Connacher oilsands project resumes
- Thread starter Johnnny
- Start date
I would say it is bad news for everyone. The tar sands are an ecological disaster. The biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in North America.
That's one of the biggest reasons to support Connacher in their development of the sands is to put an end to this myth of anthropogenic CO2 being a GW driver.
I agree Juan. But if I'm not mistaken, Connacher will use the SAGD system. I spend quite a bit of time at the Nexen Long Lake site. They use the same system. If I compare SAGD with the strip mining system used at Suncor, it's like night and day.
Funny you say that Tonington, that definition describes Suzuki to a 'T'... Last I recall, you made a lot of noise about GW but never was able to provide anything conclusive... sounds like a clear case of the Dunning-Kruger Effect to me.
Says the person who just said the development of a single extra heavy oil project would prove a well documented phenomenon wrong. :lol:
I don't have to provide anything conclusive, you make the empty claims, do you know how this works? I'm also not the one who thinks he knows better than the scientific community. :lol:
I don't have to provide anything conclusive, you make the empty claims, do you know how this works? I'm also not the one who thinks he knows better than the scientific community. :lol:
.. One development leads to many as the past has showed... For that matter, there appears to be a base correlation that the AB tar sands development has gone into high gear in the last 10 years and (wait for it), the mean global temps are declining! - The research in this area is in its infancy, but the base correlations look as if the solution to combat global warming is to heavily subsidize the oil sands industry and burn more fossil fuels.
(heavy sarcasm intended - kinda)
That statement is almost correct.... Exchange the words "don't have to" for CAN'T and you'll be perfectly correct (for once).
Yet again your ignorance betrays you. You're the one who brings up correlations, so why would you use only the last ten years for a correlation- the strength of which, and the significance of you don't mention-when the records have much more data? Do you even know what degrees of freedom are?
Infancy? BAHAHAHAHAHA. Start with 1859, with further ground breaking work by Arrhenius in 1896, and then thousands of papers since then. Yah, infancy... :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Ohhhhh - the records... tell me all about the records...
The reason that I choose to employ a 10 year horizon is specifically due to the notion that it is convenient to my ends, much like the faux-greenie-eco-fascist movement that does the same.
As the old expression goes: Turn-about is fair play.
PS - Degrees of freedom are the necessary crutch for incompetent 'scienticians' that need to have wiggle-room in order to allow for their incorrect theories to fit historical fact. (sounds like you depend heavily on generous degrees of freedom).
Arrhenius?.. That clown?.. I have a signed (authenticated) letter taht he submitted stating that all his research was fabricated and falsified... In fact, Arrhenius, in that statement, stated that the biggest factor that uneqivocally proved that fluctuations occurred naturally was evidenced by the existence of multiple ice-ages.
Get with the program man!... You're backing a loser and are just too myopic to realize it.
Captain Morgan.
Spit it out once and for f*cking all already. We already know you are pathetically stupid so prove something else for once. Who is behind what you claim to be the biggest lie of all time?
Over the past 4 years you have not provided one shred of tangible data or came up with a natural cycle to disprove one stinking word of the status quo. Why haven't you been able to do that?
Is it the oil companies who are spending vast sums of cash to change methodology in production and who are also funding a huge chunk of the science that is making these claims? You knew a huge portion of the data come from oil industry records didn't you? Why on earth would they supply the rope to make their noose?
Is it David Suzuki trying to corner the bio-diesel market by buying vast tracks of prairie to grow Monsanto GMO canola and corn whist convincing the oil companies to clean up and change methods?
Is it aliens from Niburu aka Planet X?
Is there a new Milankovitch cycle that hasn't been repeated over 6.3 Billion years of earth history? How is Milankovitch benefiting from oil companies supplying data that makes themselves look evil?
Over the past 6.3 Billion years what role has sulfur hexafluoride played in global climate?
How many carboniferous (limestone) Giza pyramids does it take to equal the 7 Billion tonnes of GHGs produced by human activity per year? What would that equal in square kilometers?
When in earth history has 6+ Billion people lived at the same time during a fossil fuel fed industrial age? Where does that fit into air samples taken by oil companies from thousands of locations over 4 decades and supplying endless chemically mapped cores detailing the past several hundred million years of earth biological, geological and ecological records?
If ever you feel the urge to enter a world you know absolutely nothing about and want to try to piss like the big dogs who live in that world, at least lift your leg and stop pissing all over yourself. It's a good first step to gain respect and crediblity.
Spit it out once and for f*cking all already. We already know you are pathetically stupid so prove something else for once. Who is behind what you claim to be the biggest lie of all time?
Over the past 4 years you have not provided one shred of tangible data or came up with a natural cycle to disprove one stinking word of the status quo. Why haven't you been able to do that?
Is it the oil companies who are spending vast sums of cash to change methodology in production and who are also funding a huge chunk of the science that is making these claims? You knew a huge portion of the data come from oil industry records didn't you? Why on earth would they supply the rope to make their noose?
Is it David Suzuki trying to corner the bio-diesel market by buying vast tracks of prairie to grow Monsanto GMO canola and corn whist convincing the oil companies to clean up and change methods?
Is it aliens from Niburu aka Planet X?
Is there a new Milankovitch cycle that hasn't been repeated over 6.3 Billion years of earth history? How is Milankovitch benefiting from oil companies supplying data that makes themselves look evil?
Over the past 6.3 Billion years what role has sulfur hexafluoride played in global climate?
How many carboniferous (limestone) Giza pyramids does it take to equal the 7 Billion tonnes of GHGs produced by human activity per year? What would that equal in square kilometers?
When in earth history has 6+ Billion people lived at the same time during a fossil fuel fed industrial age? Where does that fit into air samples taken by oil companies from thousands of locations over 4 decades and supplying endless chemically mapped cores detailing the past several hundred million years of earth biological, geological and ecological records?
If ever you feel the urge to enter a world you know absolutely nothing about and want to try to piss like the big dogs who live in that world, at least lift your leg and stop pissing all over yourself. It's a good first step to gain respect and crediblity.
Last edited:
Really?
Which globe? It wasn't this one. Aren't you the same guy who just months ago claimed all the planets are heating? Did those allegedly drop too?
Still spewing more industry propaganda to support your bottom line, are ya captain?
Hmmmm.... What to believe? Considering that the relevant temps from the last 100 years on record suggests that the global mean temp has risen a whopping 0.74 degrees. 0.74 degrees, eh?.... And I'm supposed to believe that this is a crisis worthy if regiging the global economy? Sorry, but i don't think so.
Regardless, take a close look at the graph you provided. While it appears to support your contention,the graph actually shows a declining trend in the mean global temps. It is difficult to really see as each 'Y' measurement covers a 20 year period while the 'X' measurements are 0.2 degrees.
The net effect produces the illusion of a dramatic warming effect, that is highly misleading. Further, look at the measurements at around the year 2000 and you'll see that the annual and the 5-year trend are all declining.
Last edited:
Don't you ever get to feeling rather silly and hypocritical in the face of all of the damning evidence that clearly indicates that global warming/climate change hysteria fraud is a farce?
really man - open your eyes.
You claimed that "in the last 10 years and (wait for it), the mean global temps are declining! "
However, unless my calendar is wrong, it's 2009. And this graph doesn't support your 10 year claim.
Are you now going to be like SJP, and claim that you meant something different?