It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox News Schooled By Nebraska Farmer on Keystone XL Pipeline

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Fox News Gets Schooled By Nebraska Farmer on Dangers of the Keystone XL Pipeline


This is a shout-out for the sake of facts.

The pipeline would create a total of 35 permanent jobs.
The oil coming through it will be Canadian.
It will be refined here and exported to India and the Middle East (!)
So it has no real effect on America being self-sufficient in terms of needing to import. North America, maybe, but not the United States herself.

Now. I'm fine with trading with Canada, and eliminating the global moving of oil. We have ours over here in North America, and they have theirs over in the desert and Siberia. We can live without each other's resources having to be traded.

I think the only reason anyone would argue with this is because the Middle East is a mess. The only things they have to export are Islam and oil. I believe we can get by better without having that ball and chain around our nation's infrastructure.

So why would we be wanting the pipeline just to move Canadian oil down here, clean it up, and then export it over there?

If we would stop trading in oil altogether, I'd be happiest. But until that is possible on a large scale, if each region just used their own oil to the extent they need it, rather than trying to get rich off of it a la the post-vietnam era (did you guys ever visit Dallas or Houston after big oil dried up down there? The poverty was STAGGERING. Back in the mid 80s).

Anyway, an unassuming man educated the blond on Fox about why the pipeline is counter-productive, and why he and a group of other family farmers are against it.


Art Tanderup represents a group of family farmers whose land and businesses would be put at risk by the pipeline. His appearance on Fox News was rather risky as well considering the network’s blatant support for the fossil fuel industry. Smith began the segment with a question that focused on an overtly partisan premise:

“President Trump has argued that the pipeline construction would bring new jobs. But the whole thing is now in the hands of a state regulatory board […] What is you goal here?”
Trump’s support for Keystone rests on a foundation of disinformation. Independent analysts agree that the the project would create about thirty-five permanent jobs. But even if it created more, that wouldn’t justify destroying communities and the livelihoods of private citizens.

Nevertheless, Tanderup responded to the question without addressing the political overtones. He said that the goal is to “leave the tar sands in the ground and move more rapidly to renewable fuels.” Elaborating on that he continued:

“After we learned how destructive the chemicals and the tar sands are, we have come to realize that this type of fossil fuel should not be happening. It doesn’t matter where it’s at. We need to look for other sources of renewable energy.”


Yes, he schooled her. With facts. Nebraska is a state I would never agree to live in (or Iowa), because I am a trees and mountains kinda gal, but I have family in those states who are farmers or in farming regions. (I might consider Lincoln, but that's it.)

Still, those who are willing to live there ought to be taken seriously about the land, our breadbasket.

As an aside: Not long ago there was a story about how some small western Kansas farming community (used to be called bedroom towns) out there has managed to poison their own freshwater - the Ogallala Aquifer that is fed by springs which people use individually is running low. Water needs to be recycled and put to it's best use as a precious commodity.

Instead, the small town big-acreage-farmers opted to have the government (taxpayers) of Kansas supply them with free bottled water, rather than requiring that they clean up their own damn mess. *smh*

sigh




posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't think he schooled her at all, she lead the narrative. A lot of what is said in the article wasn't even brought up by the guy during he interview. She just brought him on to look fringe to unsuspecting people. I feel she may have succeeded.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Although I agree that this pipelines positive impact on America has been drastically exaggerated, the negative impact has been as well.
We have a million plus miles of oil and gas lines in America, a thousand more will not make any difference.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Although I agree that this pipelines positive impact on America has been drastically exaggerated, the negative impact has been as well.
We have a million plus miles of oil and gas lines in America, a thousand more will not make any difference.


Shows your sketchy knowledge of environmental issues. My brother is an environmental mitigation engineer. My uncle is a geologist. For some unknown reason they both voted for Trump, regardless of his reckless intentions with our natural resources like water, clean air, forests, and agriculture.

Last week the gas lines at the front of my yard and my neighbor across the street had new pipes installed to our gas service. Our county's water is some of the best in the country. We have plenty of sunshine and wind. We are moving away from fossil fuels.

And yes, it makes a difference. Anything else I can correct for you?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't think he schooled her at all, she lead the narrative. A lot of what is said in the article wasn't even brought up by the guy during he interview. She just brought him on to look fringe to unsuspecting people. I feel she may have succeeded.
Well, then you don't really have a handle on the controversy, my friend.

It requires some background knowledge, which she also does not have.


Notice that Smith was fact-checked live about her contention that energy independence had anything to do with this. It doesn’t. But even then she attempted to imply that Canadian oil was the same as American. It’s not. And Tanderup’s obvious knowledge of the subject left her floundering.

This brief segment is a profound summary of the whole Keystone XL debate. The pipeline does not create the jobs that supporters claim. The oil is not American, so it doesn’t contribute to energy independence.

And the refined oil is intended for export to Europe and Asia. So it isn’t helping to reduce American fuel imports. And if this Nebraskan farmer can get it right, so can Fox News. Which is the best evidence that Fox is deliberately getting it wrong to advance their right-wing political agenda.
Fox News is a brazenly Trump-sponsored outlet, like RT. Both propaganda.


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Although I agree that this pipelines positive impact on America has been drastically exaggerated, the negative impact has been as well.
We have a million plus miles of oil and gas lines in America, a thousand more will not make any difference.


Shows your sketchy knowledge of environmental issues. My brother is an environmental mitigation engineer. My uncle is a geologist. For some unknown reason they both voted for Trump, regardless of his reckless intentions with our natural resources like water, clean air, forests, and agriculture.

Last week the gas lines at the front of my yard and my neighbor across the street had new pipes installed to our gas service. Our county's water is some of the best in the country. We have plenty of sunshine and wind. We are moving away from fossil fuels.

