U.S. urges Canada to act on climate change


Colpy
Conservative
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post



“A lopsided and bipartisan majority of Americans support federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions,” the poll states. “Most are willing to stomach a higher energy bill to pay for it.”


Public endorses limits on carbon pollution

Absolutely!!

And they should have more control on emissions from coal plants.

And they should be fracking, to get the gas that will make that possible.
 
mentalfloss
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Absolutely!!

And they should have more control on emissions from coal plants.

And they should be fracking, to get the gas that will make that possible.

The focus is emissions, not coal.

Just as it should be here.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#63
What part of 'Canada is better-off transporting oil on our own and getting a premium' don't you get?

Obama has dome a huge favour to the Canadian oil producers by delaying KXL.

Talk about the truth hurting.
 
mentalfloss
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

What part of 'Canada is better-off transporting oil on our own and getting a premium' don't you get?

Obama has dome a huge favour to the Canadian oil producers by delaying KXL.

Talk about the truth hurting.

High Costs Sink $11B Oil Sands Project


"Costs are continuing to inflate, when the oil price — and specifically the netbacks for the oilsands — are remaining stable at best, thus, squeezing the margins. We see that this situation cannot be sustainable in the long term," he said.

"We know that mining projects are challenging. New mining projects are all megaprojects and they are very capital intensive... There is a clear shift now from the industry on cost discipline and return on investment versus the pace of development."
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

No. Pipelines come under federal rules.
Besides which The working people of BC want the pipelines.

Kitimat didn't want it. They're working folks. They got a smelter up there, a big chemcial terminal. Had the pulp mill for many years.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

High Costs Sink $11B Oil Sands Project


"Costs are continuing to inflate, when the oil price — and specifically the netbacks for the oilsands — are remaining stable at best, thus, squeezing the margins. We see that this situation cannot be sustainable in the long term," he said.

"We know that mining projects are challenging. New mining projects are all megaprojects and they are very capital intensive... There is a clear shift now from the industry on cost discipline and return on investment versus the pace of development."

I heard that horse sh*t for so many years, yet, every year there are hundreds of billions flooding into Ft Mac.

Seems that the industry and the capital pools disagree with you

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Kitimat didn't want it. They're working folks. They got a smelter up there, a big chemcial terminal. Had the pulp mill for many years.


It's still the exclusive realm of the Fed gvt.

Doesn't matter what Kitimat or BC thinks
 
petros
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Kitimat didn't want it. They're working folks. They got a smelter up there, a big chemcial terminal. Had the pulp mill for many years.

How many dead?

NEB holds all the cards.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+2
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Let me get you up to speed on this:

No one of substance is adhering to Kyoto. Europe has all but abandoned it, hell Germany is reverting back to coal after the failed wind experiment.

Kyoto was less than a joke and Harper lead the world in admitting that it was a sham based on the IPCC fraud.

Now let me get you up to speed. That the IPCC is a fraud and a hoax is a view generally held by wingnuts and cranks. It so happens that talk radio and internet chat rooms are hevaily populated by wingnuts and cranks, probably because they need an echo chamber somewhere, so maybe you've gotten the idea that this view is somewhat widely held. It isn't. The vast majority of those skeptic scienistis that the deniers like to quote are not deniers. They think that manmade CO2 is contributing to global warming. They just think the IPCC is being a bit drama about it all--a view I happen to share actually. Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Freeman Dyson--all those guys.

If Germany moves back to coal, so be it. We are clearly going to continue to oxidate all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on, becasue it is quite simply the engine of current propserity on the planet. Probably two billion people on the planet are alive today solely because of cheap energy provided by hydrocarbons. But this is the key: because we need hydrocarbons to continue to thrive economically does not mean that it is not causing global warming. The deniers seem to have trouble with this: "We need oil therefore there's no such thing as global warming!"

The opther big flaw in your argument is to deny global warming because you disagree with the proposed policy remedies: "Oh, the UN are a bunch of socialist one-world gummint types therefore claimte change is a pile of crap." See? No logic.

