Instead of jumping for joy, it might be fruitful to discuss the merits of the statements. I have found little that is arguable in Rebel's posts.
Oil Sand Myths
- Thread starter Redmonton_Rebel
- Start date
That's because your posts are extreme as well.
The one, the single, the only reason I believe that man is contributing to the drastic change in climate, is because Tonington is sane, reasonable, well heeled, knowledgeable, willing to take the time to break down the science and explain it without trying to treat you like a dummy.
All without exaggerated hyperbole, without completely politicizing the issue, without the asinine commentary on fascists, Hitler, darksides and so on.
Even when I agree with the premise of someones posts, when I see that nonsense, I feel compelled to just mock them.
Your approach probably stems from stupidity. The difference is that I am not stupid and I know one hell of a lot about climate change after years of study and exchanges of views and information with people around the world.
The biggest problem they have is the perception that its a bad thing.
Instead of defending a position that millions have made up their mind
on they should be defining their actions to dispelling the perception
they already have.
The other problem is people don't trust the big corporations anymore
and their governments eve less, so the time has come to take some of
their most ardent critics and allow them to see first hand and unrestricted
what is going on.
Failure to do that will mean further suspicions and negative denunciations.
Instead of defending a position that millions have made up their mind
on they should be defining their actions to dispelling the perception
they already have.
The other problem is people don't trust the big corporations anymore
and their governments eve less, so the time has come to take some of
their most ardent critics and allow them to see first hand and unrestricted
what is going on.
Failure to do that will mean further suspicions and negative denunciations.
I have no idea what the experts say about GW or the environmental disaster that is the oil sands except what I have read here on the forums. It is a very polarizing topic for sure. Well all I know for sure is what I have observed over my life time and I say we are phuked. We can't fix the mess we have created. The point of no return has come and gone and now the outcome is no longer in our hands. We will be the victims of our own stupidity and greed. Momma is pissed and there is nowhere to hide.
You are going to upset the Bear with tha canard. He has a proprietary stake in casting unwarranted aspersions.
Everything I write is supported. Sometimes just by intelligence and reason. I have not fallen to your level where every sentence must contain a Wiki reference.
Try to use your intelligence (?)
In other words, you won't link because the proof doesn't exist....
If you're as smart as you think you are, you'll realize anyone can be whatever they want to claim to be online. Proof sets things straight....
I link where linkage is required. I notice a great absence of links from those who deny AGW and who ardently support the "Conservative" agenda. Lots of hot air and obfuscation but little reason or fact.
Apply your mind now and again. Links are as often wrong as right where they are to opinion and not research.
Your opinion not withstanding, what goes on in your little head isn't something anyone else knows. You may as well be sitting on the keyboard and typing farts with your buttcheeks. Links lead to other links where anyone interested can sort out the wheat from the chaff.
Then put links to your denials. This is really funny. I deal with the reality and discuss reality yet face a barrage of foolish assertions without any support.
...as soon as you post a link to where I have EVER denied the world is heating up....
See.... you have already proven to me that you read into things exactly what you want them to say rather than the words that are actually there before you
I went to The Wall last night, amazing show.
During Mother, Roger Waters sings, "Mother should I trust the government?" and on the Wall in eight foot high red letters it says;
NO... F------... WAY!
Should we trust our Conservative government on this issue or any others?
Same answer.
No, what you posted was a cynical rationalization of why the oil sands development should be allowed to continue.
Claiming that it will only increase the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration by a small amount avoids the fact that we need to drastically reduce emissions and even diminish CO2 in the atmosphere to avoid serious climate change. By defending one of the dirtiest sources of fossil fuels, it makes it difficult to argue for the control of emissions from all fossil fuels. Coal producers and users can justifiably claim they shouldn't have to reduce their emissions if equally polluting projects like oil sands are allowed to go ahead.
And based on the level of discussion here, I doubt I'm turning off anyone who actually cares about the issue, my guess is they've already been driven off by the members who try and divert the discussion into totally irrelevant areas like the Pyramids, the Great Wall, or just making personal attacks to shut down the debate.
That's my question.
We know that CO2 levels are at historic highs, it's been well established by peer-reviewed science that there are serious risks to this and the oil sands are one of the dirtiest sources of carbon based fuels on the planet.
At a time when the real emphasis should be on achieving as close to a carbon neutral economy as we can we've got a government that won't even discuss the topic in an objective fashion. And one that wants to go full bore ahead with a project that will eventually emit BILLIONS of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while telling us everything is fine.
During Mother, Roger Waters sings, "Mother should I trust the government?" and on the Wall in eight foot high red letters it says;
NO... F------... WAY!
Should we trust our Conservative government on this issue or any others?
Same answer.
No, what you posted was a cynical rationalization of why the oil sands development should be allowed to continue.
Claiming that it will only increase the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration by a small amount avoids the fact that we need to drastically reduce emissions and even diminish CO2 in the atmosphere to avoid serious climate change. By defending one of the dirtiest sources of fossil fuels, it makes it difficult to argue for the control of emissions from all fossil fuels. Coal producers and users can justifiably claim they shouldn't have to reduce their emissions if equally polluting projects like oil sands are allowed to go ahead.
And based on the level of discussion here, I doubt I'm turning off anyone who actually cares about the issue, my guess is they've already been driven off by the members who try and divert the discussion into totally irrelevant areas like the Pyramids, the Great Wall, or just making personal attacks to shut down the debate.
That's my question.
We know that CO2 levels are at historic highs, it's been well established by peer-reviewed science that there are serious risks to this and the oil sands are one of the dirtiest sources of carbon based fuels on the planet.
At a time when the real emphasis should be on achieving as close to a carbon neutral economy as we can we've got a government that won't even discuss the topic in an objective fashion. And one that wants to go full bore ahead with a project that will eventually emit BILLIONS of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while telling us everything is fine.
Last edited: