No evidence of oil sands contributing to global warming

[89coupe]

Professor Ian Clark just does not see any evidence of oil sands contributing to global warming. That’s quite a stand to take in the face of a global environmental community that considers the development of the Canadian heavy oil industry tantamount to hastening the end of the world.

_

But Prof. Clark can claim to know a bit more about the science behind climate change than the average person. As a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, he focuses on paleoclimatology — the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of earth — and isotope hydrology, which determines the age of ice or snow, which can help indicate climate conditions in the past.

_

Last December, the professor testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, The Environment, and Natural Resources, where he explained that our planet is experiencing global warming after 400 years of a cold period which he termed “the little ice age.” [Watch the video here.]

_

“Our efforts to limit the use of fossil carbon-based energy has solved no environmental problems, yet has created many more, including the accelerated production of ethanol and the conversion of tropical rainforest to tropical palm oil production,” Prof. Clark told the committee. “It is time to address real, tangible environmental issues.”

_

In an emailed interview with Financial Post, Prof. Clark explains why the environmentalists “have lost their way” and why NASA scientist James Hansen and former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore are plain wrong.

_

Q: Could you elaborate on the theory that Co2 emissions lag the climate by 800 years.

A: During the ice ages, there is a very clear correlation between the concentration of CO2 and temperature. This is well demonstrated by ice core research, where ice cores have been collected that provide a continuous record of the past several hundred years.

_

During that time, temperature fluctuates by several degrees, and CO2 fluctuates between about 280 ppm during the interglacial periods (like today, except we have higher levels due to human emissions) and 180 ppm during glacial periods.

_

Former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore showed this strong correlation and misrepresented it as showing CO2 warms the climate. The reverse is true. As the temperature rises for external reasons (solar and Earth orbital parameters) the deep ocean basins (Southern Ocean mainly) begin to warm and degas CO2 to the atmosphere (CO2 is less soluble in warmer water).

_

However, the rise in CO2 lags the rise in temperature by about 800 years. This shows that CO2 does not play a role in the warming, and even a reinforcing role must be minor considering the lag. When the climate starts to cool, CO2 remains high, again for hundreds of years, and so plays no role in sustaining the warm climate, as the climate cools despite the high CO2.

_

Q: Do you believe there is a lobby misrepresenting facts on global warming and exaggerating the role of Canadian oil sands in accelerating it.

A: Absolutely. The oil sands contribute very, very little to global CO2. If one believes in global warming, then one must accept that the oil sands contribute very, very little to warming. Shutting down those operations would do nothing to reducing CO2 emissions. These are driven by demand, and supply from other countries will simply increase to meet it.

_

Greenpeace has commended their success in killing the Keystone XL pipeline and stated that they will now kill the Northern Gateway using the mechanisms of protest that they have become so adept with and have the corporate and financial means to support. Perhaps they will. The pollution and emissions from the oil sands have been greatly exaggerated. Killing the oil sands would be to the great detriment of all Canadians, from aboriginal groups to engineers and other workers alike. It is greener energy than many other sources.

_

Q: So CO2 has nothing to do with global warming …

A: First we must be clear that there is, currently, no global warming. The global temperature has fluctuated over the past 15 years around a stable value, with no upward trend. The IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — models all predicted a steady increase of 0.2°C per decade, and this has not occurred. We have had global warming and cooling over geological time, and of course over the past century.

_

This is a good thing, as it warmed the planet from the cooler temperatures of the Little Ice Age. Agriculture, and civilisation flourishes with warmer temperatures. CO2, however, has had no apparent impact on the warming periods.

_

In fact, we experienced cooling during the years from 1950 to 1975 when global emissions were rising very quickly. Therefore, in the past we’ve seen no evidence for CO2 as a climate driver. Further, we can attribute the recent warming of the past century to a more active sun. The correlations are much stronger than between warming and CO2, and the science supporting a solar connection to climate warming and cooling becomes stronger each year.

_

Q: NASA scientist James Hansen says developing oil sands is “game over” for the climate. Do you agree with his assessment?

A: This is advocacy and has no basis in science, yet is stated by a leading scientist in the ranks of the global warming community. With or without the oil sands, humans will continue to burn fossil fuels. The oil sands are one of many sources of oil and gas.

