Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Do not assume that just because i did not answer you questions , that i agree with your ideals.
The list of scientists is there for you to see. Is it the group you are talking about ? You should know if it is.
Please tell us.
I guess i can assume that you agree with what the 100 scientists stated?
If not what do you disagree with and why?
Thermometers it seems are being manipulated and further in the wrong areas or not in any areas to measure the global temperature.
Will get you more on this , dont worry.
The list of scientists is there for you to see. Is it the group you are talking about ? You should know if it is.
Please tell us.
I guess i can assume that you agree with what the 100 scientists stated?
If not what do you disagree with and why?
Thermometers it seems are being manipulated and further in the wrong areas or not in any areas to measure the global temperature.
Will get you more on this , dont worry.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Professor Maslowski’s group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing models that are in advance of other teams. -BBC Dec. 12, 2007
GLG
Well-Known Member
Like all your arguments against man made global warming this one is also irrelevant..... Science moves forward as new evidence becomes available. Time you moved forward as your thinking seems to be stuck in the last century....
Here is what is being looked at right now..... Notice that clouds may play a role one way or another. That's something that needs work and is being looked at. If I recall IPCC 2007 said ice free by 2100. Nobody thinks that way now.
Published on Oct 14, 2014
Visit http://science.nasa.gov/ for more.
As climate change continues to hammer Arctic sea ice, pushing back its summertime boundaries to record-high latitudes, NASA is flying an innovative airborne mission to find out how these developments will affect worldwide weather.
[cubJXXma-Z4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cubJXXma-Z4
I already know you don't agree with my ideals. What I asked was did you now agree that much of one of your posts was factually incorrect? Specifically, I was wondering is if you are able to refute my statements that
Yes, that is the list of scientists I am talking about - it's a list of 100 that disagree with the primary conclusions of the IPCC, AAAS and numerous other studies that I have already stated best represent the scientific consensus. So, since this group of 100 disagreed (in 2007) with the many reports that I believe are generally accurate in their assessment, I disagree with the group of 100. If you can't defend the factual accuracy of your previous cut and pastes, I'm sure as heck not going to waste my time going through each and every statement of the group of 100 and pointing out what is wrong.MyEarlierPost said:
However, I will strongly object to your statement that "Thermometers it seems are being manipulated and further in the wrong areas or not in any areas to measure the global temperature." The implication is that either the climate scientist are colluding to "manipulate the data" OR that the climate scientists cannot figure out how to accurate estimate temperature from thermometers. It's also being implied that one can't measure "global" temperatures since there are not thermometers everywhere. First, the "manipulation" that seems to get the deniers all up in arms is not "manipulation" but is rather an attempt to correct for very real factors that affect these long term measurements. The most relevant such factor is that many thermometers are in heavily inhabited areas and increasing amounts of human activity, concrete etc. artificially inflates the temperatures of some stations (through the well known effect of having heat sinks in an area). As a result, many of these stations need to have corrections applied to remove such effects. These corrections may be mathematically complicated but they are well documented in peer review literature. Second, just because one doesn't have a thermometer in every location doesn't mean one cannot estimate temperature at other locations. If the nearshore temperatures in Seattle, Everett and Vancouver are measured, I can give you a reasonable estimate of the nearshore temperature in Bellingham. We count on such estimates every day when we look at a weather map on TV and decide if we need to wear a coat. We can do this even though there are not thermometers at every location along the path we will travel that day! So the other relatively mathematically complicated thing that is done with data from thermometers is to interpolate the data in the areas that are not measured in order to estimate the global surface temperature. Again the methods for this are published and again the methods have improved over time. Some of the method improvement has been aided by the satellite data since one wants the interpolated data to best match the satellite data. While there are both corrections made to the ground based records and interpolations of the data to estimate global temperatures AND while the methods have changed and improved over time AND while measurements from various stations have been corrected to varying degrees over time, NONE of what is done is "manipulating" the record in a dishonest or irrational way. The methods are published, the data is published and it's all been subjected to peer review. Alternate methods of analysis by independent groups yields largely the same consensus. The "problem" with the land based records and the associated data treatment is that to truly understand what has been done, you need to read and be capable of understanding the primary literature. This requires some expertise and most armchair scientists won't invest the effort. Hence it's very easy for the denier "experts" to make it sound as if something nefarious is going on as various well reasoned and well intentioned corrections are applied to the primary data.