The reality for the Harper government is that being an environmental laggard is turning into a political liability. You can rage all you want about ecotards and euroweenies and whatever the grumpy old fart word-of-the-day is, but, at the end of the day, it's turning out to be quite difficult to get teh export infrastructure into place. Sure blame the greens if you like--but they are backed by a lot of people, otherwise they would not have the clout they have. Kitimat isn't exactly la-la-land for environmentalists, but they voted against the Northern Gateway pipeline.

BC went through all of this in the 80s with their forestry practices. The government, the industry, the unions were all lined up. They were on these junkets to Europe to convince them them not to boycott BC lumber and had lots of pictures of green forests and blue rivers. They railed against the environmentalists and the protesters. In the end they simply had to change the forest practices to be sustainable. The same will happen here.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

How many dead?

NEB holds all the cards.

NEB can approve but the pipeline can't move ahead without provincial consent. I imagine they'll get in from the Liberals though. Then there'll be the First Nations protests and the court challenges.
 
EagleSmack
#69
 
mentalfloss
#70
You finally post a gif from an awesome show.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#71
 
petros
+1
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Now let me get you up to speed. That the IPCC is a fraud and a hoax is a view generally held by wingnuts and cranks. It so happens that talk radio and internet chat rooms are hevaily populated by wingnuts and cranks, probably because they need an echo chamber somewhere, so maybe you've gotten the idea that this view is somewhat widely held. It isn't. The vast majority of those skeptic scienistis that the deniers like to quote are not deniers. They think that manmade CO2 is contributing to global warming. They just think the IPCC is being a bit drama about it all--a view I happen to share actually. Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Freeman Dyson--all those guys.
If Germany moves back to coal, so be it. We are clearly going to continue to oxidate all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on, becasue it is quite simply the engine of current propserity on the planet. Probably two billion people on the planet are alive today solely because of cheap energy provided by hydrocarbons. But this is the key: because we need hydrocarbons to continue to thrive economically does not mean that it is not causing global warming. The deniers seem to have trouble with this: "We need oil therefore there's no such thing as global warming!"
The opther big flaw in your argument is to deny global warming because you disagree with the proposed policy remedies: "Oh, the UN are a bunch of socialist one-world gummint types therefore claimte change is...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Province or FNs are screwed when it comes the national interest. Keep in mind BCs gas currently goes through AB an SK under the same rules to markets so the retaliation would be swift and costly. The FNs here want the oil going to market. WTF can be done about that? Only TV Indians are "keepers of the earth" doing hiyiyis at protests. The rest want a future. A modern future.
 
mentalfloss
#73
Obama's climate change plan: It's wait and see for energy industry

Warren Mabee, associate director of the Queen’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy, says Obama’s policy does put pressure on Stephen Harper to respond. The prime minister has said he would not move on climate change until the U.S. did, and now the U.S. has acted, he said.

“It means we will be under the gun to look at our emissions and to try to get a better handle on the emissions that are associated with our industry and our power generation,” Mabee told CBC News.

Obama's climate change plan: It's wait and see for energy industry
 
petros
#74
I have a plan too.
 
EagleSmack
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Obama's climate change plan:

And it will not have any change on the climate.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

That the IPCC is a fraud and a hoax is a view generally held by wingnuts and cranks.

They did it all on their own... It's no longer a 'view', it just is.

Keep believing and hoping that it's right despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.... Maybe by that time Bernie Madoff will be exonerated of the multi-billion ponzi he perpetuated.

Odds of that are the same as AGW being the case

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

It so happens that talk radio and internet chat rooms are hevaily populated by wingnuts and cranks, probably because they need an echo chamber somewhere, so maybe you've gotten the idea that this view is somewhat widely held.

Yet here you are

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

If Germany moves back to coal, so be it.

It's not an 'if' anymore


Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

But this is the key: because we need hydrocarbons to continue to thrive economically does not mean that it is not causing global warming. The deniers seem to have trouble with this: "We need oil therefore there's no such thing as global warming!"

You truthers really crack me up... Love to quote all kinds of (skewed) data and attribute 100% of any anomaly at anthro sources.