_

Q: You also mentioned Al Gore in your testimony. How do you rate his work and do you think An Inconvenient Truth painted an accurate picture of the environmental issues facing the earth.

A: Mr. Al Gore is a politician, and an opportunist who gains much from the business of global warming alarmism. An Inconvenient Truth is a pack of lies and misrepresentations. It has done much to damage science. It states that CO2 is implicated in the increases in temperature in the ice ages when we know that it lags temperature by almost a millennium. His team has written and distributed a children’s book on global warming that has the audacity to switch the CO2 and temperature curves for the ice ages to show CO2 increasing first, followed by temperature. A scientist to deliberately misrepresent facts would lose his job.

_

Q: Are environmentalists wrong to blame oil sands for global pollution? Do you think Canada can develop its oil sands without adding to global pollution and global warming?

A: The environmental movement has lost its way. Saving whales and fighting for endangered species were worthy causes, but taking on the oil sands at any cost and any misrepresentation of the facts will accomplish nothing good for Canadians.

_

Yes, the oil sands have disrupted great tracts of the boreal forest, but in time these are recovered. Let’s compare that with urban sprawl and the mega-stores dominating suburban landscapes. The ecosystems that were paved over will never be recovered. Never.

_

The oil sands is a mega project that improves the lives of many Canadians, and will do so for many decades to come. The operations continue to improve, with less pollution and less impact. It is a focal point for innovation and technological development.

_

We have many serious environmental problems from overfishing of the oceans, coastal eutrophication, and habitat loss. Let’s focus on those. Perhaps we use too much energy and need more conservation. This will come through education and technologies to improve efficiencies. Let’s focus on that. Cutting off the oil sands energy supply will not reduce our addiction to fossil fuels. It will only require North Americans to import more.

_

Q: Scientists seem to present their findings as facts and absolutely truths. How can average people distinguish between fact and fiction and form their own opinions regarding scientific research.

A: This is not easy to answer. People must read a lot, and they must question what they read. They need to look at what the scientist has invested in the position that he is taking. Is he receiving lots of research funding? Is he advocating or presenting the results of his scientific work? Scientists are human, and consequently have personal sentiments and biases. It is easier to agree with the so-called consensus on global warming, as it aligns with the common sentiment that we live in a time of excess and over use of fossil fuels.

_

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/09/the-environmental-movement-has-lost-its-way/?__lsa=0eaa7c34

[Lagerstatten.ca]

Brilliant article.

[arian_ma]

:werd:

[Xtrema]

National Post, Canadian professor from Ottawa saying oilsand emission is insignificant. As much sense as that make, this is probably treated like the same stuff coming out of Ahmadinejad's mouth on the international stage.

[rage2]

Just waiting for Toma's response. It's always entertaining.

[95EagleAWD]

COME ON GUYS THE WORLD IS GETTING WARRRRRRRMER (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/06/photos-europes-deep-freeze/)

[AllGoNoShow]

:clap:

[CanmoreOrLess]

I am still keeping my block heater.

[DboyNismo]

Great article. If only the global warming hipsters saw this...

[CompletelyNumb]

:clap:

[J-hop]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD
COME ON GUYS THE WORLD IS GETTING WARRRRRRRMER (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/06/photos-europes-deep-freeze/)

You can't use local weather and one data point in time to verify/deny global warming that is silly. Actually data does support an anthropogenic effect on global temperatures. In fact ther is not a single theory (including this professors theory which has been proposed many times before) non-global warming supporters can come up with to explain the warming trend of the last hundred years. If you taking the natural warming cycle, sunspot activity, ice ages etc etc and add them all together you still can't explain the global temperature changes but if you add in an anthropogenic effect you absolutely can.

Unfortunately those of you that support the non-warmer view don't have a freaking leg to stand on, and every year the non-warmer community proposes new theories or variations of old theories. Never once have they agreed on a single theory or combination of theories to explain global temperatures. Until that day comes it is tough to justify believing their side IMO. They could very well be right but until they present a theory that fits the data like the global warming community has and sticks to it and it is widely accepted in academia I can't believe their position. All they have is people supporting the political BS with so and so said.

[Modelexis]

A: Mr. Al Gore is a politician, and an opportunist who gains much from the business of global warming alarmism.

I wonder if the fellow in this interview takes any government grants for his research. I can't imagine that would be anything like gaining a job through catering to evidence that makes the Canadian government look like a great entity.

