News update by Ryan Maue
Update: The jails were emptied Monday morning. Also, Daryl Hannah has announced that she is heading to the White House oil-sands protest.
Update: New York Times editorial page comes out for against the Tar Sands Pipeline. However, their language sounds half hearted, and they seem to be checking a box knowing that inevitably the pipeline will go forward regardless of it’s carbon footprint, or something.
The Tar Sands protest organized by Bill McKibben has hit an unexpected snag: the US Park police have cracked down on the protesters. Instead of a simple “traffic ticket” type of arrest and release with a few hours in jail, many climate activists were stunned to learn that their “civil disobedience” may keep them behind bars for at least 48-hours until arraignment [Link to Grist.com lament].
Meanwhile, President Obama is managing the end of Gaddafi in Libya from his beautiful luxury vacation spot in Martha’s Vineyard. With Janet Napolitano always talking about the threats from domestic extremism typically orchestrated by environmental or “green” groups, one has to wonder if the US Parks police in the Capitol are sending a warning message by locking up the protestors for a good spell.
When Obama approves the pipeline and slaps these “true believers” in the face again, will they desert him for another candidate in the upcoming election? Nah.
More pictures of the “protest” including McKibben hauled away in handcuffs here at the Puffington Host. Please try and refrain from mocking these people as hippies or 70s retreads.
Also, has anyone heard if this upstart climate scientist (apparently the only academic currently employed as a professor “descending” on Washington) will still come — and will he risk being arrested?
Climate scientist willing to face arrest at tar sands pipeline protest
Climate scientist Jason Box says oil sands are a moral issue that he feels compelled to address at Keystone XL pipeline protests — UK Guardian
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ian H says:
Warmists may be deluded and wrong, but at least they are NICE.
==============
Nice like Ben Santer wanting to beat up Pat Michaels?
Nice like Romm, Suzuki and Gore?
Nice like the video producers who want to blow up sceptics?
Nice like ‘voodoo science’ Pachauri?
And what can one say of the warmist bloggers that inhabit the Romm, RC and Gaurdian pages? Nothing but a contiunuous stream of excoriation comes out of their mouths. I suppose, compared to them, Romm and Suzuki are quite nice.
To the ‘lions’ out there… I’m thinking you’re a little more like the moose that chased me when I was canoeing the Allagash a few years ago… not so scary because of moose issues with swimming. So no crying on my part as yet. And martyrdom?! Come on. You can do better than harping on as if I’ve set myself up as a martyr. I haven’t. This is just boring, failsafe (for this community) rhetoric. From this thread, it’s pretty clear that it’s not me that has ‘cherished beliefs’ that I’ll stick too regardless. Up your game!
[We recommend you address the (polite) and scientifically-backed answers to your assumptions and hyped-up charges of a false CAGW premise, rather than a screaming rant at other readers.]
Having said that, are you sure you know how many people are injured by large herbivores each year? Or, in your wilderness fantasy, do you think you were actually safe from injury or death because the moose can’t swim “well” ?
Now I’m laughing! ‘Polite’?! I’m quite polite mostly and this has been far from that! You know, I was tired out yesterday but today I am super alive and I can honestly say that – apart from my very first post written quickly after reading the first comments on this thread – I haven’t been the one doing the ‘screaming rant’ing. There hasn’t been too much scientific evidence on this thread – I should be able to go back through and address the specific points that were raised this weekend. It seems that many here expect to bully me into assuming a cloak (manufactured by them) of lunatic, quasi-religious, global warming activism so they can stand back and feel assured that they are reasonable, pragmatic and intelligent in their assumed positions. Moose can run at a frightening speed but can’t swim too fast. So, in deep enough water – the Allagash is a real river not a ‘wilderness fantasy’ (who has those?!) – I felt pretty safe at a paddle. Different situation entirely at another part of the river where the water was far more shallow and we came across a moose stood in the middle of the channel.
Having spent eons in the wilderness, I am confused by “environmentalists” who believe the earth is frail. The reality is that civilization is what is frail. The earth seems capable of recovering quite rapidly from any scarring we could do ( where did all that Gulf oil go?). Man could be mowed down by any number of naturally occurring events, and the earth would carry on business as usually. I have been in my tent many nights facing the realization that I may not be on top of the food chain at that particular location. I am afraid that people like Maria have it backwards. Enjoy the comforts your parents and grandparents worked so hard for, as it could vanish in a flash.
@ur momisugly Maria says: August 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm & August 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Moose issues with swimming? Apparently moose are quite good swimmers – can swim over 6 mph for 2 hours straight, hold their breath for over a minute, have been filmed swimming under canoes, etc. Sure, that’s nothing compared to the 35+ mph they can run on land, but it’s sure not too shabby for swimming – world record human swimmers for distances like 50 meters & 100 meters are a fraction of 5 mph.
