Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...an-power-actually-fuel-dirty-energy-1.2879785

Could B.C.'s Site C dam's 'clean' power actually fuel dirty energy?
The CBC examines where the energy produced by the $8.8B dam might go
By Calyn Shaw, CBC News Posted: Dec 22, 2014 5:51 PM PT| Last Updated: Dec 23, 2014 11:37 AM PT

A view shows a portion of the Peace River Valley that would be flooded by the construction of the Site C dam. (Peace Valley Environmental Association/YouTube)

What are we willing to sacrifice to meet our energy needs? A debate about Site C 10:27

Calyn Shaw
Senior writer
Calyn Shaw is a senior writer at CBC News Network. He holds a master of journalism from UBC, and an MA in Politics and International Studies from the University of Warwick. He was formerly a research fellow at UBC's Centre for Social Innovation and Impact Investing, where he worked on the centre's Climate Intelligence Program.

Last week, the B.C. government approved the $8.8-billion Site C dam — a massive hydroelectric project that would flood a large area of the Peace River Valley in northeastern British Columbia.
■Site C dam approved by B.C. government
■Site C dam: How we got here and what you need to know
■Site C dam: Minister defends approval of Peace River project

Premier Christy Clark says the 1,100-megawatt dam will ensure the province's energy self-sufficiency for the next 100 years.

The government also describes the project as a vital source of "clean energy," which it is if you consider it's simply water from a reservoir turning turbines to produce electricity.

But what if we were to take a more holistic approach to our understanding and analysis of B.C.'s primary power source?

British Columbia is a net exporter of electricity

The provincial government has made it clear that Site C is about meeting future electricity demands. But the province is currently energy self-sufficient; we are a significant net exporter of power.

Christy Clark Site C
B.C. Premier Christy Clark says the Site C dam will ensure B.C.'s energy self-sufficiency for the next 100 years at a reliable cost to the taxpayer. (CBC)

According to BC Hydro's own growth forecasts, by 2024, the annual energy demand, after the current conservation plan, will almost equal the projected annual energy supply — without Site C.

This would seem to indicate that when Site C comes online, almost all of the 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity produced annually will be in excess of projected demand within the province.


So, where will this power go? The answer to that question has a huge bearing on whether we can and should see the project as good for the environment.

LNG industry driving demand projections

The majority of BC Hydro's projected growth in demand for electricity will come from the natural gas industry; turning it into a liquefied form takes massive amounts of energy.

According to an analysis published last year in the Financial Post, citing Calgary-based LNG generator TransAlta Corp:

"Power demands to cool up to 10 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas into a frozen fuel could range from 2,000 to 4,000 megawatts between 2018 and 2025."

Peace River Above Proposed Site C Dam Site by Eliza Massey Stanford
A view of Peace River, B.C., above the proposed Site C dam site. (Eliza Massey Stanford)

The same Financial Post report also provides an insightful quote from energy lawyer Warren Brazier:

"If all the LNG plants are built, they're going to need the equivalent of 50 per cent of the existing power in B.C."

And while some LNG facilities are likely to use self-generated power, some of the energy produced at Site C is already earmarked for the LNG industry. In November, BC Hydro signed its first deal with an LNG proponent.
■BC Hydro and LNG Canada sign power deal

The problem is that using hydroelectricity to power LNG production is essentially turning a clean power source into a dirtier one for the sole purpose of export.

Using clean energy to power dirty energy

According to a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions arising from natural gas production in B.C. by 2020 — much of it exported and burned in Asia — could range from 167 to 305 million tonnes per year.

If this is the case, it would mean the B.C. government is choosing to use our clean power to drive dirtier energy production.

The other thing we do with excess electricity is sell the power to other places like California and Alberta.

In an email to the CBC, a BC Hydro spokesperson declined to provide figures for the exact amount of power exported to our neighbours in 2013, citing “proprietary trading information."