I'm not an expert on climate change so I can't speak for the actual facts, but he rightly points out the self interest that people have to produce evidence catering to the person whom you are gaining from.

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by J-hop


You can't use local weather and one data point in time to verify/deny global warming that is silly. Actually data does support an anthropogenic effect on global temperatures. In fact ther is not a single theory (including this professors theory which has been proposed many times before) non-global warming supporters can come up with to explain the warming trend of the last hundred years. If you taking the natural warming cycle, sunspot activity, ice ages etc etc and add them all together you still can't explain the global temperature changes but if you add in an anthropogenic effect you absolutely can.

Unfortunately those of you that support the non-warmer view don't have a freaking leg to stand on, and every year the non-warmer community proposes new theories or variations of old theories. Never once have they agreed on a single theory or combination of theories to explain global temperatures. Until that day comes it is tough to justify believing their side IMO. They could very well be right but until they present a theory that fits the data like the global warming community has and sticks to it and it is widely accepted in academia I can't believe their position. All they have is people supporting the political BS with so and so said.

:rofl:

Thanks for your "opinion".

[J-hop]

Originally posted by CapnCrunch


:rofl:

Thanks for your "opinion".

It is an opinion but based on actual data, I challenge you to find a single non-warmer theory that fits the data and hasn't been refuted by even just other non-warmers. That is right.... You can't.

Trust me, I work in O/G, I dont like letting the hippies win anymore than you do. But at the end of the day they have the only thoery that fits the data.

I just hate seein these threads mascarade as science when really they are just people bantering about political BS. Don't look to what people are saying in the media for answers, look to the data, it is available to everyone....

[Supa Dexta]

I'd pick you 10/10 times to beat the shit out of in that fight thread. Not fight, I'd beat the shit out of you and feel great doing it ^ :banghead:

[ipeefreely]

Originally posted by rage2
Just waiting for Mike Hudema's response. It's always entertaining.

Sun News - Levant Toe to toe with Greenpeace (http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/01/27/levant-toe-to-toe-with-greenpeace) :facepalm:

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by J-hop


It is an opinion but based on actual data, I challenge you to find a single non-warmer theory that fits the data and hasn't been refuted by even just other non-warmers. That is right.... You can't.

Trust me, I work in O/G, I dont like letting the hippies win anymore than you do. But at the end of the day they have the only thoery that fits the data.

I just hate seein these threads mascarade as science when really they are just people bantering about political BS. Don't look to what people are saying in the media for answers, look to the data, it is available to everyone....

LOL, ok then, so what was the weather like on dec 21 1382? or 12426 bc? or 1147343 bc? or 1616487313 bc? I dont think they have all the data they want you to think they do. There are always discrepancies and this data needs to be studied over millions of years to even get an idea what is going on. Even then it isnt like it will follow a pattern as the climate will always be influenced by outside events which have been different for the whole history of the earth, volcanic eruptions, tectonic activity, sun spots, the moon, meteors, the amount of ice on the earth, the type of creatures inhabiting it....and on and on and on.... It is impossible to base such a huge theory on some bore holes drilled in ice thats much younger than the earth and weather observations over a couple hundred years.

[m10-power]

Originally posted by J-hop


It is an opinion but based on actual data, I challenge you to find a single non-warmer theory that fits the data and hasn't been refuted by even just other non-warmers. That is right.... You can't.

Trust me, I work in O/G, I dont like letting the hippies win anymore than you do. But at the end of the day they have the only thoery that fits the data.

I just hate seein these threads mascarade as science when really they are just people bantering about political BS. Don't look to what people are saying in the media for answers, look to the data, it is available to everyone....

Lol you're a retard, trust me I know because I just analyzed your posts and it was obvious.

Maybe when your wiser you'll understand that those that pay the bill for the scientists expect results to support their agendas.

The facts are out there, its just how you read them. Humans are such an insignificant blip on the earths history that only humans could be so arrogant to claim so much impact in such a tiny amount of time.

[HiTempguy1]

Ezra FTW!

[J-hop]

Whoa easy guys. All I'm saying is that the anthropogenic effect is the only CURRENT theory that explains the data. Until their is a theory that can explain the data to the same degree or surpass this theory it is hard to believe in alternate theories that don't explain the data.