As to how ‘polite’ you are and how little ‘ranting’ you’ve been doing compared to others… let’s say we do give you your first outrageous screaming post as a mulligan. In your second we are treated to your opinion that in effect we’re all cowards unwilling to face the ‘fact’ that our lifestyles are unsustainable forever ad too stupid to see the consequences. Unlike us, you in your infinate wisdom accept the clear facts and scientific concensus. You then proceed to list all the utterly dire catastrophic consequences that will certainly occur, and inform us that Gaia is unable to support even the current population (there is NO food shortage on the Earth, by the way, only problems of distribution, and no natural resource that has been depleted). You go on to tell us that you, apparently also unlike us, read, think and feel, and that we apparently feel zero responsibility towards our own children born or unborn. From that foundation you say “I can only conclude that we need to radically rethink our lives and how our world works. I would rather not see mass war, death, and horror. I would rather we try to find a new way forward that doesn’t involve causing more destruction” You then tell us yet again how unthinking and unfeeling we are, how we are just selfish slugs dead set (no pun intended) on maintaining the status quo above all other considerations including the lives and well being of our offspring and decendants. You inform us that the blatantly activist Hansen is “resolutely non-partisan” (I think we were all a bit gobsmacked by that one!). Upon which you inveigh all us lowly lazy blind people to come to Jesus and start searching for the solution.
I see less than zero need to continue deconstructing your other posts.
So, aa, other than your first post, you are oh so polite & you don’t do screaming rants (much?) – not even in your last post August 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm, where of course, the very phrase: ‘screaming rant’ing. [sic] was introduced to this thread.
I suggest you take a read thru your own posts once again, so you can disabuse yourself of the notion that it was only your first post that has been a bit, shall we say, ‘extreme.’
I will leave you with one final thought – when your posts generate such similar responses from so many different people, you might try coming down off your high horse and considering that rather than all of us from all over the world being single minded ‘believers,’ and you the only reasonable person, there is one factor in common – YOUR ATTITUDE AS DISPLAYED IN ALL OF YOUR POSTS.
Maria, when you said “It seems mentioning Hansen […] was red rag to a bull for this forum”, you should have said “red flag”, that would have been a nice touch. However, it wasn’t the mention of Hansen, it was your praise of him that made many of us seriously worry about you being taken in by that cult. Some think you have already had the botomy performed, but there might still be hope for you, since you do want to think for yourself.
First you have to know who you can trust. Climategate has shown that there is a hard core of alarmists who don’t play by the rules and don’t play nice. There are a number of luke-warmers who can be respected because they do. You don’t have to take the skeptics word for anything, but they will point out where you should be looking.
The role of propaganda is to tell you a story and get you believing it. Hollywood calls this “suspension of disbelief”. That’s fine for novels and movies, but it gets you accepting the shaky bits without questioning. The role of the skeptic/scientist is to point out the bits that do not fit reality and the mistakes.
Anybody working on climate related policy is going to have to work extra hard to avoid having to say sometime in the future: “it seemed like a good idea at the time”.
if they built a pipeline to the west coast then the tankers that haul oil from the alaskan pipeline could stop at vancouver and pick up a load to take it to southern california thus short hauling the alaskan pipeline.
C
about the 48-96 hours in jail. quite a few years ago one of the los angeles judges was awarding a young fellow 90 days in the sherman bloch house of many doors and he said that he could do that standing on his head.
so the judge gave him another 90 to get back on his feet.
:-)))
C
by the way maria:
it apears as though you don’t know much about moose either. if one is chasing you you have to really irritate it so that it runs not trots. moose can trot about twice as fast as they can run as anyone that lives in moose country can tell you so getting one to run gives you a better chance of escape.
C
Oh ‘Rational Debate,’ too easy – you got your facts wrong again…
RACookPE1978 says:
August 23, 2011 at 7:25 pm
[We recommend you address the (polite) and scientifically-backed answers to your assumptions and hyped-up charges of a false CAGW premise, rather than a screaming rant at other readers.]
Maria says:
August 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Now I’m laughing! ‘Polite’?! I’m quite polite mostly and this has been far from that! You know, I was tired out yesterday but today I am super alive and I can honestly say that – apart from my very first post written quickly after reading the first comments on this thread – I haven’t been the one doing the ‘screaming rant’ing.
Rational Debate says:
August 23, 2011 at 10:17 pm
So, aa, other than your first post, you are oh so polite & you don’t do screaming rants (much?) – not even in your last post August 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm, where of course, the very phrase: ‘screaming rant’ing. [sic] was introduced to this thread.
