Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[seadna]

Interesting, not all are. However i am not the one making all the projections on what will happen.
So, you really believe all the stuff that is put out by the IPCC?
if you dont then why not?
Dont tell us that you believe some and not others?
If you do not believe all then you are a sceptic.
So what is it?

Oh, I get it. Everything in your world must be black and white. We have to believe each and every word or we are skeptics. Well here's what I believe in a nutshell.

What I believe is the consensus opinion of the science. I have confidence in the best scientists in climate science. I have confidence in the general consensus. I believe that it is likely that projections of things like temperature, sea level rise and pH will fall within the fairly wide range projected by the consensus models as presented in the IPCC report.

BTW - actually you are implicitly making projections on what will happen. You're wanting to believe that climate change isn't real and that everything will self correct in the absence of us making changes in energy usage and policy. That's been clear from your posts - e.g. you are making a projection that climate will follow historical patterns of variation independent of man's actions. The consensus scientific opinion is that the climate will be considerably warmer than it would have been without man's actions.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Interesting, not all are. However i am not the one making all the projections on what will happen.
So, you really believe all the stuff that is put out by the IPCC?
if you dont then why not?
Dont tell us that you believe some and not others?
If you do not believe all then you are a sceptic.
So what is it?

("Interesting, not all are.") Got any data to prove what you are saying (i.e. at least more than 50% of them)? If so, please post them here for all to see and learn.

If not, then it could be that you are just someone who likes to endlessly debate and/or someone who is trying to justify maintaining the status quo in regards to global energy use for your own comfort, convenience and ultimately perhaps to assuage your conscience about global climate change?

Please prove otherwise by posting your 50%+ sources for unbiased climate research? We are waiting if you can back up what you say here...

 

[Dave H]

Here's a laugh.

Check this link:

https://www.google.ca/#q=roy+spencer

Note on the right the other names people also search for.

Everyone is a well known and industry paid global warming denier.

John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Roger A Pielke and the infamous Fred Singer, famed tobacco supporter.

Nice bunch of "experts" there.

Credentials for sale anyone???


Take care.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Love it . All you guys have is he does fit your ideals of how the world should be.

Here's a laugh.

Check this link:

https://www.google.ca/#q=roy+spencer

Note on the right the other names people also search for.

Everyone is a well known and industry paid global warming denier.

John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Roger A Pielke and the infamous Fred Singer, famed tobacco supporter.

Nice bunch of "experts" there.

Credentials for sale anyone???


Take care.

 

[OldBlackDog]

You are the one selling.
So, you are saying that you do not believe everything the IPPC says?
so, why should anyone else.

Oh, I get it. Everything in your world must be black and white. We have to believe each and every word or we are skeptics. Well here's what I believe in a nutshell.

What I believe is the consensus opinion of the science. I have confidence in the best scientists in climate science. I have confidence in the general consensus. I believe that it is likely that projections of things like temperature, sea level rise and pH will fall within the fairly wide range projected by the consensus models as presented in the IPCC report.

BTW - actually you are implicitly making projections on what will happen. You're wanting to believe that climate change isn't real and that everything will self correct in the absence of us making changes in energy usage and policy. That's been clear from your posts - e.g. you are making a projection that climate will follow historical patterns of variation independent of man's actions. The consensus scientific opinion is that the climate will be considerably warmer than it would have been without man's actions.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Man made global warming , due to increase in co2 is what i question.

Oh, I get it. Everything in your world must be black and white. We have to believe each and every word or we are skeptics. Well here's what I believe in a nutshell.

What I believe is the consensus opinion of the science. I have confidence in the best scientists in climate science. I have confidence in the general consensus. I believe that it is likely that projections of things like temperature, sea level rise and pH will fall within the fairly wide range projected by the consensus models as presented in the IPCC report.