Read BC Hydro's full response

When we send power to California, enabling it to swap its dirtier coal power for our relatively cheap hydro, then the clean energy argument holds water.

That argument also holds true for some of the power we send to Alberta, as it could displace coal-generated power.

In 2013, Alberta generated the majority of its electricity from coal — more than 39,000 gigawatt hours. By contrast, hydroelectric accounted for just over 2,000 gigawatt hours.

The problem is, Alberta's most energy-intensive industry is oilsands production, and inexpensive hydroelectricity from B.C. could be used in part to power oilsands extraction.

Are we contributing to oilsands extraction?

Some of B.C.'s largest sources of hydroelectricity are less than 1,000 kilometres from the hub of Canada's oil production. It stands to reason that some of the power we send to Alberta could go directly to operations in the oil patch.

A report to the Alberta Ministry of Energy says oilsands production will translate into electricity demand growth of 2.4 per cent every year until 2032.

If we send electricity to northern Alberta to power the oilsands — or to meet an energy deficit caused by oilsands production — we would again be sullying a relatively clean source of energy.

Oilsands operation
This Sept. 19, 2011 aerial photo shows an oilsands mine facility near Fort McMurray, Alta. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

The situation gets messier for British Columbians if our clean power then contributes to bitumen from Alberta being piped across B.C. via the environmentally controversial Northern Gateway pipeline.

We would essentially be trading low-cost electricity for all the risks associated with piping bitumen across the province.

So when considering the Site C project, it is worth remembering that the dam isn't necessarily about supplying power to the homes of British Columbians.

It is potentially about meeting the energy demands of the resource industry — resources that create substantial greenhouse gas emissions during extraction, and when consumed.

It’s worth considering this end result when determining the true cost of so-called clean power.

 

[GLG]

Environment Canada has released its list of top weather stories over the past year, and the long winter chill took top spot.

Why stop there? Got a problem with putting the rest of the story in so we can see if this some how proves that Man Made Global Warming is not true?
Here I'll do it for you...

Top 2014 weather story goes to Canada's long, cold winter


Country's coldest winter since 1996 'out of step with the planet,' Environment Canada says

CBC News

Postedec 23, 2014 10:22 AM MT

Last Updatedec 23, 2014 11:27 AM MT

Environment Canada has released its list of top weather stories over the past year, and the long winter chill took top spot.
"Stick a thermometer into Canada and it read a measly 0.1 C above normal — the coldest year since 1996 and certainly out of step with the planet, which was on target to being the hottest year since modern records began in 1880," Environment Canada says.
The Great Lakes attained 92 per cent ice coverage for the first time in 35 years, sea ice was back on the East Coast and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was its thickest in 25 years.
But as many Canadians know, the weather had many others ups and downs.
Here is Environment Canada's list ranked from 1 to 10 based on factors that include their impact on Canadians, the extent of the area affected, economic effects and longevity as a top news story.
1. Baby it was cold outside

"Canada’s reputation as the second coldest country next to Russia was reaffirmed in winter 2013-14," said the national weather agency on its website.

• Canadians gripped by bone-chilling temperatures

Snowfall records were set in Windsor, Ont., Kenora, Ont., Calgary, Red Deer and a handful of other cities. It was also the winter of the dreaded "polar vortex," or a circulation of frigid, dense Arctic air that moved much farther south than normal.

It was cold, really cold, at the start of 2014. Many areas also broke records for snowfall. (Associated Press)

2. Rain, rain go away: Flooding in eastern Prairies

Flooding has been the big story across the Prairies for the last several years.

• Flood of 2014 a $1B hit for Manitoba farmers: KAP

"This time, water problems prevailed across the eastern Prairies just a week before summer began," said Environment Canada. "Excessive rains on soggy ground — too much rain too fast over too many days — led to huge flooding and another billion-dollar disaster."
The rain came from prolonged moisture-laden storms that moved up from the northern United States and stalled near the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border. Environment Canada says the relentless rains turned into "biblical-sized deluges" over three days.