I'm not saying you should believe it but rather there is no other current theory that explains it. Geez guys it's only another global warming thread dont get your panties in a knot :rofl:

[90_Shelby]

Here's another really good one on hydraulic fracturing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/01/24/dont-frack-me-up-correcting-misinformation-on-hydraulic-fracturing/

[Tomaz]

I have always thought that climate change was a naturally occurring event. I still believe that humans are currently causing damage to the earth, but not climate change.

One very simple thought: A long time ago it was cold. It got warmer, and it still is getting warmer. My prediction for the next million years: It will continue to warm up to a certain point, then cool back down to another ice age.

Taaa daaaa!

:clap:

[Toma]

The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Who remembers that piece of fiction?? Remember who one of their "experts was".... along with Tim Ball ;)

http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-clark

But who cares what his opinion is.... (this article criticizes other interpretation, facts, and studies, but provides no facts of it's own) Link me a study and data he has done, not his biased and energy sector backed opinion in some industry magazine.

[msommers]

Well judging by the answers to jhop, I can see no one watched Jerry Osbourne's talk I posted in the last one of these threads.

[Sugarphreak]

..

[m10-power]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Get out of here with your logic, reasonable assumptions and rational opinions!

Lol

Careful Tomaz common sense isnt so common...the majority are idiots and they are quick to believe the theories of paid idiots.

As for data supporting current theories, garbage in equals garbage out.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Tomaz
I have always thought that climate change was a naturally occurring event. I still believe that humans are currently causing damage to the earth, but not climate change.

One very simple thought: A long time ago it was cold. It got warmer, and it still is getting warmer. My prediction for the next million years: It will continue to warm up to a certain point, then cool back down to another ice age.

Taaa daaaa!

:clap:

Exactly.

Problem is, those conclusions don't make people money or stoke self righteousness.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Exactly.

Problem is, those conclusions don't make people money or stoke self righteousness.
Total Yearly NSF Science/Research funding in the US ~7 billion.

This is funding, ie, for research, materials, salaries.... NO PROFIT is made.

BP Profit in the same year (one oil company), over $20 Billion.

PROFIT

If you are gonna pull the $ card, you need to go over say to the U of C research labs at say the Foothills Hospital. Talk to the head of a couple labs, and see just how they live, the cars they drive, and some will even tell you the salary they make. And they will spend 10-14 hours a day at the lab for this meager salary.

Claiming that a scientists major drive in life, and his integrity is based on that little salary is ridiculous.

These people are not pocketing billions, or millions.....

They take their research, integrity and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD very seriously.

And it's beautiful thing.

Critics of science and the scientific method are obviously biased.

The ones that bash science, research and it's contributions with nothing but opinon and slaner are very similar to the church taking on science in the past.

If you don't think a phenomenon is real, or that there is an error in the complex models of climate, then do research that would support a better model, or that shows that one piece of the model is broken etc....

A guy that went to school for 7 to 10 years, and dedicated his life to research and teaching at some Canadian University, who earns a measly average salary of $120,000 a year isn't gonna be so quick with his reputation and integrity.

Yet,a typical SAIT grad after 2 years, working in the energy sector in Alberta can easily eclipse that salary with a 30 point lower IQ.

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by Toma

Total Yearly Science/Research funding in the US ~7 billion.

This is funding, ie, for research, materials, salaries.... NO PROFIT is made.

BP Profit in the same year (one oil company), over $20,000 Billion.

PROFIT

If you are gonna pull the $ card, you need to go over say to the U of C research labs at say the Foothills Hospital. Talk to the head of a couple labs, and see just how they live, the cars they drive, and some will even tell you the salary they make.

These people are not pocketing billions, or millions.....

They take their research, integrity and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD very seriously.

And it's beautiful thing.

Critics of science and the scientific method are obviously biased.

BP made 7.7 billion in the 4th quarter. So unless they made 19,992 billion in the other 3 quarters youre an idiot.

[Toma]

PS.... gas and Fracing.... if you have not seen it, rent or download, but DO watch Gasland.

Winner of numerous awards, nominated for best documentary etc, and after an independent review of the facts behind the film, and the complaints by the energy sector about the film, no matter what the gas industry claims, they concluded:


there seem to be no killer errors in the film, no knockout blow.

