17to85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I also hate how the warmists, especially in the US, attack the Canadian oil sands so much. Don't get me started on that. Canada contributes 2% of global CO2 emissions. If we stopped every single source of emissions tomorrow global levels will STILL rise because China keeps firing up more and more coal power plants which are the worst. The Oil Sands are a good way for those Europeans and Americans to deflect the blame and cluck their tongues about that dirty dirty oil. And how DARE us Canadians have a high per capita CO2 emission rate. Shame on us for living in a cold northern climate with long winters and a huge area to transport people and goods across. Shame on us for needing to avoid freezing in the winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 See this is the only point we really disagree on and you are wrong to try and deny that it is a thing. Yeah reports on the severity change, but I agree with you that it's not as dire as people want to make it, but there is a relationship. I have a geology major and a geography minor, if there's anything I know it's how the Earth works and I am well aware of different climates in the past and different atmospheric conditions, but the science is settled, more green house gasses in the atmosphere means more heat trapped which means the climate changes. They can and will quibble about the extent of it and what kinds of things is causes but the facts are that there is a change as a result. So you really just need to clarify what you're arguing. Don't argue that man made climate change is not real because that is a losing argument. Argue the things that you do, just leave out the whole bit about denying it's a thing. fine! Did you read that Matthew Ridley lecture I posted? You can pretty much substitute what he is saying for my opinion. He agrees that it is a thing too. There is absolutely no argument based in science against the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect the temperature on Earth would resemble Mars. Hell compare Venus as well to see what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like. It's hard and fast science that greenhouse gasses do warm a planet up. Denying it is pointless and shows a great lack of understanding of the concept. Now be my guest and argue about the effects of these CO2 emissions, I'll be right there beside you doing the same, but gotta make sure that the science is given it's proper due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I remember the Ice Age Alarmists back in the early 70's. That by this time our world would be significantly cooler, the winters longer.... Oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 When I moved to Calgary in 1990, we had a Green Christmas that year with no snow on the ground & very mild temps in the high single digits & teens. Also, the winter of 1991-92 the same thing when also there was no snow on the ground over Xmas & we had plus 20 degrees. In February of 1991, we had record temps in the high teens & low 20's in Calgary. It was unbelievable. Winter was over & it never came back. As well as the winter of 1997 & 98 again where there was no snow on the ground Xmas day with temps in the teens. People were golfing here in late December as the courses were open. That's 4 years out of an entire decade where the winters were significantly warmer than they are now with Green Christmases as they are referred to. Most years of that decade spring would arrive by mid March & we'd be working outside in our yards. My dad & I built a fence in the spring of 1993 in early April at my house. The frost had gone out of the ground & we were able to dig the holes for the fence posts & put it up wearing shorts & a tee shirt. Well, since 1998, there hasn't been one Calgary winter where we've had a snow free Xmas. The majority of the winters have been cold. Last winter, the snow came in October & stayed until mid April. This year, our so called spring we're having looks to be shaping up the same. No way anyone can tell me the climate is warming. Not after 16 years of this & stats now telling us that the global temperature stopped climbing on average in 1998. As I see it, the climate is colder now than it was 20 years ago, no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 When I moved to Calgary in 1990, we had a Green Christmas that year with no snow on the ground & very mild temps in the high single digits & teens. Also, the winter of 1991-92 the same thing when also there was no snow on the ground over Xmas & we had plus 20 degrees. In February of 1991, we had record temps in the high teens & low 20's in Calgary. It was unbelievable. Winter was over & it never came back. As well as the winter of 1997 & 98 again where there was no snow on the ground Xmas day with temps in the teens. People were golfing here in late December as the courses were open. That's 4 years out of an entire decade where the winters were significantly warmer than they are now with Green Christmases as they are referred to. Most years of that decade spring would arrive by mid March & we'd be working outside in our yards. My dad & I built a fence in the spring of 1993 in early April at my house. The frost had gone out of the ground & we were able to dig the holes for the fence posts & put it up wearing shorts & a tee shirt. Well, since 1998, there