Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know who "the greens" might be but I believe the comment came from a climate scientist of some standing (Phil Jones?). However, you need to take into account some realities you might not like. From the point of view of those who believe AGW is real and a threat, people holding up action to reduce GHG emissions are a real danger to the well being of the human race. The worst charge folks on your side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money making the world a much cleaner place. But If the world's scientists are are right about global warming but yet you have your way and nothing is done, hundreds of millions of people will become forced emigres, millions will starve or die of thirst or from extreme weather. The cost to address it will be in the trillions and trillions of dollars and will beggar the HUMAN economy for decades if not centuries. I find it entirely understandable that someone might be enticed to bend their objectivity, particularly when their opponents have certainly shown no such principles.

Additionally, though such things were talked about in the stolen emails, there is NO evidence that such efforts were ever actually undertaken.

From the point of view of those who believe AGW is real and a threat, people holding up action to reduce GHG emissions are a real danger to the well being of the human race.

When the science is on your side, the first thing you need to do is suppress the opposition.

The worst charge folks on your side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money making the world a much cleaner place.

The worst charge folks on my side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money and end up killing people by making energy more expensive and less reliable.

But If the world's scientists are are right about global warming but yet you have your way and nothing is done, hundreds of millions of people will become forced emigres, millions will starve or die of thirst or from extreme weather.

Sounds like you'd be justified in jailing or killing skeptics, eh comrade?

Additionally, though such things were talked about in the stolen emails, there is NO evidence that such efforts were ever actually undertaken.

You always make me laugh.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I bet you'd have a different view if where you got your water from was crossed by the pipeline.

Pipeline spills are rare and easily located and fixed. Railcars are far more likely to spill.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And about 2/3 of the refined product will be exported.

In the meantime relatively corrosive heavy oil will be pumped through a pipeline running through various native americans' land and threatening their aquifers (some studies find that this particular crude oil is more corrosive to pipelines but other studies question that). Meanwhile the negative impacts from the extraction of this crude oil in Alberta is much, much worse than normal oil exploration (which ain't great to begin with).

This is a perfect example of what we learn in economic geology classes: when a resources gets more depleted we go after ever lower quality forms of the resource (eg lower grades of ore). In this case it's far heavier and requires a significant amount of processing to extract it and the attendant environmental damage is higher.

This is about the worst fuel you could imagine tapping into and the economic benefit to the US is minimal.

And about 2/3 of the refined product will be exported.

Because the oil was sent to our refineries?

I'm glad you got back to me after you learned about the topic. LOL!

In the meantime relatively corrosive heavy oil will be pumped through a pipeline running through various native americans' land and threatening their aquifers

Threatening their aquifers? Are they like 5 feet under the pipelines?
How fast does this oil sink? Speed of sound? Faster?

Meanwhile the negative impacts from the extraction of this crude oil in Alberta is much, much worse than normal oil exploration

That's awful! Are the negative impacts worse when the crude is moved in train cars?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Pipeline spills are rare and easily located and fixed. Railcars are far more likely to spill.

How about if it is transported across your land without your permission?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And about 2/3 of the refined product will be exported.

Because the oil was sent to our refineries?

I'm glad you got back to me after you learned about the topic. LOL!

In the meantime relatively corrosive heavy oil will be pumped through a pipeline running through various native americans' land and threatening their aquifers

Threatening their aquifers? Are they like 5 feet under the pipelines?
How fast does this oil sink? Speed of sound? Faster?

Meanwhile the negative impacts from the extraction of this crude oil in Alberta is much, much worse than normal oil exploration

That's awful! Are the negative impacts worse when the crude is moved in train cars?

Maybe if you're lucky the pipeline runs through your aquifer and recharge catchment basin!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe if you're lucky the pipeline runs through your aquifer and recharge catchment basin!

If my aquifer is 100 meters deep, how long does it take for a pipeline leak to poison my water?

 

[jc456]

Funny, because Biden just opened a very large number of leases to the oil companies. Yet the oil companies opted not to act on them.

All he needed to do was increase production by 1 million barrels a day! Didn’t need to empty emergency Supplies when there’s no emergency. You all are truly fked in the head

 

[jc456]

LOL

So you couldn’t find it either

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

If my aquifer is 100 meters deep, how long does it take for a pipeline leak to poison my water?

Not as long as you might hope. But if you cross your fingers maybe there's nothing in the catchment that could contaminate it very quickly.

And I might note, not everyone's aquifer is 100m down. The place I grew up in was about 4m down and the overlying material was unconsolidated glacial till which is reasonably permeable.

