My FB feed is full of anti-solar, pro-petroleum memes. "Wind Turbines use oil, that somehow means they're worse than gas-cars!", "Solar panels give babies cancer!", "Mining vehicles destroy entire mountains to produce a sugar-cube's worth of rare earths!"...that sort of thing. A lot of the memes are fairly obvious trolls, but lots of dum dums fall for them anyway. I wouldn't go as far as to say these are protestors like you're thinking of, but are there those that oppose anything? Yep, just like you said. I'm pretty certain this is the sort of thing that has affected how people vote.

My favorite troll-meme on this topic features an EV on the side of the road being recharged by a gas-powered generator. Sure enough people come along, pointing and laughing at the EV needing gas to proceed. Then the trolls come out asking those peeps if their car is diesel, like the generator. Heh. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I personally haven't seen anybody go "yes, my car is diesel" yet. Again, this is FB, not the best-of-the-best at attracting reasoned debate.

You know what, I'll grant you that. I was thinking "post" and not "assertion", but that's not what I wrote so you can have that. Note that the sky didn't fall on me when I admitted to being wrong and that I didn't need to blame you or Biden for it. ;)

I'll correct my remark: "You made an assertion about Biden causing 'real damage' and used a claim from Alberta to support it. Yadda yadda yadda.

You made an assertion about "the 51st state" and used a claim from Alberta to support it. That claim fell apart under scrutiny. Your assertion is still unsupported. If anybody should be calling Alberta for help, it's YOU. Heh.

Claim being the operative word. There are claims that dispute it. You got nothin.

No, your original point needed to show significant damage. That's why you got yourself in trouble with throwing out unsubstantiatable numbers.

Good because the challenge was for you to support your claim. Still waiting for that.

You're dodging the question because you know the numbers don't jive. They don't include environmental cleanup, or take into account the oil's being sold anyway. You might have had a case that the stop/start of construction caused actual calculable losses, but since they don't add up to the eleventy-billion in perpetuity you're trying to claim you're now clamming up.

Don't blame me for your fuckup, I refer you to the government of Alberta for failing to support your strawman.

Are you standing by their numbers?

Then why did you need to inflate it with imaginary numbers?

It was. You introduced it and avoided the topic when pressed for details like losses caused by environmental damage.

Then answer my question so you can win, finally. I'll remind you of what I asked: "Did any or all of that add up to approximately $2.4 billion to Canada's GDP and an estimated $30 billion in tax and royalty revenues?"

You haven't really debunked anything. You COULD have... like you started down a non-hypothetical path, but then you walked away from it the moment I questioned the number. Now you're leaning on a number I actually have debunked because you hyperbole'd yourself into a corner.

You were close to potentially proving that, then you walked away from it. We both know why. Heh.

"I want the credit but not the blame."

Speaking of goal post moves, you're just now bringing up something that might be tangible... finally. My 'complaint' was actually about the lack of substance to your claim, trying instead to measure events that didn't happen. You're picking a hilarious time to be both obtuse and evasive.

Did any or all of that add up to approximately $2.4 billion to Canada's GDP and an estimated $30 billion in tax and royalty revenues?

Well, no, because you refused to answer my question you made it relevant. You want to claim something that might have happened is a loss, but don't want to consider that something else that might have occurred changes the value of that loss.

At the end of the day we both know their oil is being sold anyway and we also know leaks in that pipeline would be costly, ESPECIALLY that one. Good thing you strategically used the word 'probably', huh. It's a great way to say bullshitty things without the committal.