hasn't been one Calgary winter where we've had a snow free Xmas. The majority of the winters have been cold. Last winter, the snow came in October & stayed until mid April. This year, our so called spring we're having looks to be shaping up the same. No way anyone can tell me the climate is warming. Not after 16 years of this & stats now telling us that the global temperature stopped climbing on average in 1998. As I see it, the climate is colder now than it was 20 years ago, no question. You are talking about weather not climate. Climate is a long term pattern not what happens year to year. Calgary is especially problematic because of the chinooks, they make winters unpredictable as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Im pretty sure the "anti-climate change" or "oil sand supporters" never falsified their data like the climate change people have. Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic, but the point of my post was that I quoted an anti-oil sands Green party MLA who is also a climatologist. And even HE says that the effects on the GHG emissions from the oil sands are minimal, and that the real danger is coal. But this is a Canadian looking at it from a Canadian perspective. Who has billions of tons of coal and burns millions of tons a year for electricity? The USA. And yet who is opposed to the Keystone Pipeline? The USA. Total hypocrisy on their part to oppose the oil sands when their coal burning is far worse than any oil sands. It's all politics, not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I'm not a scientist but if you watch a documentary on the type of conditions the earth was under when all the oil got made, you have to imagine that drilling it all out of the ground and buring that carbon into the atmosphere will probably eventually have to "do something." That being said I sure as hell ain't walking home from work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 I'm not a scientist but if you watch a documentary on the type of conditions the earth was under when all the oil got made, you have to imagine that drilling it all out of the ground and buring that carbon into the atmosphere will probably eventually have to "do something." That being said I sure as hell ain't walking home from work. I think if you ask most people if they think man made climate change is real and a real problem, they'd say "yes". Then if you asked them how much they would be willing to pay to "fix" it and if they'd be prepared to radically alter their lifestyles to correct it, they'd say "zero" and "hell no". It's like the benefit plan at work. People all scream they want one, but when I tell them how much it would cost to go 50-50 they say "oh well that's ok". People want all kinds of stuff, but there's only certain things they will actually pay for. Stopping man-made climate change isn't one of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpan85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Like in anything the truth is always found in the middle not on the margins. Although not fanatically on either side can not see the harm in reducing our GHG emissions and coming up with better mitigating technologies. MOBomberFan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Fifteen years is not an isolated weather event. I don't know how long you've lived in Calgary 17, but the climate now is different than when I moved here 24 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Fifteen years is not an isolated weather event. I don't know how long you've lived in Calgary 17, but the climate now is different than when I moved here 24 years ago. 15 years of anecdotal evidence in one geographic location is weather not climate. Trust me on this one, climate is not something you can comment on without a lot of data on a global scale. johnzo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Like in anything the truth is always found in the middle not on the margins. Although not fanatically on either side can not see the harm in reducing our GHG emissions and coming up with better mitigating technologies. That's because you don't have to pay for it. How much do you suppose it costs to switch from fossil fuels as an energy source? How many nuclear plants will it take to replace the coal oil or gas burning ones? Hell even switching from coal to gas is pricey enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpan85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Mitigating does not mean 0 emissions, It means developing new technologies to reduce emissions in current activities or coming up with replacement technologies. Research and development of technology does cost a lot of money but the spin offs to the economy and to other areas often in the long run can be beneficial. Much like the space race in the 1950's and 1960's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Mitigating does not mean 0 emissions, It means developing new technologies to reduce emissions in current activities or coming up with replacement technologies. Research and development of technology does cost a lot of money but the spin offs to the economy and to other areas often in the long run can be beneficial. Much like the space race in the 1950's and 1960's. And imagine the spin-offs if that space race had continued to Mars, instead of being wasted on this stupid climate change crap. For a