I'm done with this thread for awhile as you seem either incapable or unwilling to stick to a given thread of logic and unwilling to finish one discussion prior to tossing out new bullcrap. As I said before, it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute BS with fact than it does to either make BS up or repeat the BS of others. You seem to be an expert at the latter.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...on-the-agenda/article21906917/?click=sf_globe
EU vote puts Canadian dirty-oil label back on the agenda
BARBARA LEWIS
BRUSSELS — Reuters
Published Wednesday, Dec. 03 2014, 11:42 AM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Dec. 03 2014, 12:26 PM EST
Europe moved a step back towards a plan to stigmatize Canada’s tar sands as highly polluting on Wednesday, despite years of Ottawa’s lobbying the EU bloc as part of its export drive.
European Parliament lawmakers put the plans back on the agenda by voting against the EU executive’s proposal to abandon the scheme.
MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
LETTER FROM BRUSSELS How Canada blocked Europe’s dirty oil label
EU abandons ‘dirty’ label for Canada oil sands crude
Europe may kill rule that would label Canada’s oil sands crude dirty
An oil pump jack outside of Calgary.
VIDEO
Video: Why oil prices are set to slide even further
Falling oil prices have begun to hurt well permits, shale lenders, and U.S. corporate junk bond funds. Fred Katayama reports.
ENERGY
Video: Oil's slide takes toll on shale
Picking up where they left off on Friday, Global markets continue to be hammered by falling oil prices. As crude hits a record five year low, Katie Gregory looks at where this dramatic drop is going to be felt the most.
MARKETS
Video: Currencies hit by falling oil prices
The veto vote was passed at committee level, meaning it still has to get through a full session of the European Parliament in the coming weeks in order to force the European Commission to come up with a new proposal. Getting plenary agreement would be much harder than clearing a committee.
In October, the executive Commission published a new plan for reporting the greenhouse gas intensity of transport fuels, which removed a requirement to have separate values for different types of oil.
That meant tar sands, also known as oil sands, would no longer have to be differentiated from conventional crude, with lower overall greenhouse gas emissions, and that it would make it much easier for the unconventional oil to reach the European market.
Canada and representatives of the oil industry have said unconventional oil has a valuable role in diversifying EU supplies and that Canada’s deposits of oil sands, being developed by oil majors such as ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, were being unfairly singled out by the original EU plan.
Industry group FuelsEurope, which welcomed the revised Commission proposal in October, issued a statement saying it regretted Wednesday’s vote and that it could create “huge uncertainty” for fuel suppliers if the full parliament followed suit.
Environmentalists and some politicians cite research findings that over its life-cycle oil sands crude emits more carbon dioxide because of the amount of energy required to separate the crude from the bituminous deposits in which they are found.
“If the EU is serious about tackling climate change it should discourage the development of these highly greenhouse-gas-intensive unconventional fossil fuels,” said Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Dutch member of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who initiated Wednesday’s vote.
EU vote puts Canadian dirty-oil label back on the agenda
BARBARA LEWIS
BRUSSELS — Reuters
Published Wednesday, Dec. 03 2014, 11:42 AM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Dec. 03 2014, 12:26 PM EST
Europe moved a step back towards a plan to stigmatize Canada’s tar sands as highly polluting on Wednesday, despite years of Ottawa’s lobbying the EU bloc as part of its export drive.
European Parliament lawmakers put the plans back on the agenda by voting against the EU executive’s proposal to abandon the scheme.
MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
LETTER FROM BRUSSELS How Canada blocked Europe’s dirty oil label
EU abandons ‘dirty’ label for Canada oil sands crude
Europe may kill rule that would label Canada’s oil sands crude dirty
An oil pump jack outside of Calgary.
VIDEO
Video: Why oil prices are set to slide even further
Falling oil prices have begun to hurt well permits, shale lenders, and U.S. corporate junk bond funds. Fred Katayama reports.
ENERGY
Video: Oil's slide takes toll on shale
Picking up where they left off on Friday, Global markets continue to be hammered by falling oil prices. As crude hits a record five year low, Katie Gregory looks at where this dramatic drop is going to be felt the most.
MARKETS
Video: Currencies hit by falling oil prices
The veto vote was passed at committee level, meaning it still has to get through a full session of the European Parliament in the coming weeks in order to force the European Commission to come up with a new proposal. Getting plenary agreement would be much harder than clearing a committee.