Have a watch, and see what you think.

Many Albertan's near fracking operations also have the flammable water..... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/12/flammable-well-water_n_875520.html

Just so we are clear, Methane alone is a poison. The Nazi's laced booze with it after WW2 trying to poison and kill occupying ally forces. And fracking uses some other NASTY chemicals.

Download the full version, but here are a couple short clips

phCibwj396I

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by Toma
PS.... gas and Fracing.... if you have not seen it, rent or download, but DO watch Gasland.

Winner of numerous awards, nominated for best documentary etc, and after an independent review of the facts behind the film, and the complaints by the energy sector about the film, no matter what the gas industry claims, they concluded:



Have a watch, and see what you think.

Many Albertan's near fracking operations also have the flammable water..... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06/12/flammable-well-water_n_875520.html

Just so we are clear, Methane alone is a poison. The Nazi's laced booze with it after WW2 trying to poison and kill occupying ally forces. And fracking uses some other NASTY chemicals.

Download the full version, but here are a couple short clips

phCibwj396I


Really? :facepalm:

http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Debunking-Gasland.pdf

Worst documentary ever.

[Toma]

Originally posted by lasimmon



Really? :facepalm:

http://www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Debunking-Gasland.pdf

Worst documentary ever.

Yes, really.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78149419/Energy-in-Depth-Tom-Shepstone

http://www.truth-out.org/energy-depth-counter-insurgency-tactics-and-astroturf-energy-citizens/1325777868

and,

Winner of numerous awards, nominated for best documentary etc, and after an independent review of the facts behind the film, and the complaints by the energy sector about the film, no matter what the gas industry claims, they concluded:


there seem to be no killer errors in the film, no knockout blow.

and

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/affirming-gasland

[m10-power]

This tread is entertaining, some real wackos on beyond.

:nut:

[Feruk]

I hate debating this topic in here. You've got a couple guys who have done some research into the issue (these do not include me), and a large majority whose livelihood is based on oil & gas cheering on anything that discounts global warming.

[Freeskier]

I'm with Feruk. The entire global warming debate is a lobbying clusterfuck. Pick a midpoint between the two extremes and you'll likely have a pretty accurate picture of what's going on.

[effingidiot]

There's a simple way to find out which side of the fence you're on. Ask yourself if you would be willing to buy a vacation property/live permanently next to one of the oilsands developments or in the middle of shale gas producing fields :thumbsup:

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by Feruk
I hate debating this topic in here. You've got a couple guys who have done some research into the issue (these do not include me), and a large majority whose livelihood is based on oil & gas cheering on anything that discounts global warming.

I would say there is no debate to be had because there is no relation between the two. They are completely different topics.

Global warming = Natural occurrence. Hell, my 5 year old niece figured that out walking through the Royal Tyrrell Museum.

Pollution, environmental impact, and species being eradicated = NOW there is a topic that has some merit. THAT is human impact on the environment and probably a lot more relevant now. And it's also not part of this thread.

EDIT: Bored at work, more time to type to my fans lol


Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Get out of here with your logic, reasonable assumptions and rational opinions!

Worst part about it, my 5 year old niece has a better grasp of what we call "climate change" than all of those paid scientists.


Originally posted by m10-power


Lol

Careful Tomaz common sense isnt so common...the majority are idiots and they are quick to believe the theories of paid idiots.

As for data supporting current theories, garbage in equals garbage out.

It's just people trying to find deeper meaning to when there is none. Each species that has walked this earth has been wiped clean at some point. Even if we nuke everything on this earth, 100 million years from now a new era of life will begin. We focus way too much in trying to stop things from changing and believing that we will make an impact. Really, all we are going to end up doing is become the next source of fuel for the next guy. (see what I did there?)



Originally posted by Seth1968


Exactly.

Problem is, those conclusions don't make people money or stoke self righteousness.

If these scientists want to get paid AND actually accomplish something, maybe they should develop new forms of collecting renewable energy. Again, in the big picture, those efforts will be a moot point once the sun burns out. lol

[Toma]

Originally posted by Tomaz


I would say there is no debate to be had because there is no relation between the two. They are completely different topics.

Correct. There is no debate. Anthropogenic Climate change is about as controversial as Evolution....

.... among scientists.