BTW - actually you are implicitly making projections on what will happen. You're wanting to believe that climate change isn't real and that everything will self correct in the absence of us making changes in energy usage and policy. That's been clear from your posts - e.g. you are making a projection that climate will follow historical patterns of variation independent of man's actions. The consensus scientific opinion is that the climate will be considerably warmer than it would have been without man's actions.

 

[OldBlackDog]

What I believe is the consensus opinion of the science. I have confidence in the best scientists in climate science. I have confidence in the general consensus. I believe that it is likely that projections of things like temperature, sea level rise and pH will fall within the fairly wide range projected by the consensus models as presented in the IPCC report.
All reports right?

 

[seadna]

You are the one selling.
So, you are saying that you do not believe everything the IPPC says?
so, why should anyone else.

I'm not selling anything. I'm just hoping that people will believe in the data and science in general. I feel that such beliefs have served us well over time and I fear a society which spends so much effort tearing down science and scientists in general that we get to a point where we cannot act on anything. Much of the current Republican agenda and much of the current industry funded propaganda is directed at creating a mistrust in science. I don't think that serves society well and that's why I'm willing to spend so damn much time on this topic. What I've said is that I believe the consensus opinion of science and that I believe the IPCC reports (or the numerous AAAS reports) accurately reflect that consensus opinion. Do I believe that such reports are "perfect"? Heck no. Nothing ever is. Why should anyone believe in the IPCC? Because they are doing their level best to summarize the combined research of many, many years of human effort by those who understand the science best.

But if I follow your logic, I should only believe in things that are perfect. Have you ever made a mistake? If so, should we never believe in ANYTHING you say?

 

[GLG]

CANADA REVENUE AGENCY TAX AUDIT OF KINDER MORGAN’S CANADIAN ACTIVITIES CALLED FOR

---

17 NOVEMBER 2014

Robyn Allan has held many executive positions in the private and public sectors including President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Vice-President Finance for Parklane Ventures Ltd., and Senior Economist for B.C. Central Credit Union.

Kinder Morgan—the US based multinational that owns and operates Trans Mountain Pipeline—purports to be a good corporate citizen paying its fair share of taxes. It relies on this claim to support its demand for a public license granting it permission to expand its pipeline transportation capacity threefold and increase oil tanker traffic in the Salish Sea and Burrard Inlet to more than two transits a day.
This project represents a significant cost to BC in terms of crowding out existing economic activity. It also represents significant environmental costs related to increased transport of diluted bitumen by land and sea. When there is a major or catastrophic spill, environmental, social, economic and cultural costs will skyrocket.
Kinder Morgan argues that the fiscal revenues it generates by constructing and operating its project will compensate Canadians for investing our assets—effectively land and water access. However, the company will not reveal to Canadians what their profits are or how much in cash taxes they actually pay.
It is entirely reasonable to ask how much Trans Mountain pays in corporate income taxes as a test against which to compare what the company is likely to pay in the future. The answer—which I found in Houston—is that Trans Mountain pays hardly anything at all—$1.5 million a year on average over the past five years. Trans Mountain received a cash tax refund in two of them.
How could this be? I have prepared a brief that discusses the background and character of Kinder Morgan’s corporate culture and how it seems to relate to its almost non-existent tax burden in Canada. I have done my best to be accurate and forthright in the assessment but it is very difficult since Kinder Morgan will not be transparent and accountable.
Since the NEB will not address the issue as part of its public interest review, what remains is a call to the Canada Revenue Agency to conduct a full scale and comprehensive tax audit of all Kinder Morgan activities in Canada. Kinder Morgan needs to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians if the company wants permission to expand its footprint on our soil.
I have made the brief available for download.

Source: Kinder Morgan Analysts Conference 2013 (page 4) and 2014 (page 3). U.S. dollar figures translated to Canadian using Bank of Canada annual exchange rate.

 

[seadna]

What I believe is the consensus opinion of the science. I have confidence in the best scientists in climate science. I have confidence in the general consensus. I believe that it is likely that projections of things like temperature, sea level rise and pH will fall within the fairly wide range projected by the consensus models as presented in the IPCC report.
All reports right?

