kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Yes because it will impact your economic activities in the Salish sea, as you admitted. Dream on. I was brought up as BC resident to enjoy outdoor activities on the Salish sea. I have no money in this dispute.... Just a love for my local natural environment that needs to be guarded / protected for future generations. Global warming is real and people that support Global warming really need to examine their motivations / reasons for their belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 Just now, gurn said: Moving the goal posts. He just needs to now copy column ( M ) in his excel file and paste in into column ( R ). Easy as pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Just now, kingofsurrey said: Dream on. I was brought up as BC resident to enjoy outdoor activities on the Salish sea. I have no money in this dispute.... Sorry but you've already outed yourself as the whole 'if there is a spill it will mess with economic activities in the Salish sea' quote. Just now, kingofsurrey said: Just a love for my local natural environment that needs to be guarded / protected for future generations. Too bad your love doesn't translate to getting actually educated about the issues and learning some scientific analysis to be useful in the said topic, but just an empty cheerleading pawn to the American interests who want to kill Canadian competition. Just now, kingofsurrey said: Global warming is real and people that support Global warming really need to examine their motivations / reasons for their belief. Pffft. If global warming is the main thing you want to fight against, first argue about shutting down BC coal before Alberta oil, since coal is way more GHG heavy per watt of power generated than oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, gurn said: Moving the goal posts. Nothing is being moved, it is a simple question of which affects more life-forms: oil spill in the salish sea or plane crash in burns bog. The latter wins by a country mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Nothing is being moved, it is a simple question of which affects more life-forms: oil spill in the salish sea or plane crash in burns bog. The latter wins by a country mile. Pretty sure the BC Salish sea has more recreational uses and tourism industry than BURNS BOG. Keep moving your goalposts..... eventually you may start to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 12 minutes ago, canuckistani said: Nothing is being moved, it is a simple question of which affects more life-forms: oil spill in the salish sea or plane crash in burns bog. The latter wins by a country mile. Then the numbers I posted, versus your lack of numbers, is the more compelling argument, and at this point the only one backed by data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Pretty sure the BC Salish sea has more recreational uses and tourism industry than BURNS BOG. Keep moving your goalposts..... eventually you may start to make sense. ah so again, its about competition of economic activity and threat to the status quo, not actual ecological threat. Thanks for second confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 minute ago, gurn said: Then the numbers I posted, versus your lack of numbers, is the more compelling argument, and at this point the only one backed by facts. The numbers you posted is largely irrelevant to the impact of the disaster scenarios being discussed. Entire salish sea is not effected by a single spill - only a small fraction of it is. The large portion of burns bog is affected by the disaster. Ergo, its a much bigger ecological disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted January 28, 2019 Author Share Posted January 28, 2019 6 minutes ago, canuckistani said: ah so again, its about competition of economic activity and threat to the status quo, not actual ecological threat. Thanks for second confirmation. You crack me up.... You seem to have zero understanding of risk and reward to the BC economy. Shipping Dirty sinking Dilbit oil from a harbour with no spill response plan / catastrophe assurances makes zero sense. Tourism contributes approximately $4.8 billion to the Metro Vancouver economy annually and supports over 70,000 full time jobs. https://www.tourismvancouver.com/media/corporate-communications/vancouvers-tourism-industry-fast-facts/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said: You crack me up.... You seem to have zero understanding of risk and reward to the BC economy. Shipping Dirty sinking Dilbit oil from a harbour with no spill response plan / catastrophe assurances makes zero sense. Tourism contributes approximately $4.8 billion to the Metro Vancouver economy annually and supports over 70,000 full time jobs. https://www.tourismvancouver.com/media/corporate-communications/vancouvers-tourism-industry-fast-facts/ Don't care about tourism more than self sufficiency in industry. Its because of tourism that houses here are unaffordable. The risks are negligible, thats what the numbers say and no amount of massaging it will change the fact that more oil ends up on the burrard inlet from re-fuelling leakage from sea-planes and cruise ships than from dilbit. Down with NIMBY-ism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 2 hours ago, canuckistani said: will change the fact that more oil ends up on the burrard inlet from re-fuelling leakage from sea-planes and cruise ships than from dilbit. So, can you back this up with actual data, or are you just going to wing this assertion as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Just now, gurn said: So, can you back this up with actual data, or are you just going to wing this assertion as well? actual data ? no one collects data on regular re-fuelling spills/leakages, which measure usually in ounces per refuel. however, it is a common factor in ALL re-fueling. Just like your fuel nozzle in the gas station regularly spills a drop or two, high pressure fuel transfer such as the ones on planes or ships end up spilling an ounce or two. the floating gas station by stanley park causes more pollution than all the dilbit tankers sailing in burrard inlet put together, in terms of dilbit spills (which there hasnt been any). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 2 hours ago, canuckistani said: actual data ? no one collects data on regular re-fuelling spills/leakages, which measure usually in ounces per refuel. however, it is a common factor in ALL re-fueling. Just like your fuel nozzle in the gas station regularly spills a drop or two, high pressure fuel transfer such as the ones on planes or ships end up spilling an ounce or two. the floating gas station by stanley park causes more pollution than all the dilbit tankers sailing in burrard inlet put together, in terms of dilbit spills (which there hasnt been any). So, you talk about science to KOS, and others, but here you have backed up your opinion with just your opinion. Not very scientific, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 7 minutes ago, gurn said: So, you talk about science to KOS, and others, but here you have backed up your opinion with just your opinion. Not very scientific, at all. It isn't opinion mate, it is a fact. Not every single damn fact is available on the internet or a study happens on it to be readily accessed to feed the illiterates. Do you want me to list off the top of my head physical world phenomena facts that you won't find data sheets on the internet easily ?!? Or are you the camp of 'if it doesn't exist on the internet, its not factual' ?!? Or have you never ever re-fuelled a car/boat/plane before ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 6 minutes ago, canuckistani said: It isn't opinion mate, it is a fact. Not every single damn fact is available on the internet or a study happens on it to be readily accessed to feed the illiterates. Do you want me to list off the top of my head physical world phenomena facts that you won't find data sheets on the internet easily ?!? Or are you the camp of 'if it doesn't exist on the internet, its not factual' ?!? Or have you never ever re-fuelled a car/boat/plane before ? The fact that you are blind to your own hypocrisy is rather surprising to me. I had thought better of you, guess I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 2 minutes ago, gurn said: The fact that you are blind to your own hypocrisy is rather surprising to me. I had thought better of you, guess I was wrong. hypocrisy over what and how ? Again i ask - you seriously need data to consider the spillage over each and every refueling option or do you seriously think i just made that up ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 You ask for verifiable facts from others, but not of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernards Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 Hasn't anyone heard this? The whale watching guys are actually looking for real answers. https://www.victoriawhalewatching.com/2018/07/09/sewage-kills-chinook-salmon-starves-whales/ 1.800.470.3474 Current Conditions Book Now Contact SEWAGE KILLS CHINOOK SALMON & STARVES WHALES! July 9, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violator Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 5 minutes ago, Bernards said: Hasn't anyone heard this? The whale watching guys are actually looking for real answers. https://www.victoriawhalewatching.com/2018/07/09/sewage-kills-chinook-salmon-starves-whales/ 1.800.470.3474 Current Conditions Book Now Contact SEWAGE KILLS CHINOOK SALMON & STARVES WHALES! July 9, 2018 Whale watching is bad for whales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernards Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 15 minutes ago, Violator said: Whale watching is bad for whales. So they are just trying to divert attention away from themselves and onto the sewers. Could be. They'd be better off blaming oil tankers that might be coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.