Bruce Cobb says: They are breaking the law, and they know it.
What law have they broken?
Bruce Cobb says: That way lies the road to fascism.
My grandparents have seen what fascism is and you know nothing about it. Enjoy your right ot be a moron.
Nice post Toto.
Pk, I suspect it wouldn’t be feasible to shift to tanker for the volumes they’d be dealing with, that a pipeline to the refinery would make more sense… and I’d wonder if they’ve got the ability to even pipe sufficient crude from S. Cal. to Tx refineries… if not, it’d just be trading a cross country pipeline running N/S from Canada to Tx for one that runs W/E from Cal. to Tx (believe me, having driven it before, that’s a VERY VERY long way – and you have to cross the Rocky Mountains, which would take a lot of pumping power to hike it up the mountains, and then probably mechanisms to actually slow it down and control it on the other side).
@ur momisugly Maria says: August 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Aw, gee, my bad, I was off about who said screaming rant first, abject apologies.
I note you failed to address the far more pertinent aspects of my post – any of them.
Tony Mach says:
August 24, 2011 at 2:58 pm
What law have they broken?
Do you know what civil disobedience means? Look it up.
My grandparents have seen what fascism is and you know nothing about it
Do you know what a road is? In this sense, it is a metaphor (big word, I know) for a way towards something. Stay in school.
rd:
who said anything about pumping it to texas, we’d burn it in southern california. thats where almost all of the alaskan oil goes anyway.
we have one, out of several, tanker berths in the long beach harbor that the Exxon Valdez (under another name) calls at to discharge about every 16 days, that particular berth off loads that vessel in about 18 hours. within two hours they have another tanker of like size in and pumping. whoever does the scheduling is really good at it as the tanker people figure that a lost hour is worth about $10,000 these days.
C
@Pk, I’d think (hope) that we’d import more than could be burned just in SoCal…. any idea how much you folks import from other than Alaska, vs. send out to the rest of the USA? I think S. Nv has single pipeline incoming from SoCal that provides pretty much everything, but beyond that have no idea…. Also I’m sure you’re spot on about how efficient and fast tankers can be offloaded – but would still think that it would be cheaper and able to transfer more using continuous flow thru pipe rather than ocean going tanker transefer – but I’m just assuming, haven’t got any facts to back that up.
we only import about 15 %. the rest is home grown. around bakersfield, seal beach, huntington beach, and santa barbara.
go to the oil drum.com for good stuff.
c
I am in awe of your patience. Replying rationally to such hand-wringing nonsense is beyond almost all of us. Thx!
Sad part is that I’m agreeing with Grampa Simpson (Soylent Green remake) and enjoying protesters getting arrested by the cops. I wish that gas retailers would refuse to dispense gas to some folks, so that they would appreciate what fossil fuels have done for civilization.
rd:
the august national geographic has a few pages and graphics on the already existing lng pipeline that extends from an already existing port on the west coast to the great plains where the tar sands are.
the controversy about the proposed pipeline is because the great distribution system to the east coast (initially buiilt in WWII to avoid german uboats sinking tankers on the coast route) starts in texas/louisana and then extends northeast serving a great share of the united states east of the misssisssisssissippi and some of it west of that river also.
C
rd:
you are a bit off when you speak of continous flow.
fluid flowing through a pipe or reasonable facsimile looses velocity because of friction against the pipe walls. this is expressed in total loss of flow in GPM for a given distance. (usually per foot) when it goes through a fittiing (like a valve, close 90 degree elbow…) it also looses flow. this is expressed as the equivilent loss in straight pipe. ( a 90 degree globe valve has a value of about ~2.5) ……..
the upshot of this is that they have to have pumping stations every so often (maybe 150 mile intervals) depending on a lot of things like viscosity, temperature, change in elevation, sediment in the line…..
yes if you pump fluid up a mountain 5000 feet and let it come back down on the other side you will get a return, but about 80% is considered to be really good.
by the way most of the pumping stations (especially for natural gas) burn the product they pump through the line in their prime movers.
C
Sorry, pk, you’re crazy! The only time a pipeline “looses” flow is when it bursts or springs a big leak.
But friction can cause it to lose flow.
;P
ok i have an old keyboard that loses g every once in a while so maybe it picks up and o occasionaly.
maybe i should have said that flow slows down.
what happens is that the more friction that occours the higher the load on the pump (in the case of a centrifical pump) until flow stops. if the resistance becomes so great that the flow stalls then the pump unloads and actually runs at about 105% rpm and about 110% pressure with a lower amount of power drawn.
c
Yeah, someone who develops frictionless pipe liners will save the world a bundle!
In the meantime, we just need to make sure that all pipes run downhill. >:-)