The Manitoba government declared a provincial state of emergency in order to bring in the military to help build sandbags to protect homes from flooding. (John Woods/Canadian Press)

3. All wild-fired up in West, Northwest

While the number of wildfires were down a little from Canada's 20-year average, Environment Canada says it was still a huge year.

• B.C. forest fires: 2014 was 3rd worst season on record

"So even with parts of Canada being, at times, soaked by heavy rains or underwater from floods, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia made up for it all with exceptional warmth and dryness that brought sparks to infernos in no time flat."
The national weather agency says an overheated wildfire season scorched the third-biggest loss of timber in British Columbia since authorities began recording wildfire statistics more than 60 years ago. In N.W.T., many of the fires were the result of a stalled ridge of drying air anchored over the Mackenzie River valley for weeks.

The largest fire of the year occurred near the Chelaslie River near Burns Lake, B.C., consuming 1,330 square kilometres. (© WMB 2014)

4. The East's nightmare before, during and after Christmas

A winter storm coated parts of Eastern Canada with a thick cocktail of snow, ice pellets, rain and freezing rain the weekend before Christmas in 2013.

• Toronto ice storm leaves 230,000 without power

"A thick glaze left roads and sidewalks slick and dangerous; it also knocked down hydro lines, leaving over 500,000 people without power. In addition to wreaking havoc in Canada’s largest city [Toronto], it crippled North American transportation at one of the busiest travel times of the year."
Restoration of full utilities and property cleanup continued well into 2014.

Tree branches in Toronto are coated in ice as people make their way through wintry conditions after parts of Central and Eastern Canada was hit by a major ice storm on Sunday, Dec. 22, 2013. (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

5. Feeling summer heat on the coasts, cool in the centre

After enduring one of the harshest winters in recent memory, Environment Canada says it was also the sixth warmest summer since nationwide record-keeping began in 1948.

• Summer storms in central Canada, heat in the east and west

"Much of Canada registered warmer-than-normal temperatures, with five regions (including Atlantic Canada, northern Prairies, B.C. Southern Interior, western N.W.T., and Pacific Coast) experiencing their top 10 warmest on record. The exception was southern portions of Ontario and Quebec where, ironically, a large percentage of Canadians live."
In July, Calgary had the third warmest month in 72 years.

The world's land and ocean surfaces averaged 16.35 C in August 2014, breaking the previous record set in 1998, reported the U.S. National Climatic Data Center run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (iStock)

6. Arthur, Gonzalo pace harried hurricane season

Eight "named" storms forming in the Atlantic basin this year, and out of those, two hurricanes really stood out.

• Hurricane Arthur: Wind, rain set to batter Atlantic Canada

"The season’s first hurricane, Arthur, came relatively early for a significant hurricane, while Gonzalo, the last hurricane, marked an early end to the season. Both storms were the most punishing ones of the season in Atlantic Canada."
The season also featured other tropical storms, like Bertha.

Extreme damage like this in Baxters Harbour, N.S., left people without power during Hurricane Arthur. (Craig Paisley/CBC)

Cont....

 

[GLG]

Cont....

7. Airdrie to Calgary hailer

Southern Alberta got pelted with hail during a series of severe thunderstorms that rolled through the province in August.

• Airdrie hail storm likely caused 'gustnado' in Calgary, officials say

"The storms also produced strong winds, including a brief but intense low-level rotating outflow [a.k.a gustnado] northeast of Calgary that packed winds of 110 to 140 km/h. The weather was unusual on two fronts — it featured tennis- to baseball-sized hail driven by strong winds and a storm that’s swirling path meant some properties were hit three times in the course of an hour."
Airdrie, a community just north of Calgary, was hit hardest with six people injured badly enough by the hail to require hospitalization and almost every household reporting damage. Insurance costsreached up into the millions.
​

Hail in Airdrie, north of Calgary, caused lots of dents in cars and cracks in siding. (Submitted by Patrick Jessup)

8. December storms on West, East Coasts

Millions of Canadians from the West Coast, Central Canada and the Maritimes were bombarded by intense pre-winter storms during the second week of December.