trillion dollars we could have put people on Mars by now and be terra-forming it already for colonization. Instead here we are still spending billions upon billions of dollars because our earth was supposed to be heating up and instead it seems to be getting colder. So very dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpan85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Yes it is a shame that the space program especially in the United States has been reduced to a shell of its former self. Need more funding for R and D in all areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Mitigating does not mean 0 emissions, It means developing new technologies to reduce emissions in current activities or coming up with replacement technologies. Research and development of technology does cost a lot of money but the spin offs to the economy and to other areas often in the long run can be beneficial. Much like the space race in the 1950's and 1960's. But it's still a lot of money and most of the options are simply not as reliable in many places anyway. Fossil fuels are so cheap and so efficient and so transportable. The only real alternative would be nuclear and that just has a different kind of pollution to deal with. It is a massive expenditure no matter how you want to look at it because the majority of the infrastructure is set up for fossil fuels, even switching from coal to natural gas is costly. Truthfully the best solution is probably to try and make every building as independent of the main grid as possible, but good luck getting everyone to pay the do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 Fifteen years is not an isolated weather event. I don't know how long you've lived in Calgary 17, but the climate now is different than when I moved here 24 years ago. 15 years of anecdotal evidence in one geographic location is weather not climate. Trust me on this one, climate is not something you can comment on without a lot of data on a global scale. I understand that but I think if an actor from Hollywood, a director or a burned out old rock star from Winnipeg can have an opinion without having any expertise on the subject then I guess I can to. Hiroshima, Neil? What's your carbon footprint?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Hey go on and have your opinions, but this is a topic I am quite interested in and without any bragging I think I can say I am more educated in it than the general public so I'm going to point out when others opinions don't match what I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 I understand that but I think if an actor from Hollywood, a director or a burned out old rock star from Winnipeg can have an opinion without having any expertise on the subject then I guess I can to. Hiroshima, Neil? What's your carbon footprint?? That whole Neil Young thing was quite sad. The guy should stick to singing songs and not messing with the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians, and billions of dollars that are flowing into the Canadian economy. It's easy for some super rich dude to show up here and tell everyone they should go live in a cave, while he trots back to his mansion in California in his Lincvolt car. That car that he drove on his "Hiroshima" "odd"ysey up to Fort McMurray was bragged about by a lot of enviros as showing how "cool and hip" Neil is on the environment, but the reality was that car ran on some kind of special kind of fuel, and when he ran out of bio-fuel in Red Deer he threw some big hissy fit on the "husky oil" people and then accused the Canadian government of caring too much about money because they didn't have his special stupid bio-fuel available in gas stations in Canada. Good grief, how out of touch with reality do you really have to be to be that stupid? That car of his also burned down in a warehouse last year and burned up $1 million worth of his memorabilia with it. Anyway, I felt sorry for the poor kids in Red Deer who had to deal with this crazy old man suddenly descending upon them screaming at them because they didn't have bio-fuel for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Did Young actually do that? Wow... maybe he & Alison Redford should get together. Both have a sense of entitlement as well as bad tempers. That is sad. Did you know that when he did his concerts last winter he kept his buses idling the whole time? Up to 5 running for a couple of hours to keep them warm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 The thing that bugs me the most about the oil sands protestors is that they paint a picture like the entire area is strip mined. It's ridiculous. Most of the new development isn't even mines anymore, it's all in situ SAGD which is basically no different for land disturbance than conventional oil wells. iso_55 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 The thing that bugs me the most about the oil sands protestors is that they paint a picture like the entire area is strip mined. It's ridiculous. Most of the new development isn't even mines anymore, it's all in situ SAGD which is basically no different for land disturbance than conventional oil wells. How much of that is funded by US Big Oil itself not wanting Canadian oil to cut into their profits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted March 22, 2014 Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 