No massive volcanic eruptions (let alone the constant ones or subsea), no attribution to thousands of forest fores across many nations burning millions of hectares each year, no nothing except for 'a pipeline is being constructed '

Wake up already
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

The opther big flaw in your argument is to deny global warming because you disagree with the proposed policy remedies: "Oh, the UN are a bunch of socialist one-world gummint types therefore claimte change is a pile of crap." See? No logic.

See above... You are assuming that AGW is accurate in addition to fully ignoring any and all of the natural causes, let alone the multiple, proven, cyclical events that says this is par for the course.

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

The reality for the Harper government is that being an environmental laggard is turning into a political liability.

Harper doesn't guzzle the poisoned kool-aid like your ilk... He is ahead of the curve in terms of global, political trends.


Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

You can rage all you want about ecotards and euroweenies and whatever the grumpy old fart word-of-the-day is, but, at the end of the day, it's turning out to be quite difficult to get teh export infrastructure into place.

I don't rage at the tards and weenies.. I laugh my balls off at them

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

BC went through all of this in the 80s with their forestry practices.

... And are only recovering now because your gvt has thrown AGW into the trash heap and are developing their gas resources

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

NEB can approve but the pipeline can't move ahead without provincial consent. I imagine they'll get in from the Liberals though. Then there'll be the First Nations protests and the court challenges.

Where did you get that silly idea.

Christie Clark's only threat was to 'drive up the power costs'.

Memo to Christie and the 'tards: Portable, remote NatGas power generation equipment is readily available, cheap and consistent.
 
BaalsTears
#77
Obama has issued a new directive to the Canadian people. He orders all of you to flush your toilets at 21:00 Greenwich Mean Time in order to slow the rotation of the planet. Obey or be punished.
 
petros
#78
Mine will change the climate of everything.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+1
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

They did it all on their own... It's no longer a 'view', it just is.

Well, like just about every other stance you hold on this subject, it does not agree with the research.

Quote:

Keep believing and hoping that it's right despite the overwhelming evidence to
the contrary....

Yes "nothing to see here." Right. That's why just about every scientific body and government on the planet endorses teh idea that CO2 emissions are contributing to a warming globe. That's why survey after survey, poll after poll indicate that people are concerned about global warming. That's why the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has determined to be in collapse, and why glaciers in BC and Alberta are retreating and why arctic sea ice is steadily diminishing over time. Alaskan villages are sinking into the sea while large swaths of the continental US are in an historic drought.





Quote:

You truthers really crack me up... Love to quote all kinds of (skewed) data and
attribute 100% of any anomaly at anthro sources.

I don't believe I've ever said that. What I've said is that humans are contributing significantly to a warming climate. We are also ona warming trend geologically from the last ice age.

Quote:

No massive volcanic eruptions (let alone the constant ones or subsea), no
attribution to thousands of forest fores across many nations burning millions of
hectares each year, no nothing except for 'a pipeline is being constructed '

The volcanoes have always erupted, the fires have always burned. If they are the culprit for rising CO2 levels, why would they have just started increasing CO2 levels in the last 150 years or so?

Quote:

See above... You are assuming that AGW is accurate in addition to fully ignoring
any and all of the natural causes, let alone the multiple, proven, cyclical
events that says this is par for the course.

See above. I have never attributed 100% of warming to anthropgenic sources.

Quote:

Harper doesn't guzzle the poisoned kool-aid like your ilk... He is ahead of the
curve in terms of global, political trends.

Nonsense. Even the investors are saying that Alberta and Canada aren't doing enough to get the solcial licence they need to operate the oil sands. You really think "You better take the pipeline or we'll send it all in exploding rail cars" is going to work? Give yer head a shake. You have a bunker mentality.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Well, like just about every other stance you hold on this subject, it does not agree with the research.

The research?

Maybe you have a link to, ah, research on the subject by East Anglia, Peer Reviewed an everything!