• Snow, rain and wind hit Canada coast-to-coast

Environment Canada says three storms from tropical origins hammered Vancouver Island and mainland British Columbia’s central and south coasts. On the East Coast, it was one powerful storm that produced widespread damages for residents in six provinces.
"The Cape Cod storm was so far reaching that its last fling at North America was felt in western Quebec and southern and eastern Ontario."

The Puntledge River overflowed its banks and flooded campsites at the Puntledge RV Campground and Nim Nim Interpretive Centre in Courtenay, B.C., during subtropical storms in December. (Gary Graves, CBC News)

9. Angus tornado anger

Ontario saw 19 confirmed tornadoes in 2014 — one of them hit the community Angus, 18 kilometres southwest of Barrie, on June 17.

• Angus tornado: 'Everyone has pulled together,' Kathleen Wynne says

"The storm was an offshoot of a potent weather system that had triggered rare double tornadoes and levelled a town in Nebraska the previous day," said Environment Canada.
The fast-moving storm raced across southern Ontario but tore into Angus, causing carnage in some neighbourhoods. The debris field stretched nearly a kilometre, with some houses missing roofs, walls and even top floors.

Investigators assess the damage to homes and property, a day after a tornado touched down in Angus, Ont. (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

10. 'Snowtember' in Calgary

Thousands of Calgary homes and businesses were left without power after a freak September snowstorm blanketed the city. Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi even asked Calgarians to help save snow-laden trees, many of which still had leaves, by knocking the snow off the branches.

• Calgary snow causes major power outages during storm

"The storm’s snowfall was the highest September deposit before the autumn equinox in the last 130 years," said Environment Canada.
The heavy snow caused major damage to the city's power lines and trees, and took months to clean up.


Sounds kind of effed up if you ask me... But hey we made the top 10 here in our community.... something that's not good.

What a sad team you hang your hat with.....

 

[triplenickel]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...an-power-actually-fuel-dirty-energy-1.2879785

Could B.C.'s Site C dam's 'clean' power actually fuel dirty energy?
The CBC examines where the energy produced by the $8.8B dam might go
By Calyn Shaw, CBC News Posted: Dec 22, 2014 5:51 PM PT| Last Updated: Dec 23, 2014 11:37 AM PT

A view shows a portion of the Peace River Valley that would be flooded by the construction of the Site C dam. (Peace Valley Environmental Association/YouTube)

What are we willing to sacrifice to meet our energy needs? A debate about Site C 10:27

Calyn Shaw
Senior writer
Calyn Shaw is a senior writer at CBC News Network. He holds a master of journalism from UBC, and an MA in Politics and International Studies from the University of Warwick. He was formerly a research fellow at UBC's Centre for Social Innovation and Impact Investing, where he worked on the centre's Climate Intelligence Program.

Last week, the B.C. government approved the $8.8-billion Site C dam — a massive hydroelectric project that would flood a large area of the Peace River Valley in northeastern British Columbia.
■Site C dam approved by B.C. government
■Site C dam: How we got here and what you need to know
■Site C dam: Minister defends approval of Peace River project

Premier Christy Clark says the 1,100-megawatt dam will ensure the province's energy self-sufficiency for the next 100 years.

The government also describes the project as a vital source of "clean energy," which it is if you consider it's simply water from a reservoir turning turbines to produce electricity.

But what if we were to take a more holistic approach to our understanding and analysis of B.C.'s primary power source?

British Columbia is a net exporter of electricity

The provincial government has made it clear that Site C is about meeting future electricity demands. But the province is currently energy self-sufficient; we are a significant net exporter of power.