And yes, it makes a difference. Anything else I can correct for you?


If your brother is an environmental mitigation engineer, he probably knows far more about the environment and proper stewardship than you do.

If he also voted for Trump, he likely finds Trump's environmental policies acceptable.

He is right.

You are wrong.

Q.E.D.
edit on 23-4-2017 by M5xaz because:



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz


I thought that but didn't bother writing it.

edit on 23-4-2017 by Bluntone22 because: Eta



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
FOX news is Godlike in ATS-land.

They're not a part of the lambasted mainstream media, they're the last bastion of honest and integral journalism.

/s



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The pipeline was pretty much completed. They just needed to build a few miles underneath the river so who gives a crap. All the fake outrage sponsored by Warren Buffets oil railways. It's much safer by pipeline than railways and by ship anyways.
edit on 23-4-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Shows your sketchy knowledge of environmental issues. My brother is an environmental mitigation engineer. My uncle is a geologist. For some unknown reason they both voted for Trump, regardless of his reckless intentions with our natural resources like water, clean air, forests, and agriculture.


So your brother and uncle are the "proper" type of scientist to make you an expert? But you are somehow smarter still and more knowledgeable than they are in their own areas of expertise because they voted for Trump, so they must have suddenly become stupid on issues that specifically pertain to that area of expertise?

Do you not see the contradiction you injected into your own narrative by trying to claim superior knowledge you don't have by appealing to their authority?


Last week the gas lines at the front of my yard and my neighbor across the street had new pipes installed to our gas service. Our county's water is some of the best in the country. We have plenty of sunshine and wind. We are moving away from fossil fuels.


Gas is a fossil fuel ...


Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, but commonly including varying amounts of other higher alkanes, and sometimes a small percentage of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or helium.[2] It is formed when layers of decomposing plant and animal matter are exposed to intense heat and pressure under the surface of the Earth over millions of years. The energy that the plants originally obtained from the sun is stored in the form of chemical bonds in the gas.[3]


And yes, it makes a difference. Anything else I can correct for you?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Who owns the railroad that the XL pipeline will hurt?

Feeling generous today so I will help you out. Berkshire Hathaway run by who? Warren Buffett.

Yet we think this is about the environment and not politics?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
We can live without each other's resources having to be traded.


The United States is the largest net exporter of refined petroleum, the rest of the world cannot live without our products.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Speaking of refined petroleum ...

Thanks to the environmental lobby, we haven't built any or many new refineries for that refined petroleum in over 30 years.

I wonder how much cleaner that process could be today with the technologies we have for it now ... if we were allowed to build one and find out ...



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire
I nearly fell off my chair reading your post.
Fox news, godlike, honest, full of integrity??????
You do know who owns Fox. A certain Rupert Murdoch. I rest my case.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

If your brother is an environmental mitigation engineer, he probably knows far more about the environment and proper stewardship than you do.
Nope. He doesn't. I'm his older sister and have just as much education in environmental science as he does.

However, yesterday when Trump read aloud from his teleprompter, he said

"Rigorous science is critical to my administration's efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection," Trump said in a statement Saturday as thousands of marchers filled the streets of downtown Washington to support science and evidence-based research -- a protest partly fueled by opposition to Trump's threats of budget cuts to agencies funding scientists' work.

"My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks," Trump said. "As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.
"This April 22nd, as we observe Earth Day, I hope that our nation can come together to give thanks for the land we all love and call home,
" Trump added.


I clapped when I read this!!! Did you? It gives my brother and uncle credibility!!

He said this. Your guy's orange tinge and crass, unstable personality notwithstanding - he stated these things that someone else wrote and put on his teleprompter. I can assure you it was not Alex Jones or Steve Bannon or Stephen Miller or Kellyanne who gave him this script to read.


so




booya





WHEN are you all going to acknowledge the current events that are a direct result of your vote(s) and the sources you seek out?


edit on 4/23/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/23/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Became an expert in environmental science with a STEM degree in it on your way to getting your social work degree?



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
We can live without each other's resources having to be traded.


The United States is the largest net exporter of refined petroleum, the rest of the world cannot live without our products.


An yet oil companies still get subsidies paid for by the US taxpayer.

www.nytimes.com...

priceofoil.org...

ok, i'll see your "free enterprise" and raise you one "oligarchy"
edit on 23-4-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I don't think he schooled her at all, she lead the narrative. A lot of what is said in the article wasn't even brought up by the guy during he interview. She just brought him on to look fringe to unsuspecting people. I feel she may have succeeded.
Well, then you don't really have a handle on the controversy, my friend.

It requires some background knowledge, which she also does not have.


Notice that Smith was fact-checked live about her contention that energy independence had anything to do with this. It doesn’t. But even then she attempted to imply that Canadian oil was the same as American. It’s not. And Tanderup’s obvious knowledge of the subject left her floundering.

This brief segment is a profound summary of the whole Keystone XL debate. The pipeline does not create the jobs that supporters claim. The oil is not American, so it doesn’t contribute to energy independence.

And the refined oil is intended for export to Europe and Asia. So it isn’t helping to reduce American fuel imports. And if this Nebraskan farmer can get it right, so can Fox News. Which is the best evidence that Fox is deliberately getting it wrong to advance their right-wing political agenda.
Fox News is a brazenly Trump-sponsored outlet, like RT. Both propaganda.



I can understand his points. I just think that like me, many need more context put behind it or her argument seems liable to be true. She is obviously trying to mislead the narrative and those she is leading tend to be sheep. So I don't expect many people to see through it. I really do believe he was on point but needed more time to explain his point of view. With the limited time and her always getting the last word, I am left with the impressions I am.




top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join