It's done man, really, time to move on

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Yes "nothing to see here." Right. That's why just about every scientific body and government on the planet endorses teh idea that CO2 emissions are contributing to a warming globe. That's why survey after survey, poll after poll indicate that people are concerned about global warming. That's why the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has determined to be in collapse, and why glaciers in BC and Alberta are retreating and why arctic sea ice is steadily diminishing over time. Alaskan villages are sinking into the sea while large swaths of the continental US are in an historic drought.


..... And yet, all the signatories to Kyoto have abandoned it in addition to the Copenhagen Accord being nothing more than a laughing stock.

I do like the inclusion about the polls and surveys though... Nice sentiment to poll folks on, but despite the 'concern' on global warming, people ain't concerned enough to actually want to do anything about it.

Says a lot, doesn't it




Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

What I've said is that humans are contributing significantly to a warming climate. We are also ona warming trend geologically from the last ice age.

It's the absence of natural sources being the massive variable in 'the research ' or 'proof ' that cries of the hypocrisy and that of intellectual bankruptcy

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

The volcanoes have always erupted, the fires have always burned. If they are the culprit for rising CO2 levels, why would they have just started increasing CO2 levels in the last 150 years or so?

... And the Earth has always gone through cycles of climate change... Ya forgot that wee fact, right?

PS - Since this tempest in a tea pot was brought to the public's awareness some years back, the temp has dropped despite an increase in anthro CO2.

Tell me about your theory of causation again?


Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Nonsense. Even the investors are saying that Alberta and Canada aren't doing enough to get the solcial licence they need to operate the oil sands.


O&G globally has not only remained strong over the last years but is increasing in terms of capital investment and allocation. The AB oilsands being one of the biggest beneficiaries if this trend.

You're speaking outta your a$$ on this one.

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

You really think "You better take the pipeline or we'll send it all in exploding rail cars" is going to work?

Not at all.. What I am thinking is that even more investors are pouring into the O&G sector via indirect opportunities like rail transport (CPR and CNR have fattened their bottom lines by exploiting this area).

Support the pipeline or don't, the message is that more and more people and companies and delivering solutions to the transportation problem... You can wax philosophical all you like and pretend that in stymieing the pipeline that oil won't travel through your province.. The facts are that it will and in a form that is far more carbon intensive (if you buy that bull sh*t of course), less efficient and far more prone to disaster.

So much for your belief that the world wants more social license... They are all lined-up at the gas station to fill up for the next long weekend outing
 
petros
#81
Still with the CO2¿¿¿¿

Giddy up fish. Heyaw.
 
BaalsTears
#82
When did Canadians start obeying directives from foreign potentates?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

When did Canadians start obeying directives from foreign potentates?

It's really just a handful of simpering weenies that bleat and moan at every opportunity
 
BaalsTears
+1
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's really just a handful of simpering weenies that bleat and moan at every opportunity

I know, but I can't resist the opportunity to embarrass them.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

I know, but I can't resist the opportunity to embarrass them.


We're definitely on the same page there.

I often wonder if the aforementioned simperers are as they come across or maybe just yanking my chain... The logic they use is just so bizarre that it is surreal in most regards
 
BaalsTears
+1
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

We're definitely on the same page there.

I often wonder if the aforementioned simperers are as they come across or maybe just yanking my chain... The logic they use is just so bizarre that it is surreal in most regards

They are as they appear to be coming across. They lack the wit to yank your chain. For them this is a great moral struggle of good versus evil. They might as well be Oxford educated Bonobos.
 
mentalfloss
+1
#87
The real reason Obama’s climate plan could change the game - The Globe and Mail
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+2
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The research?

Maybe you have a link to, ah, research on the subject by East Anglia, Peer Reviewed an everything!

It's done man, really, time to move on

So, your point being that because you percieve reserach conducted by East Anglia University as bad, therefore all research is bad. That's about the level of logic I've come to expect from you.




Quote:


..... And yet, all the signatories to Kyoto have abandoned it in addition to
the Copenhagen Accord being nothing more than a laughing stock.





I do like the inclusion about the polls and surveys though... Nice sentiment
to poll folks on, but despite the 'concern' on global warming, people ain't
concerned enough to actually want to do anything about it.

