Pipeline." -Wikipedia? Also, the surety of supply coming online soon would depress oil prices. Ed
On Sunday, March 20, 2022, a1thighmaster < thighmaster@...> wrote:
Ed,
The Keystone pipeline has been in operation continuously since
2010. I think you're actually referring to the Keystone XL, which
wasn't scheduled to be completed until 2030. It has absolutely no
bearing on what is happening right now. The USA is still a net
exporter of oil
Aloha,
Celeste
On 3/20/2022 7:32 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
830,000 barrels per day is a lot.? Venezuela only produces about
900,000, and it's a major exporter.
We're talking exports, not usage. ?
If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the
additional capacity comes online, so the increase is only
280K/bbl/day, they'll probably keep both going as needed until the
Russia shortfall is resolved.? Every pipeline, like every mine, is
opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day of
bad weather is blamed on climate change.? If the world didn't need
the oil, there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline.
Rhonda
wrote:
Ed had said “Biden should never have halted its
construction.? Look at the international mess that his one
stupid and unnecessary decision has immediately affected
hundreds of millions of middle class people in about 20
countries.”
I
think this is quite hyperbolic. 280,000 barrels/day is
miniscule in the grand scheme of oil, and by no means would
solve the energy problems of hundreds of millions of people.?
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
<<830,000 barrels per day is a lot. ?Venezuela only produces about 900,000, and it's a major exporter.
We're talking exports, not usage. ?
If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the additional capacity comes online, so the increase is only 280K/bbl/day, they'll probably keep both going as needed until the Russia shortfall is resolved. ?Every pipeline, like every mine, is opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day of bad weather is blamed on climate change. ?If the world didn't need the oil, there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline. >>
The pipeline wouldn’t increase Canadian production. Canada would still be producing the same amount of oil/day. The 4th part of the Keystone pipeline would have increased the oil coming through the pipeline by 280/day. This “extra” 280/day is already being produced, it is just going to its destination via train or boat, so it takes longer. The pipeline would have increased the efficiency (which should theoretically decrease the cost), but it wouldn’t increase the total amount of oil. At least this is my understanding of it.
? Rhonda
|
<< Very good answers. >>
Thank you, Amy.
Rhonda
?
|
Re: Keystone cancellation
Ed,
The Keystone pipeline has been in operation continuously since
2010. I think you're actually referring to the Keystone XL, which
wasn't scheduled to be completed until 2030. It has absolutely no
bearing on what is happening right now. The USA is still a net
exporter of oil
Aloha,
Celeste
On 3/20/2022 7:32 AM, Ed Lomas wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
830,000 barrels per day is a lot. ?Venezuela only produces about
900,000, and it's a major exporter.
We're talking exports, not usage. ?
If you're saying that part of Keystone will be shut down when the
additional capacity comes online, so the increase is only
280K/bbl/day, they'll probably keep both going as needed until the
Russia shortfall is resolved. ?Every pipeline, like every mine, is
opposed by environmentalists these days, just like every day of
bad weather is blamed on climate change. ?If the world didn't need
the oil, there wouldn't be any profit in building the pipeline.
Rhonda
wrote:
Ed had said “Biden should never have halted its
construction.? Look at the international mess that his one
stupid and unnecessary decision has immediately affected
hundreds of millions of middle class people in about 20
countries.”
I
think this is quite hyperbolic. 280,000 barrels/day is
miniscule in the grand scheme of oil, and by no means would
solve the energy problems of hundreds of millions of people.?
|
David Smith
FreedomRocks