Oh so now we're in agreement. Perfect. Done.

 

[GLG]

And in other news ... that slam dunk US Senate Keystone pipeline bill bid not pass .... stunning to say the least. Looks like a veto was not needed.

added... guess I don't know the ins and outs down there.... bill will come back in January when the new guy's come to power.... Then it will be a slam dunk and then a veto...... or some horse trading will take place for a bill the other side wants passed.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, did you actually look at the part i was refering to?
A NASA model of co2.
Google up NASA and tell me why you cannot trust them.

As i thought you guys really have a problem with everything that does not suit you.

Here's a laugh.

Check this link:

https://www.google.ca/#q=roy+spencer

Note on the right the other names people also search for.

Everyone is a well known and industry paid global warming denier.

John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Roger A Pielke and the infamous Fred Singer, famed tobacco supporter.

Nice bunch of "experts" there.

Credentials for sale anyone???


Take care.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, nothing is perfect. And the politicians who are selling man made global warming might be stretching the truth for some benefit to them.

It may have something to do with money, but that is just a guess.

I'm not selling anything. I'm just hoping that people will believe in the data and science in general. I feel that such beliefs have served us well over time and I fear a society which spends so much effort tearing down science and scientists in general that we get to a point where we cannot act on anything. Much of the current Republican agenda and much of the current industry funded propaganda is directed at creating a mistrust in science. I don't think that serves society well and that's why I'm willing to spend so damn much time on this topic. What I've said is that I believe the consensus opinion of science and that I believe the IPCC reports (or the numerous AAAS reports) accurately reflect that consensus opinion. Do I believe that such reports are "perfect"? Heck no. Nothing ever is. Why should anyone believe in the IPCC? Because they are doing their level best to summarize the combined research of many, many years of human effort by those who understand the science best.

But if I follow your logic, I should only believe in things that are perfect. Have you ever made a mistake? If so, should we never believe in ANYTHING you say?

 

[seadna]

The biggest money in this game comes from energy companies who want us to believe that we needn't worry a about man-made CO2 and it's impact on climate.

 

[OldBlackDog]

My Position
Posted on November 19, 2014 by stevengoddard
My position is to defend science, and defend quality of life – i.e. the environment, the political environment and the economic environment.

Most of the nonsense is on the alarmist side of the debate, but there is plenty on the skeptic side too.

The greenhouse effect is basic, fundamental science – like gravity.

The sun strikes the Earth’s surface, and warms it. This causes the Earth to radiate longwave radiation up through the atmosphere. Some of this radiation is captured by molecules of greenhouse gas, which causes the air to warm. Warm greenhouse gases in turn radiate more longwave radiation, half of which radiates downwards towards Earth and warms the Earth’s surface further.

This does not change the energy flux in the atmosphere. The energy flux moving upwards (via reflection, radiation, convection, evaporation, condensation, etc.) is always going to average out to be equal to the amount of incoming solar radiation. The greenhouse effect simply elevates temperatures above what they would be without greenhouse gases. It behaves like an insulator. It is not a heat source and does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. People who make that argument are completely clueless.

The vast majority of this warming is near the Earth’s surface, and is due to H2O molecules, rather than CO2. Forecasts of large amounts of CO2 warming, are not based on any legitimate science.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

 

[GLG]

[h=1]Kinder Morgan seeks to silence important dissent[/h]Published on Nov 18, 2014
The American energy corporation's multi-million-dollar lawsuit against protesters in Burnaby, B.C. keeps the company well on the wrong side of history.
[krfVLcEsJUE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krfVLcEsJUE

 

[OldBlackDog]

Only 50% Of Scientists Blame Mankind for Climate Change In New Study
By Sean Long | November 20, 2014 | 9:33 AM EST
0 shares
Rather than claiming 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming, hopefully now some media outlets will revise that number closer to 50 percent.