Christy Clark Site C
B.C. Premier Christy Clark says the Site C dam will ensure B.C.'s energy self-sufficiency for the next 100 years at a reliable cost to the taxpayer. (CBC)

According to BC Hydro's own growth forecasts, by 2024, the annual energy demand, after the current conservation plan, will almost equal the projected annual energy supply — without Site C.

This would seem to indicate that when Site C comes online, almost all of the 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity produced annually will be in excess of projected demand within the province.


So, where will this power go? The answer to that question has a huge bearing on whether we can and should see the project as good for the environment.

LNG industry driving demand projections

The majority of BC Hydro's projected growth in demand for electricity will come from the natural gas industry; turning it into a liquefied form takes massive amounts of energy.

According to an analysis published last year in the Financial Post, citing Calgary-based LNG generator TransAlta Corp:

"Power demands to cool up to 10 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas into a frozen fuel could range from 2,000 to 4,000 megawatts between 2018 and 2025."

Peace River Above Proposed Site C Dam Site by Eliza Massey Stanford
A view of Peace River, B.C., above the proposed Site C dam site. (Eliza Massey Stanford)

The same Financial Post report also provides an insightful quote from energy lawyer Warren Brazier:

"If all the LNG plants are built, they're going to need the equivalent of 50 per cent of the existing power in B.C."

And while some LNG facilities are likely to use self-generated power, some of the energy produced at Site C is already earmarked for the LNG industry. In November, BC Hydro signed its first deal with an LNG proponent.
■BC Hydro and LNG Canada sign power deal

The problem is that using hydroelectricity to power LNG production is essentially turning a clean power source into a dirtier one for the sole purpose of export.

Using clean energy to power dirty energy

According to a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions arising from natural gas production in B.C. by 2020 — much of it exported and burned in Asia — could range from 167 to 305 million tonnes per year.

If this is the case, it would mean the B.C. government is choosing to use our clean power to drive dirtier energy production.

The other thing we do with excess electricity is sell the power to other places like California and Alberta.

In an email to the CBC, a BC Hydro spokesperson declined to provide figures for the exact amount of power exported to our neighbours in 2013, citing “proprietary trading information."

Read BC Hydro's full response

When we send power to California, enabling it to swap its dirtier coal power for our relatively cheap hydro, then the clean energy argument holds water.

That argument also holds true for some of the power we send to Alberta, as it could displace coal-generated power.

In 2013, Alberta generated the majority of its electricity from coal — more than 39,000 gigawatt hours. By contrast, hydroelectric accounted for just over 2,000 gigawatt hours.

The problem is, Alberta's most energy-intensive industry is oilsands production, and inexpensive hydroelectricity from B.C. could be used in part to power oilsands extraction.

Are we contributing to oilsands extraction?

Some of B.C.'s largest sources of hydroelectricity are less than 1,000 kilometres from the hub of Canada's oil production. It stands to reason that some of the power we send to Alberta could go directly to operations in the oil patch.

A report to the Alberta Ministry of Energy says oilsands production will translate into electricity demand growth of 2.4 per cent every year until 2032.

If we send electricity to northern Alberta to power the oilsands — or to meet an energy deficit caused by oilsands production — we would again be sullying a relatively clean source of energy.

Oilsands operation
This Sept. 19, 2011 aerial photo shows an oilsands mine facility near Fort McMurray, Alta. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

The situation gets messier for British Columbians if our clean power then contributes to bitumen from Alberta being piped across B.C. via the environmentally controversial Northern Gateway pipeline.

We would essentially be trading low-cost electricity for all the risks associated with piping bitumen across the province.

So when considering the Site C project, it is worth remembering that the dam isn't necessarily about supplying power to the homes of British Columbians.

It is potentially about meeting the energy demands of the resource industry — resources that create substantial greenhouse gas emissions during extraction, and when consumed.

It’s worth considering this end result when determining the true cost of so-called clean power.

Take it one step further, what will the LNG replace?