Says a lot, doesn't it

The fact that people aren't really doing anything about it doesn't make it any less real. We're not doing much about any big issues really--starvation, slavery, overfishing, poverty, war. They don't cease to exist because we aren't doing anything about them. Again, you seem to have difficulty grasping very simple logic here--a trait a find common in hardcore idealogues.



Quote:

... And the Earth has always gone through cycles of climate change... Ya forgot
that wee fact, right?

'

Oh crap! You're right, I did. Listen phone up the IPCC right now adn tell the thousands of earth scientists involved in that endeavour that they forgot to take into account natural variability and cycles in the claimte! I'm sure there'll be a Nobel prize in it for you. Good eye!

Quote:

PS - Since this tempest in a tea pot was brought to the public's awareness some
years back, the temp has dropped despite an increase in anthro CO2.

Um, no.

Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

They are as they appear to be coming across. They lack the wit to yank your chain. For them this is a great moral struggle of good versus evil. They might as well be Oxford educated Bonobos.

Yeah, why don't you go back and read a few of my posts. Probably over your head, but maybe give it a go anyways. Then go ahead adn read a few of your screeds and rants. I think to the imp;ersonal observer it would be pretty evident who the drama queen is.

Oooh, here's a recent goodie from you:
Quote:





The problem with the American left is that they will use any means to
accomplish their objectives. They are relentless. The only way to deal with
them is to be equally relentless and ruthless.

Talk about the struggle between good and evil. Talk about high drama. I think you even qoited some Macbeth later too! That's literally drama!

It's ok though, it's normal to despise most in others that which we see in ourselves.
Last edited by Zipperfish; Jun 5th, 2014 at 02:23 PM..
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTearsView Post

When did Canadians start obeying directives from foreign potentates?

The day after Nagasaki.

USHCN 2.5 – Estimated Data Is Warming Data – Arizona
Posted on June 5, 2014 by stevengoddard
Originally posted on sunshine hours:

An addendum to yesterdays post about “Estimated” data.

These are the 9 months in Arizona with the biggest change due to Estimated data. I’ll focus on December (the top graph). Remember, this is the Final data after all the other adjustments.

About 15% of the data is Estimated from neighboring stations.

The trend of REAL data is negative-.04C/decade.

Then they add in about 15% Estimated data with a trend of +0.43C/decade.

The net result is a new trend of +0.02C/decade.

Presto. Magic. A downward trend is now an upward trend. (Click on graph for larger)

97% Of US Warming Since 1990 Is Due To 100% Fake Data
Posted on June 5, 2014 by stevengoddard
Here is a stunner.

I plotted the USHCN V2.5 adjusted data below, distinguishing between data which was adjusted from raw data (red) and completely fake data (blue.) It turns out that essentially all reported warming since 1990 in the US, is due to fake data manufactured without any underlying thermometer data. The “record warm” year of 2012 was manufactured with two degrees of completely fake data.

Alarmists claim that the adjustments are necessary due to TOBS, etc. – but that isn’t what is producing the warming since 1990. The adjusted data shows almost no warming. The warming comes from fake data.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

So, your point being that because you percieve reserach conducted by East Anglia University as bad, therefore all research is bad. That's about the level of logic I've come to expect from you.

Just the ecotard science... You folks seem to always get caught in some form of deception and/or perpetual inaccuracies.

Say, how's that ice free North since 2013?

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

The fact that people aren't really doing anything about it doesn't make it any less real.

It makes the polls and surveys you referred to, absolutely useless

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Listen phone up the IPCC right now adn tell the thousands of earth scientists involved in that endeavour that they forgot to take into account natural variability and cycles in the claimte! I'm sure there'll be a Nobel prize in it for you. Good eye!

You should make the call... They only accept calls from card carrying, kool-aid guzzling fanatics like yourself

Quote: Originally Posted by ZipperfishView Post

Um, no.

Um, yup
 

Similar Threads

3
54
Climate Change and forestry in Canada
by beaker | May 24th, 2014
164
Climate Change report on Canada
by mentalfloss | Apr 11th, 2014
no new posts