In October, the executive Commission published a new plan for reporting the greenhouse gas intensity of transport fuels, which removed a requirement to have separate values for different types of oil.
That meant tar sands, also known as oil sands, would no longer have to be differentiated from conventional crude, with lower overall greenhouse gas emissions, and that it would make it much easier for the unconventional oil to reach the European market.
Canada and representatives of the oil industry have said unconventional oil has a valuable role in diversifying EU supplies and that Canada’s deposits of oil sands, being developed by oil majors such as ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, were being unfairly singled out by the original EU plan.
Industry group FuelsEurope, which welcomed the revised Commission proposal in October, issued a statement saying it regretted Wednesday’s vote and that it could create “huge uncertainty” for fuel suppliers if the full parliament followed suit.
Environmentalists and some politicians cite research findings that over its life-cycle oil sands crude emits more carbon dioxide because of the amount of energy required to separate the crude from the bituminous deposits in which they are found.
“If the EU is serious about tackling climate change it should discourage the development of these highly greenhouse-gas-intensive unconventional fossil fuels,” said Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Dutch member of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who initiated Wednesday’s vote.
California's drought is the worst in 1,200 years, evidence suggests
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141205124357.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141205124357.htm
'Family' matters when predicting ecosystems' reaction to global change
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141205100035.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141205100035.htm
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Check out how people in the World care about global warming..
About MY World
MY World is a United Nations global survey for citizens. Working with partners, we aim to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty.
To join the global conversation and post-2015 debate go to:
www2015.png
http://data.myworld2015.org
About MY World
MY World is a United Nations global survey for citizens. Working with partners, we aim to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty.
To join the global conversation and post-2015 debate go to:
www2015.png
http://data.myworld2015.org
Last edited by a moderator:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
It seems you have a love for Einstein.
So, i am sure you would appreciate this one.
“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
― Albert Einstein
So, i am sure you would appreciate this one.
“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
― Albert Einstein
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. — First Nations chiefs in British Columbia's resource-rich north have banded together to pursue ownership of liquefied natural gas, mining and forestry projects.
Thirty-six hereditary and elected chiefs have signed an agreement to collectively benefit from resource development in their traditional territories.
Chief Martin Louie of the Nadleh Whut'en First Nation said Friday that a meeting to sign the agreement was triggered by concerns around consultation and environmental regulation of resource extraction.
He said at least six more chiefs are expected to sign the agreement in the coming days.
Louie said aboriginal leaders are realizing they have the power to make change after a Supreme Court of Canada decision in June in favour of the Tsilhqot'in Nation, which was awarded aboriginal title to 1,750 kilometres of land in the remote Nemiah Valley near Williams Lake.
He said B.C. First Nations shouldn't have to resort to tactics like blockades or lawsuits because the decision has set a new standard in indigenous rights.
"The main thing the group talked about was the protection of the land and water and animals, and that a fair share of revenue isn't really something that's given to us," Louie said about the meeting in Prince George on Thursday.
He said the chiefs have a long list of environmental concerns they hope to have addressed with governments to protect their traditional territory — nearly all of northern B.C.
The agreement includes the Wet'suwet'en and Gitxsan near Prince Rupert, both of which have spoken out about the potential environmental impacts of resource development in their territories.
Wet'suwet'en Chief Theresa Day deemed the meeting a "historic" time for B.C. First Nations to come together.
"Our time is here to take our rightful place in resource development in B.C.," she said in a statement.
"First Nations, for the first time, will be in the driver's seat to take control of our own future, end handouts and manage our own resources through our alliance."
The chiefs have committed to working together to better understand how an ownership approach might work, given the north's "great resource wealth, the increasing global demand for our territory's minerals and hydrocarbons, the scope and depth of climate change and other environmental pressures and challenges facing our territory," the agreement says.
Under the terms of the deal, the group will also consider asking Canada for a loan guarantee.
The chiefs plan to meet again in the new year to start exploring equity ownership options and then approach industry and provincial and federal governments.
Thirty-six hereditary and elected chiefs have signed an agreement to collectively benefit from resource development in their traditional territories.
Chief Martin Louie of the Nadleh Whut'en First Nation said Friday that a meeting to sign the agreement was triggered by concerns around consultation and environmental regulation of resource extraction.