Contrary to the repeated insistence of both climate alarmists and the media, scientists do not all agree on the standard climate alarmism talking points. A Purdue University scholar, surveying scientists in the agricultural sector including climatologists, found surprising disagreement on humanity’s role in climate change. These findings, though contrary to popular narrative on climate change, are unsurprising to anyone familiar with the prevalence of dissent in the scientific community.

Linda Prokopy, a Professor of Natural Resource Social Science at Purdue University, surveyed more than six thousand farmers and scientists and found widespread disagreement on human contributions to climate change. While 90 percent of scientists and climatologists surveyed thought the climate was changing, only about 50.4 percent contended that humans were the primary cause of these changes.

More shocking was that just 53 percent of climatologists surveyed thought “Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities.” While that number of climatologists was small, the result is still significant.

This evidence is inconvenient to the many media outlets that have endlessly repeated that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming hypothesis. Prominent outlets like NBC and The New York Times, as well as countless others, have effectively shut down debate by asserting there is no scientific debate.

Of course, many skeptics will not find this newsworthy, because they have known for a long time that there is dissent amongst the scientific community.

In fact, many studies cast doubt on climate alarmism and many scientists have differing views from the so-called "consensus." In 2010, Marc Morano released a collection of more than 1000 scientists who “challenged man-made global warming claims.” Similarly the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change aggregated “thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support” man-made climate change.

Interestingly, a third of farmers surveyed claimed they had not noticed any significant effects of global warming. This is an inconvenient realization for the many alarmists that believe climate change is already disrupting weather. In fact, many alarmists, including those in the media, have argued that wildfires and droughts are increasing with climate change, but certainly many of these farmers disagree from their personal experience.

 

[seadna]

Only 50% Of Scientists Blame Mankind for Climate Change In New Study
By Sean Long | November 20, 2014 | 9:33 AM EST
0 shares
Rather than claiming 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming, hopefully now some media outlets will revise that number closer to 50 percent.

Contrary to the repeated insistence of both climate alarmists and the media, scientists do not all agree on the standard climate alarmism talking points. A Purdue University scholar, surveying scientists in the agricultural sector including climatologists, found surprising disagreement on humanity’s role in climate change. These findings, though contrary to popular narrative on climate change, are unsurprising to anyone familiar with the prevalence of dissent in the scientific community.

Linda Prokopy, a Professor of Natural Resource Social Science at Purdue University, surveyed more than six thousand farmers and scientists and found widespread disagreement on human contributions to climate change. While 90 percent of scientists and climatologists surveyed thought the climate was changing, only about 50.4 percent contended that humans were the primary cause of these changes.

More shocking was that just 53 percent of climatologists surveyed thought “Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities.” While that number of climatologists was small, the result is still significant.

This evidence is inconvenient to the many media outlets that have endlessly repeated that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming hypothesis. Prominent outlets like NBC and The New York Times, as well as countless others, have effectively shut down debate by asserting there is no scientific debate.

Of course, many skeptics will not find this newsworthy, because they have known for a long time that there is dissent amongst the scientific community.

In fact, many studies cast doubt on climate alarmism and many scientists have differing views from the so-called "consensus." In 2010, Marc Morano released a collection of more than 1000 scientists who “challenged man-made global warming claims.” Similarly the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change aggregated “thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support” man-made climate change.

Interestingly, a third of farmers surveyed claimed they had not noticed any significant effects of global warming. This is an inconvenient realization for the many alarmists that believe climate change is already disrupting weather. In fact, many alarmists, including those in the media, have argued that wildfires and droughts are increasing with climate change, but certainly many of these farmers disagree from their personal experience.