[mark4091]

Declining support through the last six years tells me all I need to know. Always amazes me that scientists can be smart enough to figure out that the climate is changing yet are intellectually absent when it comes to the solvability of the issue.

[Toma]

Originally posted by mark4091
Declining support through the last six years tells me all I need to know. Always amazes me that scientists can be smart enough to figure out that the climate is changing yet are intellectually absent when it comes to the solvability of the issue.
Scientists unfortunately do no t dictate policy, lobby groups, profits, and politicians do.

CFC's and ozone anyone?

As for the climate/pollution....
Changes were proposed of course, but were deemed too costly for industry and profits.

And when lesser and compromised changes were proposed, the spin doctors come back was "it's not enough to make a difference, lets not bother"

[m10-power]

Originally posted by effingidiot
There's a simple way to find out which side of the fence you're on. Ask yourself if you would be willing to buy a vacation property/live permanently next to one of the oilsands developments or in the middle of shale gas producing fields :thumbsup:



Awesome name, suits you well. How about a better example, $10/L fuel, black/brown outs, heating your (parents more likely) home with wood because you can't afford natural gas because you dont have a job. No need to dream about your vacation property then...

[effingidiot]

Originally posted by m10-power




Awesome name, suits you well. How about a better example, $10/L fuel, black/brown outs, heating your (parents more likely) home with wood because you can't afford natural gas because you dont have a job. No need to dream about your vacation property then...

:confused:
My original question has a simple logic: you either answer "yes" or "no". One of two. I guess I should have given a bit of an allowance for people from the "field worker scene" whose academic career peaked in grade 9 and then came to an unexpected halt. But I have to agree on one thing: nothing beats ad hominem (you'll have to google it, sorry for the inconvinience) when you're trying to get your point across :clap:

[CompletelyNumb]

Bit of a chip on your shoulders for field workers eh? I'm sorry you couldn't hack it, but that's still no reason to insult them.

And most of the people that live in alberta are in the middle of "gas producing fields". Your point is moot. Or did you not know how many gas wells were in production in alberta and their locations?

Maybe google it. :poosie:

[m10-power]

Originally posted by effingidiot


:confused:
My original question has a simple logic: you either answer "yes" or "no". One of two. I guess I should have given a bit of an allowance for people from the "field worker scene" whose academic career peaked in grade 9 and then came to an unexpected halt. But I have to agree on one thing: nothing beats ad hominem (you'll have to google it, sorry for the inconvinience) when you're trying to get your point across :clap:

Lol no your question is retarded, I don't want to live next to a slaughter house but I still want to eat steak. So what's your point?

[msommers]

Originally posted by m10-power
The facts are out there, its just how you read them.

Then post the facts and the data so I can interpret it myself.

[Unknown303]

Originally posted by msommers


Then post the facts and the data so I can interpret it myself.

You could always google them and figure it out.

[msommers]

No I'd rather see these exact facts that he or she has read themself. Also, published data is not easily accessed without subscription and google scholar is limited.

[01RedDX]

.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
No one can prove or disprove that oil sands directly contribute to global warming, but... they can prove that burning fuel creates a greenhouse effect, which contributes to global warming.
Phenomena support the theory without the need for positing a pre-determined principle.

Nobody can prove or disprove that God exists either... Also, to be slightly more accurate, burning fossil fuels contributes to the greenhouse effect. It doesn't "create" it. The Greenhouse effect is/has been ongoing for the entire life of the planet.

(playing devils advocate)

[AndyL]

Ok, so... here we go again - oilsands - 40 million tons of co2 production... World CO2 Emissions 29,888,121,000 tons

.01% of the worlds emissions, and 7% of canada's emissions...

:dunno: It's the economic driver of Canada, Lets just shut'er'down... We can all be unemployed, broke and homeless to make some econuts happy...

[m10-power]

Originally posted by msommers
No I'd rather see these exact facts that he or she has read themself. Also, published data is not easily accessed without subscription and google scholar is limited.

Life time of reading to form my opinion by weeding through the BS, cant hold your hand you must do it yourself.

Wasnt that long ago that scientist told us that we were heading for another ice age...

Now i do believe the earth is warming, due to its natural cycle, what I dont believe is that we as humans are having a significant impact. I also believe that fear mongering is a way to drive incomes for a good number of people.