He said at least six more chiefs are expected to sign the agreement in the coming days.
Louie said aboriginal leaders are realizing they have the power to make change after a Supreme Court of Canada decision in June in favour of the Tsilhqot'in Nation, which was awarded aboriginal title to 1,750 kilometres of land in the remote Nemiah Valley near Williams Lake.
He said B.C. First Nations shouldn't have to resort to tactics like blockades or lawsuits because the decision has set a new standard in indigenous rights.
"The main thing the group talked about was the protection of the land and water and animals, and that a fair share of revenue isn't really something that's given to us," Louie said about the meeting in Prince George on Thursday.
He said the chiefs have a long list of environmental concerns they hope to have addressed with governments to protect their traditional territory — nearly all of northern B.C.
The agreement includes the Wet'suwet'en and Gitxsan near Prince Rupert, both of which have spoken out about the potential environmental impacts of resource development in their territories.
Wet'suwet'en Chief Theresa Day deemed the meeting a "historic" time for B.C. First Nations to come together.
"Our time is here to take our rightful place in resource development in B.C.," she said in a statement.
"First Nations, for the first time, will be in the driver's seat to take control of our own future, end handouts and manage our own resources through our alliance."
The chiefs have committed to working together to better understand how an ownership approach might work, given the north's "great resource wealth, the increasing global demand for our territory's minerals and hydrocarbons, the scope and depth of climate change and other environmental pressures and challenges facing our territory," the agreement says.
Under the terms of the deal, the group will also consider asking Canada for a loan guarantee.
The chiefs plan to meet again in the new year to start exploring equity ownership options and then approach industry and provincial and federal governments.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Really!
Things are bad when you have to drag out the old stuff.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/world/kiribati-atlantis/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/morner.sealvls.060911.pdf
Things are bad when you have to drag out the old stuff.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/world/kiribati-atlantis/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/morner.sealvls.060911.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
A news article that you counter with a PDF from some denial blog.
Typical stuff from your team...... Tell us if this guy is so smart why does he not publish in peer reviewed science journal?
reason.... He can't because the whole world knows he is a crackpot....
Typical for you and your team...... sad really you use to be different.
Read this and join us in 2014
“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
― Albert Einstein
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
GLG.
Canada's position on oil sands.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...l-sands-at-un-climate-summit/article21979592/
Canada's position on oil sands.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...l-sands-at-un-climate-summit/article21979592/
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
Just pointing out that his ideas are not based on the best available science. Are yours? Many, many pages a go on this thread you posted this nonsense from this guy. I posted the background and why his ideas had little merit. Photoshop in a report that claims to be science get's tossed to the side rather quickly. Do I need to contact the guy like you suggest? Why no, that has been done by the people near him. It didn't work out well for him now did it. His reputation in his community is now not worth spit. Is that where you want to go?
GLG
Well-Known Member
Alberta to talk about ‘consistent’ carbon price at climate change conference
http://boereport.com/2014/12/05/alb...nt-carbon-price-at-climate-change-conference/
EDMONTON – Alberta’s environment minister says the province plans to use the upcoming climate change conference in Peru to discuss a uniform price for carbon across Canada and the rest of the continent.
“We would like to work with the rest of Canada — and by extension the rest of North America — on trying to establish the consistent, fair price on carbon,” Kyle Fawcett told The Canadian Press in an interview before he headed to Lima for the UN-sponsored conference.
“I know that’s not going to be an easy thing, but it’s something we want to be leaders in, and that will take engaging some of the other jurisdictions in this country to begin with.”
Fawcett said any agreement would have to be applied equally across borders and across economies, despite the inevitable attempts to include exemptions and special breaks for favoured industries.
Fawcett acknowledged that would put pressure on Alberta’s current carbon tax, which applies only to major emitters and only on greenhouse gas emissions above a government-mandated level. Most carbon tax models, such as British Columbia’s, apply much more broadly.
As well, Alberta’s $15-dollar-a-tonne price is considered too low to achieve actual reductions in emissions. Fawcett said the government understands that to get a consistent price across jurisdictions, it may have to be higher.
“We’re well aware of that and that’s part of ongoing discussions,” he said.
“There hasn’t been any decisions (about a higher price). I’m not willing to comment on whether there will be increased costs or no increased costs until we’ve made those final decisions.”
Some of those decisions will be reflected in the province’s new environment strategy, which Fawcett said should be released before the end of the year. He hinted it will go beyond industry.
