Neil Young blasts the Alberta government about the Oilsands

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

When he has gems like this quote I don't feel bad for 'disrespecting' him, as you put it.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ands-1.1701224

How about this quote?

"It looked very big and very impressive. Extremely well-organized. A lot of people were working — hard-working people, who I respect,"

So he's giving a lot more respect to the people working in the industry than is directed back his way.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The difference between us discussing here and celebrities going in front of the media is the amount of persuasion a celebrity has over people. As we saw with Jenny McCarthy's war on vaccines damage can be done when non-experts with access to media influence citizens with poorly researched information. I'm not saying Young hasn't researched but there's also no indication that he has the slightest clue about how the oilsands operate.

Yes but a proper argument involves pointing out his inaccuracies and citing data to refute his claims.

Just like with McCarthy, the war against anti-vaxxers can only be won with reasoned response and data, not derisive dismissal and argument from incredulity.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yes but a proper argument involves pointing out his inaccuracies and citing data to refute his claims.

Just like with McCarthy, the war against anti-vaxxers can only be won with reasoned response and data, not derisive dismissal and argument from incredulity.

What data did he cite to back up his claims that I have to dispute? Everything he said is highly opinionated.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Igottago

People from all walks of life have a right to express their opinion on any issue, just because he's a musician doesn't mean he hasn't educated himself on the issue, and doesn't mean he has no validity.

I'm not even saying I agree with him but blatant dismissal and disprespect towards him expressing his viewpoint is just annoying and immature.

His opinion should be dismissed as it's uninformed. His perspective is of literally zero consequence because he has no expertise or special knowledge that would lend it credibility. The sole reason that anyone is paying attention to him is that they know who he is. If Neil Young would like to offer his perspective on songwriting or the music industry of a few decades past or any other topic where he's well situated to comment, I'll happily listen. The problem is that the media will gobble up these utterly worthless statements and print them to get page views, and uninformed and uneducated celebrities will abuse that avarice-in-place-of-journalism to further their own pet issues (which they nearly universally fail to comprehend beyond the most superficial level).

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What data did he cite to back up his claims that I have to dispute? Everything he said is highly opinionated.

Does it matter?

Why bother arguing against something if the only criteria you feel is needed to refute it is to say "No, this is wrong"?

Make an effort to inform people, don't just be a contrarian.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Igottago

How about this quote?

"It looked very big and very impressive. Extremely well-organized. A lot of people were working — hard-working people, who I respect,"

So he's giving a lot more respect to the people working in the industry than is directed back his way.

He said Fort McMurray looked like a nuclear bomb went off. How in the world can you take him seriously or defend him after a comment like that.

Regardless if you like the guy and his music or not, he should not be making comments like this. Celebs chose their path in life, one of the side effects of the fame and fortune is having your words/actions scrutinized. If you want to have a cause in life and try and make the world better that is great, but you should be informed on the subject.

[troutman]

Sweet Home Fort McMurray

http://www.rock979.ca/2013/09/11/lis...fort-mcmurray/

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Does it matter?

Why bother arguing against something if the only criteria you feel is needed to refute it is to say "No, this is wrong"?

Make an effort to inform people, don't just be a contrarian.

What arguments is he making that I can give data to refute?

[undercoverbrother]

I posted this before

http://fortmacphilosopher.blogspot.c...h-came-to.html

[troutman]

Ad hominem attacks and arguments from authority are both logical fallacies. It would also be a fallacy for the Greens to assume that because someone works in the industry they are automatically biased or unreliable.

Follow the evidence.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I posted this before

http://fortmacphilosopher.blogspot.c...h-came-to.html

Some good quotes from the link you posted:

Meeting the production crew at the Chateau Nova I found them all to be friendly and professional people. Ken Chapman happened by and Neil chatted with us around his and Daryl's cars for quite some time. Neil seemed genuinely surprised and impressed with some of the green initiatives happening in the community. He seemed to know little about the oil sands industry, he'd never heard of SAGD for example. His understanding seemed to be that bitumen is mined by digging giant open pits, using tonnes of water, and creating giant tailings ponds. He was unaware of the advances that have been made.

I was told that the previous day was spent with a First Nations Chief getting his story and they were planning on spending the next day with a First Nations Chief as well. The only other thing on their agenda was an interview with Dr. O'Connor in Edmonton to presumably talk about the ill health of First Nations people because of the industry upstream.

What we didn't shoot was as informative about the narrative as what we did shoot. We did not film any reclaimed land. We didn't film any new extraction operations using greener technology. We didn't film any industry experts. We didn't film Neil's diesel burning bus that his crew rode in. We didn't film the environmentally conscious community active in Fort McMurray. That stuff wasn't on the agenda.

Seems like Neil has an agenda and isn't particularly interested in the whole story if it contradicts his crusade. I think that's the biggest issue with celebrities taking up causes like these. There's no ethical standard that they have to adhere to. His heart might be in the right place, but when you wield the kind of influence that he does, I just think that it's incredibly irresponsible to be this blatantly biased.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by fotze

I remember taking units in school about the Incas, and Aztecs and whatever. How about all Alberta students do a little unit on the oilpatch/sands/etc. Just a little intro, couple hours is all that is needed. The collective and complete ignorance of just basic things regarding this provinces bigeest moneymakers is boggling.

.

My daughter did last year, IIRC, grade 4, and when we lived in Calgary she learnt a song (in grade 2) about the oilsands, oh and it was postive.