Here's a happy way to look at the oil sands, its the world largest natural oil spill clean up operation. Everyone should be praising Canada, Alberta specifically for our work.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by AndyL
Ok, so... here we go again - oilsands - 40 million tons of co2 production... World CO2 Emissions 29,888,121,000 tons

.01% of the worlds emissions, and 7% of canada's emissions...

:dunno: It's the economic driver of Canada, Lets just shut'er'down... We can all be unemployed, broke and homeless to make some econuts happy...

:clap:

The econuts pick on Canada because we don't fight back. Let's see them go to Saudi Arabia and protest. They'd get fucking shot.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Seth1968


:clap:

The econuts pick on Canada because we don't fight back. Let's see them go to Saudi Arabia and protest. They'd get fucking shot.



Originally posted by AndyL
Ok, so... here we go again - oilsands - 40 million tons of co2 production...

.01% of the worlds emissions, and 7% of canada's emissions...

:dunno: It's the economic driver of Canada, Lets just shut'er'down... We can all be unemployed, broke and homeless to make some econuts happy...


Originally posted by m10-power


what I dont believe is that we as humans are having a significant impact. I also believe that fear mongering is a way to drive incomes for a good number of people.

Here's a happy way to look at the oil sands, its the world largest natural oil spill clean up operation. Everyone should be praising Canada, Alberta specifically for our work.

Well it seems everyone agrees.... the original article is garbage with no facts, and flies in the face of common sense and data.

Where the difference lies now is between the posters that accept the fact that man contributes to climate change, and the group finding ways to rationalize it, downplay it, and justify it... ;)

:poosie:

[Seth1968]

This is not a sarcastic question:

Were the oil sands habitable before we started to "mine" it?

[93VR6]

Originally posted by Seth1968
This is not a sarcastic question:

Were the oil sands habitable before we started to "mine" it?

Yes, and they're habitable right now, it's just so cold and there's no infrastructure that no one lives here anyways.

Go have a google for some of the reclaimed mining fields around ft mac, they look just like a young forest.

[msommers]

Originally posted by m10-power
Life time of reading to form my opinion by weeding through the BS, cant hold your hand you must do it yourself.

Hold my hand? Please. Throughout your "life time" of reading you cannot come up with even ONE paper to back up your opinion? Nice.

[Toma]

Originally posted by msommers


Hold my hand? Please. Throughout your "life time" of reading you cannot come up with even ONE paper to back up your opinion? Nice.

Remember, Creationists don't believe in papers, or the scientific method.

[msommers]

^^It's not a matter if I believe or don't believe what he is saying. But I think you should at least provide SOME evidence to what brought you to a "conclusion."

Regardless of how bad the oil sands are or are not, contributing or not contributing, the environmental regulations in comparison to other operations in Canada (let alone the world) are some of the tightest out there. Reclaimation awareness is at an all time high. Could we be doing better? Sure, we could have 0% impact. But we also need to run our cars and have jobs. Advances are being made with microbial efforts to reduce naphthenic acids but that was a few years ago when it was all the craze, should look into that more to see how effective (or not) it has been.

One thing that has really bothered me is why are the tailing ponds in the mining industry out east not getting the same attention as the oil sands? Or Uranium in Sask? Need I remind people of what happened in Hungary?

http://www.savingiceland.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/HungaryToxic.jpg

Short reads.
http://www.nature.com/news/finding-the-true-value-of-us-climate-science-1.9993

http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-field-1.9982

[Seth1968]

One thing that has really bothered me is why are the tailing ponds in the mining industry out east not getting the same attention as the oil sands? Or Uranium in Sask? Need I remind people of what happened in Hungary?

Those in power don't give a shit about Hungary, as that country provides NOTHING.

Once again, econuts target Canada because we don't fight back.

[AndyL]

Originally posted by Seth1968
This is not a sarcastic question:

Were the oil sands habitable before we started to "mine" it?
Not really, most of the areas being mined were muskeg (swamp), yes natives lived in the area - partly because there was this handy black stuff that sealed canoes and burned good leaching from the riverbanks...

Most of the mines are in their last 20 years of life - all the oilsands that can be mined are leased, that's why your seeing so many sagd projects - the remaining deposits are too deep - requires the more conventional pump type operations.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[CapnCrunch]

In other news, scientists discover this game-changing discovery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17012795