Here's a link to the actual study - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1 - Note the description of the scientists surveyed - "Scientists from two different USDA-NIFA funded projects were surveyed. These are both large-scale projects that seek to increase the resilience of agricultural systems in the face of a changing climate. ..... The scientists surveyed represent a diversity of 9 disciplines including climate scientists, agronomists and social scientists. Together, these scientists are producing and disseminating climate change information to the agricultural sector." Then look at table 1 - the question and possible options. The survey question is "There is
increasing discussion about climate change and its potential impacts. Please select the statement that best reflects your beliefs about climate change." Five possible options are provided -
1) Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities
2) Climate change is occurring, and it is caused more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and human activities
3) Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment
4) There is not sufficient evidence to know with certainty whether climate change is occurring or not
5) Climate change is not occurring

Then look at the results in the table.

Points:
1) The scientists surveyed represent a diversity of fields and only a subset are scientists whose primary field of study is climate science. Hence it is not surprising to see somewhat different levels of opinion in this group relative to surveys that look exclusively at climate scientists.
2) The presentation you have provided focuses exclusively on those who believe climate change is "caused mostly by human activities" and not on those who also believe that it is "caused more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and human activities". Both answers indicate a belief/understanding that human activities are contributing to climate change but vary in the magnitude of the relative contribution. I would claim it's more sensible to sum both of these answers together and if you do, you'll get numbers that range from 81-96% amongst the scientist group.
3) The questions and available responses are not the best for determining if the scientists believe that human activities are negatively contributing the climate change. No time scale is provided in the question nor is any specificity of what we mean by "climate change". E.g. much of climate change is seasonal and driven by natural factors. A better question might be something similar to "Do you believe the earth's is significantly warmer than it would have been without human activities?" I'd be willing to bet money that such a question would get a much more uniform response from scientists as it's much more clear cut.

So - IMHO, the story on these survey results is heavily distorted in the above reporting.

 

[OldBlackDog]

All in the way you ask the question.
If you know the answer you want, then ask the correct questions to get it.
Then write an article to sell it to the public.

Here's a link to the actual study - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00172.1 - Note the description of the scientists surveyed - "Scientists from two different USDA-NIFA funded projects were surveyed. These are both large-scale projects that seek to increase the resilience of agricultural systems in the face of a changing climate. ..... The scientists surveyed represent a diversity of 9 disciplines including climate scientists, agronomists and social scientists. Together, these scientists are producing and disseminating climate change information to the agricultural sector." Then look at table 1 - the question and possible options. The survey question is "There is
increasing discussion about climate change and its potential impacts. Please select the statement that best reflects your beliefs about climate change." Five possible options are provided -
1) Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities
2) Climate change is occurring, and it is caused more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and human activities
3) Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment
4) There is not sufficient evidence to know with certainty whether climate change is occurring or not
5) Climate change is not occurring

Then look at the results in the table.

Points:
1) The scientists surveyed represent a diversity of fields and only a subset are scientists whose primary field of study is climate science. Hence it is not surprising to see somewhat different levels of opinion in this group relative to surveys that look exclusively at climate scientists.
2) The presentation you have provided focuses exclusively on those who believe climate change is "caused mostly by human activities" and not on those who also believe that it is "caused more or less equally by natural changes in the environment and human activities". Both answers indicate a belief/understanding that human activities are contributing to climate change but vary in the magnitude of the relative contribution. I would claim it's more sensible to sum both of these answers together and if you do, you'll get numbers that range from 81-96% amongst the scientist group.
3) The questions and available responses are not the best for determining if the scientists believe that human activities are negatively contributing the climate change. No time scale is provided in the question nor is any specificity of what we mean by "climate change". E.g. much of climate change is seasonal and driven by natural factors. A better question might be something similar to "Do you believe the earth's is significantly warmer than it would have been without human activities?" I'd be willing to bet money that such a question would get a much more uniform response from scientists as it's much more clear cut.

So - IMHO, the story on these survey results is heavily distorted in the above reporting.

 

[walleyes]

Some good news for a change.

http://boereport.com/2014/11/20/nisgaa-sign-pipeline-benefits-deal-with-b-c-back-lng-projects/

Oh and I liked this one,, loading up the hippies and sending them home lol..

http://boereport.com/2014/11/20/mou...naby-mountain-to-dismantle-pipeline-protests/