Either way, it's an actual concern, whether you understand hydrogeology or not.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So you couldn’t find it either

Would you like me to read it to you?

"Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate."

I'm just joking...I realize it wouldn't do any good even if someone read it to you (which is probably actually a requirement)

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You all are truly fked in the head

I recognize that there's nothing even close to "moderation" on this forum which is kind of fun, but seeing the depth of intellectual vacuity is hardly appealing.

I understand that when one lacks education one tends to resort to simple screeching, but you could probably do better if you really set your mind to it.

 

[Crick]

From the point of view of those who believe AGW is real and a threat, people holding up action to reduce GHG emissions are a real danger to the well being of the human race.

When the science is on your side, the first thing you need to do is suppress the opposition.

The worst charge folks on your side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money making the world a much cleaner place.

The worst charge folks on my side can bring are that we might waste a lot of money and end up killing people by making energy more expensive and less reliable.

But If the world's scientists are are right about global warming but yet you have your way and nothing is done, hundreds of millions of people will become forced emigres, millions will starve or die of thirst or from extreme weather.

Sounds like you'd be justified in jailing or killing skeptics, eh comrade?

Additionally, though such things were talked about in the stolen emails, there is NO evidence that such efforts were ever actually undertaken.

You always make me laugh.

The science HAS been on our side yet here we are, very likely too late to save ourselves from catastrophic harm.

I guarantee you more people will die from global warming than will die from trying to stave it off.

I never said we would be justified. I said people were tempted to violate their objectivity. I also said that no one ever actually did so. And no one did.

 

[jc456]

Would you like me to read it to you?

"Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate."

I'm just joking...I realize it wouldn't do any good even if someone read it to you (which is probably actually a requirement)

That’s mumbo jumbo dude, doesn’t have any data supporting any model! It’s nonsense

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

That’s mumbo jumbo dude, doesn’t have any data supporting any model! It’s nonsense

Hahahaha! LOL.

Since you don't like evidence against your position I hate to break it to you, but you don't even have evidence for YOUR position.

In your world does this count as clever reparte on your part? I'm just curious how low the bar is. I can try to adapt and just dispense with actually supporting my position if it will make you more comfortable (given that you can't support your own positions you seem threatened by people who can do that and I don't want to unnecessarily antagonize you).

 

[jc456]

I recognize that there's nothing even close to "moderation" on this forum which is kind of fun, but seeing the depth of intellectual vacuity is hardly appealing.

I understand that when one lacks education one tends to resort to simple screeching, but you could probably do better if you really set your mind to it.

You should stop it then

 

[jc456]

Hahahaha! LOL.

Since you don't like evidence against your position I hate to break it to you, but you don't even have evidence for YOUR position.

In your world does this count as clever reparte on your part? I'm just curious how low the bar is. I can try to adapt and just dispense with actually supporting my position if it will make you more comfortable (given that you can't support your own positions you seem threatened by people who can do that and I don't want to unnecessarily antagonize you).

No evidence is there pretty pictures isn’t evidence

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not as long as you might hope.

So how long? A year? 5 years? 10 years?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The science HAS been on our side yet here we are

Here we are.....watching your side lie and cheat.

I guarantee you more people will die from global warming than will die from trying to stave it off.

I'm sure that's a comfort to poor Germans who can't afford to heat their homes now.
And to poor people in the third world who don't have clean water because their government
is wasting money on green energy, instead of coal.

I never said we would be justified.

Saving millions from death by starvation or thirst isn't justification for murder and incarceration?

I also said that no one ever actually did so. And no one did.

No one was ever stopped from publishing? Link?

 

[alang1216]

In a unique experiment, The Guardian published online the full manuscript of its major investigation into the climate science emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, which revealed apparent attempts to cover up flawed data; moves to prevent access to climate data; and to keep research from climate sceptics out of the scientific literature.

Part 11: 'Climategate' was PR disaster that could bring healthy reform of peer review

Fred Pearce: Peer-review was meant to be a safeguard against the publication of bad science but the balance is shifting towards open access

www.theguardian.com

Didn't seem to be any grand conspiracy, just a debate on peer review.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Didn't seem to be any grand conspiracy, just a debate on peer review.

That's it. The whole climategate e-mail mess was mostly a lot of nothing amped up by a bunch of denialists who spun private conversations in such a way that the scientifically illiterate would be led to believe it was some nefarious conspiracy.

It's bad enough that a huge swath of Americans don't understand even basic science, but now that the denialists have politicized the topic so badly it invites those folks who have the least valuable input to scream it at the top of their lungs.