US big oil has enough investments in the oil sands they want the stuff to be produced. It really is because you can't show CO2 emissions, there's nothing to see, but you get some pictures of a clear cut forest or a big tailings pond and show that to people and they react because it's a shocking thing to see. The other thing they like to do is pretend that the tailings ponds are as bad as the ones at other kinds of mines. Cleaning up the tailings from a gold mine, very problematic, but tailings from the oil sands mining? They have a very high success rate at reclaiming that and restoring the land when they are done mining. Oil sands make a great target for people who want to point the finger at someone else but most of it is distorted facts and propaganda nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 Did Young actually do that? Wow... maybe he & Alison Redford should get together. Both have a sense of entitlement as well as bad tempers. That is sad. Did you know that when he did his concerts last winter he kept his buses idling the whole time? Up to 5 running for a couple of hours to keep them warm... Well, here's how he tells it in his blog...not sure who at Husky Oil he talked to but anyway...he still comes off sounding like a loon... September 3, 2013 On my recent trip to Fort Mac in Alberta, I drove Lincvolt about 1800 miles from San Francisco running on Cellulosic Ethanol fuel. I have chosen to use Ethanol, a much cleaner fuel created from plants nourished by the sun and rain and grown by farmers rather than run on gasoline, which has a carbon footprint of 19.5 LBS (pump to tailpipe) per gallon or 28 LBS CO2 per gallon (earth to tailpipe) according to the Mass Institute of Technology. Although E 85 is hard to find in some parts of the USA, it is much cleaner than gasoline and since I am a believer in Climate Chaos as a result of Global Warming, I have chosen this greener fuel. On the trip back from Fort Mac, I ran out of fuel in Red Deer Alberta after searching in vain for an E 85 or pure ethanol fuel source in CANADA. In Red Deer Alberta we were told by Husky Oil reps that they had “never heard of E 85”. Lincvolt does not run on gasoline by design. In Canada, where the dirtiest oil on the planet is extracted from the Alberta Tar sands at an immeasurable human cost to the First Nations people, and disease statistics reflect 30% increase in some fatal diseases, there is no freedom to choose an alternative to gasoline at the pump. This is un-Canadian. As a proud Canadian, I cannot let this go by without a fight. Canadians deserve Freedom to Choose the Fuel they use. Canadians should have a fuel choice at the pump that considers Future Generations. Canadians should have the freedom to express themselves through the choices they make, not have those choices made for them by a government that is too close to industry and over concerned with money and petro dollar value. We do not have to be spoon fed by the Big Oil Companies. Stand with me for Future Generations and Bring Light to the conditions In Canada as we move forward on this mission. As time passes, you will see what we are up to. If you believe in Freedom of Choice for Canadians, you will have a voice in this with us. It will be your chance to stand up. http://www.lincvolt.com/lincvolt_lincvoltgazette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted March 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2014 US big oil has enough investments in the oil sands they want the stuff to be produced. It really is because you can't show CO2 emissions, there's nothing to see, but you get some pictures of a clear cut forest or a big tailings pond and show that to people and they react because it's a shocking thing to see. The other thing they like to do is pretend that the tailings ponds are as bad as the ones at other kinds of mines. Cleaning up the tailings from a gold mine, very problematic, but tailings from the oil sands mining? They have a very high success rate at reclaiming that and restoring the land when they are done mining. Oil sands make a great target for people who want to point the finger at someone else but most of it is distorted facts and propaganda nothing more. I was curious though as to why the US "environmental" group the Tides Foundation has spent so much money on protesting the oil sands. Ezra Levant exposed how they paid the Native chief from Alberta who traveled with Neil Young $50,000 to show up at some rally in Toronto. If this Native chief is so concerned about issues with the oil sands, why does he need to be paid to show up at anti-oil sands rallies? And why is a US charity paying him to do it? And why is Neil Young, a former Winnipegger now living in the lap of luxury in California, coming up to Canada to tell everyone else how to live, and to criticize the government because they cared too much about money? Like Neil is suffering living in the USA? The whole thing didn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is curious to see US interests funding anti-Canadian business activity while the US president fights against a pipeline that would benefit Canada (and the US too, they get to refine it and sell it). Meanwhile, more and more oil is being transported by tankers on railways, which is so much less safe than a pipeline. Which is just so dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now