Oil Sand Myths

[Kakato]

Yes,you saw it at a concert so it must be true,give your head a shake,us guys in the energy industry laugh at you bufoons.

Mothers one of my favourite tunes but I dont think he was thinking of Canada when he wrote it.

you global warming truthers should get all your topics put into one thread,just saying,thats what most forums do when the truthers flood a forum with agenda ridden posts.

 

[captain morgan]

Yes,you saw it at a concert so it must be true,give your head a shake,us guys in the energy industry laugh at you bufoons.

Mothers one of my favourite tunes but I dont think he was thinking of Canada when he wrote it.

you global warming truthers should get all your topics put into one thread,just saying,thats what most forums do when the truthers flood a forum with agenda ridden posts.

Maybe we can lobby Andem for a foil-hatters and truthers sub forum, it'd make things a lot easier

 

[CDNBear]

Your approach probably stems from stupidity.

And yet I have proven you wrong more oft than not.

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.

That's all well and good, but that isn't where I've proven you wrong.

Maybe you should reread my post. Not only did you miss the point, you keep highlighting it.

You are going to upset the Bear with tha canard. He has a proprietary stake in casting unwarranted aspersions.

I do?

Everything I write is supported.

By nothing.

Sometimes just by intelligence and reason.

So "By nothing" is confirmed.

I have not fallen to your level where every sentence must contain a Wiki reference.

I rarely accept wikiality, it's to prone to abuse and bias.

Try to use your intelligence (?)

All the times I've proven you wrong, wasn't even a minor challenge.

I deal with the reality and discuss reality yet face a barrage of foolish assertions without any support.

I have posted links to supporting material to disprove your asinine claims, many many times.

Just because you ignore them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Thanks btw, for removing all doubt about my observation.

 

[Kakato]

Maybe we can lobby Andem for a foil-hatters and truthers sub forum, it'd make things a lot easier

We did it on CKA forum when I was there because they just wouldnt stop,Andem knows Trevor who runs Canada kicks ass,he could allways ask him how he did it,all truther posts (like 9/11) go into one topic so the forum doesnt get muddied up.Because like all truthers,they only have one thing on their mind,push the conspiracies!

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

I do love the ignore button.

 

[lone wolf]

So do we.... Bragging can make the braggart disappear

 

[CDNBear]

I do love the ignore button.

Most ideologues do.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

It's interesting how the same people show up again and again to try and divert discussion of this subject.

 

[lone wolf]

Preaching isn't discussion in my Websters

 

[CDNBear]

It's interesting how the same people show up again and again to try and divert discussion of this subject.

What would you like to discuss?

You know, it's a pretty good sign that you have issues, when people on your team want you to go play on somebody else's.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

Sorry boys, you had your chance, all you did was post pointless nonsense.

 

[CDNBear]

Sorry boys...

As you should be.

I hope we'll see a change in your posts now that you've apologized for your poor performance thus far.

 

[lone wolf]

I hope we'll see a change in your posts now that you've apologized for your poor performance thus far.

Preachers never last long without their audience.

 

[Tonington]

Which statements of Rebel do you find demonstrably false?

Way back at the start of the thread I commented on it, this is the statement I find demonstrably false:

In the case of the oil sands there's going to be no way to avoid the severe affects of climate change if we emit billions of tons of carbon from oil sands production and using the end products.

In my reply, I mentioned Andrew Weaver's findings, which were published in Nature Climate Change. Oil sands, 0.03°C increase in global mean temperature if we burn all the commercially viable deposits right now. That's based the same well known radiative physics that puts us up a few degrees Celcius by the end of the century under business as usual scenarios.

Which makes this following comment really disjointed:

The real issue isn't how much of the overall radiative forcing the carbon dioxide released from oil sands development will be responsible for, it's how far the continued emissions of so much CO2 will push the global system into a higher state of balance and how significant climate change will be.

So, from my perspective, in a thread where the intent was to shine light on myths surrounding the oil sands, it's a bit disingenuous to make a specific claim about the oil sands, when it is so divorced from reality.

It's called poisoning the well.

 

[CDNBear]

way back at the start of the thread i commented on it, this is the statement i find demonstrably false:
In my reply, i mentioned andrew weaver's findings, which were published in nature climate change. oil sands, 0.03°c increase in global mean temperature if we burn all the commercially viable deposits right now. That's based the same well known radiative physics that puts us up a few degrees celcius by the end of the century under business as usual scenarios.

Which makes this following comment really disjointed:



So, from my perspective, in a thread where the intent was to shine light on myths surrounding the oil sands, it's a bit disingenuous to make a specific claim about the oil sands, when it is so divorced from reality.

It's called poisoning the well.

+250

 

[Cabbagesandking]

And yet I have proven you wrong more oft than not.


I have posted links to supporting material to disprove your asinine claims, many many times.

Just because you ignore them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Thanks btw, for removing all doubt about my observation.

You have not. You are lying.

Way back at the start of the thread I commented on it, this is the statement I find demonstrably false:
In my reply, I mentioned Andrew Weaver's findings, which were published in Nature Climate Change. Oil sands, 0.03°C increase in global mean temperature if we burn all the commercially viable deposits right now. That's based the same well known radiative physics that puts us up a few degrees Celcius by the end of the century under business as usual scenarios.

Which makes this following comment really disjointed:



So, from my perspective, in a thread where the intent was to shine light on myths surrounding the oil sands, it's a bit disingenuous to make a specific claim about the oil sands, when it is so divorced from reality.

It's called poisoning the well.

As I understand Rebel's point, he is emphasising that the oil sands cannot get a free pass. Around the world there are scores of situations where the effect on climate would be modest. In total they are not. The oil sands are not the greatest threat: coal is still that and it is coal that must be attacked most earnestly.

The oil sands, though, are a significant factor and the biggest single element in the problem. They are something that can and will, eventually, be limited. In the meantime, they are the biggest cobtributor to Canada's leper status in the world with respect to environment al responsibility.

Not to mention the short term damage to the economy and the long term effect of a return to reliance on the boom and bust of resources.

 

[Kakato]

You have not. You are lying.


As I understand Rebel's point, he is emphasising that the oil sands cannot get a free pass. Around the world there are scores of situations where the effect on climate would be modest. In total they are not. The oil sands are not the greatest threat: coal is still that and it is coal that must be attacked most earnestly.

The oil sands, though, are a significant factor and the biggest single element in the problem. They are something that can and will, eventually, be limited. In the meantime, they are the biggest cobtributor to Canada's leper status in the world with respect to environment al responsibility.

Not to mention the short term damage to the economy and the long term effect of a return to reliance on the boom and bust of resources.

The oil sands are clean compared to china's dirty coal fired electrical plants,funny how you ignore them as they are way bigger then the oilsands will ever be.They get a pass or what?

Your agenda is showing.

You obviously dont have a clue about anything in the energy industry,not a clue,so full of mis information it's allmost pointless to even try debate you on anything.

 

[Tonington]

The oil sands, though, are a significant factor and the biggest single element in the problem.

Significant, yeah sure. Biggest single element, no they aren't.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

The oil sands are clean compared to china's dirty coal fired electrical plants,funny how you ignore them as they are way bigger then the oilsands will ever be.They get a pass or what?

Your agenda is showing.

You obviously dont have a clue about anything in the energy industry,not a clue,so full of mis information it's allmost pointless to even try debate you on anything.

You have highly developed the facility to not understand anything you read.

 

[taxslave]

You have highly developed the facility to not understand anything you read.

YOu have a a highly developed ability to write Bull $hit