“Each and every individual has a role to play in emissions management and I think that’s going to be very clear as we roll out our emissions plans.”
Industry has been involved in developing those plans, he said.
Although Fawcett suggested Alberta has “a good story to tell” on the environment, the province is often painted as a ecological villain. Its greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, new information is being released on toxins released by the oilsands and concerns keep growing about the energy industry’s impact on the environment.
He acknowledged Alberta has a ways to go in convincing a skeptical world at conferences such as the one in Lima that the province is serious about improving its environmental record.
“We know that we haven’t necessarily been on track there. That means we have to redouble our efforts and think smarter about what it’s going to take to get there.
“We know that when we make commitments to the world, that there’s a trust factor there, and when you make those commitments you’re expected to meet those.”
Fawcett said it’s still possible for Alberta to do its share to meet announced federal targets that would bring greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.
“It’s not going to be an easy task, but it is a possible one. There’s a lot of discussion that needs to happen on how to make that work.
“We're past the point where there’s any debate around the science of climate change.”
OBD this coming from Alberta and we both know that they are the laggers along with the fools in Ottawa. It's 2014 time to read your tag line....
“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
― Albert Einstein
“All of science is nothing more than refinement of everyday thinking.”
- From “Physics and Reality”, 1936
Albert Einstein
Reason, observation, and experience; the holy trinity of science.
Robert Green Ingersoll
http://boereport.com/2014/12/05/alb...nt-carbon-price-at-climate-change-conference/
EDMONTON – Alberta’s environment minister says the province plans to use the upcoming climate change conference in Peru to discuss a uniform price for carbon across Canada and the rest of the continent.
“We would like to work with the rest of Canada — and by extension the rest of North America — on trying to establish the consistent, fair price on carbon,” Kyle Fawcett told The Canadian Press in an interview before he headed to Lima for the UN-sponsored conference.
“I know that’s not going to be an easy thing, but it’s something we want to be leaders in, and that will take engaging some of the other jurisdictions in this country to begin with.”
Fawcett said any agreement would have to be applied equally across borders and across economies, despite the inevitable attempts to include exemptions and special breaks for favoured industries.
Fawcett acknowledged that would put pressure on Alberta’s current carbon tax, which applies only to major emitters and only on greenhouse gas emissions above a government-mandated level. Most carbon tax models, such as British Columbia’s, apply much more broadly.
As well, Alberta’s $15-dollar-a-tonne price is considered too low to achieve actual reductions in emissions. Fawcett said the government understands that to get a consistent price across jurisdictions, it may have to be higher.
“We’re well aware of that and that’s part of ongoing discussions,” he said.
“There hasn’t been any decisions (about a higher price). I’m not willing to comment on whether there will be increased costs or no increased costs until we’ve made those final decisions.”
Some of those decisions will be reflected in the province’s new environment strategy, which Fawcett said should be released before the end of the year. He hinted it will go beyond industry.
“Each and every individual has a role to play in emissions management and I think that’s going to be very clear as we roll out our emissions plans.”
Industry has been involved in developing those plans, he said.
Although Fawcett suggested Alberta has “a good story to tell” on the environment, the province is often painted as a ecological villain. Its greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, new information is being released on toxins released by the oilsands and concerns keep growing about the energy industry’s impact on the environment.
He acknowledged Alberta has a ways to go in convincing a skeptical world at conferences such as the one in Lima that the province is serious about improving its environmental record.
“We know that we haven’t necessarily been on track there. That means we have to redouble our efforts and think smarter about what it’s going to take to get there.
“We know that when we make commitments to the world, that there’s a trust factor there, and when you make those commitments you’re expected to meet those.”
Fawcett said it’s still possible for Alberta to do its share to meet announced federal targets that would bring greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.
“It’s not going to be an easy task, but it is a possible one. There’s a lot of discussion that needs to happen on how to make that work.
“We're past the point where there’s any debate around the science of climate change.”
OBD this coming from Alberta and we both know that they are the laggers along with the fools in Ottawa. It's 2014 time to read your tag line....
“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”
― Albert Einstein
“All of science is nothing more than refinement of everyday thinking.”
- From “Physics and Reality”, 1936
Albert Einstein
Reason, observation, and experience; the holy trinity of science.
Robert Green Ingersoll
- Status
Similar threads
