Oil Sand Myths

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Like I said if you're not posting on topic, and you're not, then your clear agenda is to shut down those who are trying to have a real discussion.

Attack the facts if you can, not the posters, it just shows you as having nothing meaningful to share...

 

[CDNBear]

Like I said if you're not posting on topic, and you're not, then your clear agenda is to shut down those who are trying to have a real discussion.

Who would that be? Tonington? LoneWolf? Karrie? Colpy? Mentalfloss (To a degree)?

Certainly not you.

Attack the facts if you can, not the posters, it just shows you as having nothing meaningful to share...

I don't attack facts, I attack BS. When I attacked your BS, and proved it to be BS, you attacked me.

That's how I KNOW you aren't here to discuss.

Ideologues, like you, don't discuss.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Fix the serious grammar issues in that and get back to me.

Speaking of twits, I'm not presenting an argument. I'm simply trolling ideological trolls. I've only made that clear a half dozen times or more.

I'm not surprised you haven't been able to grasp that.
All the BS and hyperbole you two stuff in your posts, that has little to do with the science of climate and more to do with your ideologically driven agendas, that I've proven wrong.

Says the fraud that runs or just thumps his chest when asked questions about his claims.
Can you be more specific?

1, I haven't disputed that the climate is changing.
2, I've cited more than one study to disprove yours and Rebel's asinine ideologically driven hyperbole and BS that has nothing to do with science or facts.
3, The only one that has claimed intellectual superiority, is you. Although you haven't posted much in the way of evidence of it.

Try what? Try asking you to expand on your claims of tanks being massed on Quebec borders? Try asking you to expand on whether or not the Mohawks said they wanted to stay in Canada in 1980?

I already tried having a discussion with you. You aren't incapable of it.

So, you are running away? Why does that not surprise me.

 

[CDNBear]

So, you are running away?

No, that's your shtick. I'm right here.

Although it appears that your reading and comprehension issues are far more serious than previously thought.

Why does that not surprise me.

Because like the bulk of what you post, you just made it up.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

So, you confirm that you are running away!

 

[CDNBear]

So, you confirm that you are running away!

So you confirm your reading and comprehension issues (Not that there was any real question).

Thanks.

That will make dismissing any future hyperbole filled opinions of yours, quite easy.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Take a little rest. Your obfuscations must be mentally taxing.

 

[Kakato]

David Suzuki?

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Who would that be? Tonington? LoneWolf? Karrie? Colpy? Mentalfloss (To a degree)?

It's science not a poll.

Refute the central premise that continued large-scale emissions of human generated greenhouse gases is going to have catastropic effects above those already experienced. This view is based on extensive peer-reviewed science, not opinions.

See the IPCC 2007 Physical Report for a start.

Also the serious local impacts of clear cutting millions of acres of Canadian boreal forests and destroying carbon capturing peat bogs while at the same time producing thousands of tons a year of some of the most toxic compounds in nature in the Athabasca region.

And stop making personal attacks on people you know nothing about.

 

[lone wolf]

You still haven't presented any alternative. The world isn't going to just stop unless it goes BOOM!

 

[Kakato]

Ever hear of reclamation red? it's what they do to a mine after its stripped out,they put it back as close as they can to what it was.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

You still haven't presented any alternative. The world isn't going to just stop unless it goes BOOM!

What is this smorgasbord?

It's science, when the best science says that continously driving the global environment into a higher state by uncontrolled emissions of greenhouse gases while at the same time destroying some of the most important carbon sinks we risk some very negative consquences many of which we've already seen in early stages, we can listen or decide to ignore the warnings.

I've already posted on many of the serious consequences like:

- Loss of species diversity due to rapid migration of habitat zones polewards, the associated biotas(plants, animal, fungi, bacteria, etc.. can't follow quickly enough and die off as they are no longer able to find the habitat they evolved for)
- Increases in extreme weather events that we';ve already seen extensively in the past decade like tornados, hurricanes, doughts, floods, etc...
- Rising sea levels as the cryosphere melts, the more greenhouse gases we pump into the atmosphere the quicker this happens.
- Food shortages that can threaten the lives of millions.
- Water shortages.

That's just to start with, according to some NASA researchers if we burn all available fossil fuels we could push the global environment over a threshold that results in a runaway greenhouse effect.

There are a lot of alternatives to what we're doing, the negative effects are already serious and cost citizens billions of dollars a year in losses, not to mention the loss of life.

I know this is just one big joke to some people, I don't get it and I truly wouldn't want to think the way some of you do, it must be a very lonely way to live.

 

[lone wolf]

You can preach until the cows come home. Until there is a viable alternative - or a very real and clearly seen danger - nobody is going to give up creature comforts or surrender 6.5 billion lives (based on the theory the planet can only sustain 500 million) If you're going to back up, it's wisest to do it slowly.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

You can preach until the cows come home. Until there is a viable alternative - or a very real and clearly seen danger - nobody is going to give up creature comforts or surrender 6.5 billion lives (based on the theory the planet can only sustain 500 million) If you're going to back up, it's wisest to do it slowly.

Are you a robot?

For most people having no food, water or safety from extreme weather is very real and clearly seen danger...and the problem is only going to get worse.

And creature comforts really don't mean much if you're not around to enjoy them.

Taking the tobacco industry approach of deny, deny, deny until it's too late for many is deeply immoral, like I said I'm glad I don't think the way you do.

 

[lone wolf]

Nope... A realist. I get fewer ulcers that way....

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Nope... A realist. I get fewer ulcers that way....

Great, you're a realist.