[Yasa]

It's not like it's going to change anything. He'll still have his opinion and Alberta/Canada will still rely on oil revenue. Until we find a cheap, viable alternative to energy mining, we'll be stuck with it as one of our primary economic cornerstones. I'd be happy to trade it all for a clean industry that can still support our infastructure and social programs, but we'll have to make due until that happens.

I don't actually know what Neil is arguing though. Does he want Canada to drop oil/gas entirely, or clean it up more? The former won't happen any time soon, and the latter is constantly being worked on. Either way, you won't please everybody. Maybe he wants neither of those, I don't know. He's free to say what he wants, I don't really care. In my opinion, he's not doing much harm with his rhetoric. People that already agreed with him will still agree with him, and those that don't will still...not.

The whole thing isn't a black and white issue though. It's more of a smoggy grey.

[crazy_eoj]

I wonder how Neil Young thinks removing the largest employer of aboriginals in Canada would be net beneficial for their wellbeing?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

His opinion should be dismissed as it's uninformed. His perspective is of literally zero consequence because he has no expertise or special knowledge that would lend it credibility. The sole reason that anyone is paying attention to him is that they know who he is. If Neil Young would like to offer his perspective on songwriting or the music industry of a few decades past or any other topic where he's well situated to comment, I'll happily listen. The problem is that the media will gobble up these utterly worthless statements and print them to get page views, and uninformed and uneducated celebrities will abuse that avarice-in-place-of-journalism to further their own pet issues (which they nearly universally fail to comprehend beyond the most superficial level).

A lot of people would have the same reaction to someone like David Suzuki, and or any other person who brings up any negativity towards the oilsands. So basically anyone who has an opposing viewpoint is "uninformed" and unqualified to give an opinion.

[burn_this_city]

David Suzuki could at least tell you the difference between a mine and SAGD. These people have no credibility for the reasons already outlined in this thread. Young and Hannah are ideologues, neither of whom are informed or practice what they preach.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Some good quotes from the link you posted:





Seems like Neil has an agenda and isn't particularly interested in the whole story if it contradicts his crusade. I think that's the biggest issue with celebrities taking up causes like these. There's no ethical standard that they have to adhere to. His heart might be in the right place, but when you wield the kind of influence that he does, I just think that it's incredibly irresponsible to be this blatantly biased.

And that's the problem, they basically take the words of environmental groups that haven't been there, or tend to exaggerate to increase their fund raising and parrot them. Then Neil throws in some Harper is evil and likes to eat kittens and then talks about treaty rights with the Natives.

He's catering to his fan base, nothing more.

Like I said what frustrates me more then anything else beyond the hyprocisy of the celeb set that do nothing on their own side to live up to their words but see fit to lecture everything else. Is that Neil lives in California, where more then half of America's dirtiest cities from a pollution standpoint reside, and who are building pipelines like crazy.

Or maybe he should look at the major carbon emitters like China, or like America, or like Russia and go after them. But we never hear that China is starting up something like a new coal fired plant every week.

Or again maybe he should be crying about the countries like China and India and Pakistan and even some places in Russia where they're killing their own people because of the water and air quality and the fact that the governments don't care all that much about their environmental record.

He and other celebs go after the oilsands like this because it makes them money and makes them popular.

Nobody here is saying that Canada doesn't need to improve its environmental record, or keep pushing for meaningful reforms on the Oilsands.

But for Neil Young to go there with his crew and "be surprised by Green initiatives" that are happening up there and then go out and do the Atomic Bomb comment really makes me question the mans integrity.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Young and Hannah are ideologues, neither of whom are informed or practice what they preach.

Neil drives an electric car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LincVolt

http://www.lincvolt.com/

[19Yzerman19]

Yes, followed around by a tour bus. Hannah apparently at least uses wind / solar power. But hypocrisy isn't that interesting to me, it's foundation. Honestly, you can drive a gas powered car and object to the Oilsands, or certain practices within the Oilsands, or a hundred other things, provided you actually have a point to make. The extent of Neil Young's position appears to be, as far as he's expressed it, "Oil = bad, greed, destroying Canada, et cetera."

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by troutman

Neil drives an electric car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LincVolt

http://www.lincvolt.com/

That's good. He recycled an old car and converted it to use a pretty good battery, and bio diesel. The LincVolt uses as LiFePO battery, made in China. So, on an individual basis it's an economical and "green" choice, but even then all of this stuff can be traced back to an unhealthy industry in some form or another.

I don't care that he, or anybody else, has a negative opinion of the oil and gas industry as a whole. He's perfectly entitled to, and that's great! What does annoy me is when people with large audiences spew misinformation and offer no viable alternatives. We have a great (well, pretty good) social infastructure in healthcare, roads, welfare and pensions. These are all supported by what we mine and export.

Electric cars for everyone? Well, ok. As far as I know, there aren't electric cars/hybrids powerful or cheap enough for the needs of long haul transport. Not everyone can get, or wants a LincVolt and not everyone can afford or want a Tesla. That's just one tiny part of it too. The manufacturing of any new electric vehicle technology still relies heavily on oil and oil accessories.

There are lists of reasons as to why we don't use other means for municiple power (although, I still think nuclear would be the best option but people are afraid of it.)

If he or anyone else can think of a plausible method of changing how we do things without substantially changing how we live today, then I'm all ears.

But I think I'm just making up strawmen arguments here.