As this subject is based mostly on science that can't be intuited then describe to me in Quantum Electrodynamic, Thermodynamic, climatic and paleo-climatic terms just what's going on, because from what I've seen so far you're great at mocking other people but haven't really shown any understanding of the REALITY behind climate change.

For instance explain in QED terms how you can significantly increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere without it blocking the transmission of an electromagnetic wavelength quantized to be absorbed by it and is one of the main constituents of outgoing radiation emitted by the much cooler Earth(compared to the 6,000 degree surface of the sun). We've gone from about 280ppm in pre-industrial times to close to 400ppm CO2 now. That might not mean anything to someone who doesn't have clue about the science behind global warming, it means a hell of a lot when you consider that CO2 is the most important PERSISTANT greenhouse gas and plays a central role in making the Earth habitable in the first place. Direct and indirect feedbacks can take that seemingly small increase of CO2 and turn it into a completely different planet with little to no ice cover, completely new climates on a global scale and far fewer species if the changes occure at a rate beyond the ability of the local biotas to in the first place migrate with changing habitats and evenutally evolve to suit the new conditions. If the changes happen fast enough and go far enough then few species will make it through the ecological bottleneck as with the Permian extinction. In that case once rich biotas with many species, and higher taxonomic classifications virtually disappeared, leaving in their place a few species that were adapted to live with low nutrition and oxygen requirements. The Permian event was probably the result of large-scale volcanism in an area with large coal deposits, sound familiar? We're now emitting CO2 at about two orders of magnitude above natural emissions as we extract and then burn carbon deposited over hundreds of millions of years by biological and geological processes. In effect we're repeating some of the most dramatic climate change events of the past and probably doing it at a faster rate.

There's also the clathrate gun waiting to go off, you mentioned a boom before. Due to geological and climatic conditions in the last several million years there's probably substancially more methane locked in seafloor and tundra deposits than at any other period. What happens when a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2 is released in massive pulses that can put tens or hundreds of gigatonnes into the atmosphere? In other rapid warming events similar to ours now there's strong isotopic evidence for massive methane clathrate releases. It would be criminally insane to push the limits past the breaking point just to find out if we'll get the same in the near future. By the time we got the boom it would too late to do anything about it and once again most life on the planet could be driven to extinction.

If you don't want to know this stuff fine, then go on in bliss. Why dump your abuse over someone who has actually taken the time to learn the details and feels genuinely concerned about them?

You and few others have also talked about comfort. People can live without comfort, they can't live without food, water and in extreme events without enough oxygen. Molecular oxygen doesn't just magically appear on it's own on in the Earth's atmosphere, it's produced by biological activities, we could conceivably stress the biological systems responsible for making complex life possible that they no longer provide the necessities of life.

I get the whole "ignorance is bliss" thing I really do, but it's still just ignorance. To effectively deal with climate change we need to move beyond relying on stupidity to get us by.

 

[lone wolf]

The REALITY is.... It's changing - and has been for four-and-a-half billion years. Whatever man may or may not have added to the mix may or may not have hastened (or even slowed according to the new ice age theorists) the process. It's part of living on a living planet.

People live on this living planet. More are born than die. It's been happening for a hundred thousand years. Do we all have to live in caves and stop breathing so you can pat yourself on your dying back and praise the good work you did?

Now, you give me the proper shifting sequence for a thirteen-speed RoadRanger transmission. Eaton or Fuller pattern is your option....

 

[CDNBear]

Take a little rest. Your obfuscations must be mentally taxing.

Clear example of projection.

Since you ignored my question, regarding your request.

But please, by all means, keep going. With each of your posts, the evidence supporting my observations, gets stronger.

It's science not a poll.

No, it was a discussion on who's here for discussion.

You aren't.

The people I listed are.

Please do try and follow along accordingly.

Refute the central premise that continued large-scale emissions of human generated greenhouse gases is going to have catastropic effects above those already experienced. This view is based on extensive peer-reviewed science, not opinions.

Argument not in question.

Also the serious local impacts of clear cutting millions of acres of Canadian boreal forests and destroying carbon capturing peat bogs while at the same time producing thousands of tons a year of some of the most toxic compounds in nature in the Athabasca region.

Again, argument not in question.

And stop making personal attacks on people you know nothing about.

Observations are not personal attacks.

What you and Cabbagefarts do, is personal attacks.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

The REALITY is.... It's changing - and has been for four-and-a-half billion years. Whatever man may or may not have added to the mix may or may not have hastened (or even slowed according to the new ice age theorists) the process. It's part of living on a living planet.

Yes, the only constant in the universe is change, I understand that. I also understand that the long-term(over hundreds of millions of years) conditions are eventually going to kill all complex then simple life off. Declining tectonic activity will on the scale of millions of years remove one of the key ingredients to life. As the sun grows hotter it will also mean the Circumstellar Habitable Zone eventually moves beyond the Earth's orbit and eventually the entire planet will be consumed as the sun leaves the main sequence and vastly expands. It doesn't give us the right to stage an early immolation.

People live on this living planet. More are born than die. It's been happening for a hundred thousand years. Do we all have to live in caves and stop breathing so you can pat yourself on your dying back and praise the good work you did?

Nonsense, we can live better lives than we do now in a relatively short time period by shifting to alternative and virutally unlimited energy sources. Why stay addicted to fossil fuels?

Now, you give me the proper shifting sequence for a thirteen-speed RoadRanger transmission. Eaton or Fuller pattern is your option....

how is this related to climate change?

 

[lone wolf]

how is this related to climate change?

Fair challenge if your intent was to best me in something outside my field....