 

[triplenickel]

All the answers are so simple, straight forward and realistic I wonder what's taking the policy makers of the world so long? Stupidity, corruption, a vast global conspiracy?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Lol, pretending you are a scientist.

C02 works like a thermostat, really? Show us how that works.peer reviewed only.

Show how this works in 2014.

Remember, your group said this is man made warming, caused by mans addition of co2.

How much has the earth warmed in 2014 over previous years? Actual, no computer crap. Use the best and newest information. Remember they do not have stations all over the world to measure temperature.
Therefore you will have to use satellights.

How much are you attributing to mans influence on the co2 ? A percentage will do and peer reviewed is required.

Saskatchewan is trying this with a coal fired electric plant right now. The are selling the CO2 to the oil companies to be used on enhanced oil recovery projects. I have no problem with that as long as the CO2 stays in the ground. I do think it would be better to not produce the CO2 in the first place but old king coal just does not seem to want to die. You don't have to explore for new oil fields if you can work the old ones and store CO2 at the same time. Seems like a win win to me.
2 things to think about....
CO2 works like a thermostat. The more we put in the air, the warmer things will get. It takes time... just like in a house you turn up the thermostat, the house will warm up till it reaches the temperature setting. This takes time in a house as it takes a while for your furnace to warm up the mass inside your house. At some point your house will reach equilibrium and then your heat input will be the same as your heat loss. You will be in balance. Same thing with the earth. It takes time for the system to come into balance depending on the amount of CO2 in the air. The problem is we keep turning up the thermostat every year by adding more CO2. So if we were to stop putting CO2 in the air we will still need time to reach a balance. This is one of the most troubling things with this problem. We are not in balance and there is a lot of heating left on the books. It's accumulating and it has to go somewhere. Currently that is in the Arctic / Greenland and the oceans. We only have so much budget left in those place.

2nd thing.... I don't know anyone that is saying that we can stop tomorrow with the CO2 we are currently putting out. Most are saying we need a plan to reduce and stop. This gives time for the world economy to catch up and replace the current energy production with a new one. One that is not based on fossil fuels. Can we do it?... we have no choice as this is something that needs to be done as fast as possible. It's possible if we have everyone working to the same goal. It's not helpful when some loud voices are intent on keeping the status.... same old same old. We did not leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Climate Scientists Vs. Actual Scientists
Many climate experts are scientifically illiterate, and get confused by this graph showing the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatureScreenHunter_1314 Jul. 26 07.06

The graph shows us two important facts.

CO2 lags temperature, and responds to changes in solubility as the oceans warm or cool. This is one of the first things which freshman geology students learn, as it explains the formation of limestones.
The recent rise in CO2 due to burning fossil fuels has had no impact on temperature.
Al Gore’s associate Laurie David didn’t like this relationship, so she simply reversed it in her children’s book – in a blatant attempt to defraud schoolchildren.



Lying to schoolchildren has made her a hero of the left and the White House.

 

[OldBlackDog]

You are saying Man Made Global Warming.
Well, explain this then.
No warming here??

Environment Canada has released its list of top weather stories over the past year, and the long winter chill took top spot.

"Stick a thermometer into Canada and it read a measly 0.1 C above normal — the coldest year since 1996 and certainly out of step with the planet, which was on target to being the hottest year since modern records began in 1880," Environment Canada says.

The Great Lakes attained 92 per cent ice coverage for the first time in 35 years, sea ice was back on the East Coast and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was its thickest in 25 years.

But as many Canadians know, the weather had many others ups and downs.

Here is Environment Canada's list ranked from 1 to 10 based on factors that include their impact on Canadians, the extent of the area affected, economic effects and longevity as a top news story.

1. Baby it was cold outside

"Canada’s reputation as the second coldest country next to Russia was reaffirmed in winter 2013-14," said the national weather agency on its website.

Canadians gripped by bone-chilling temperatures
Snowfall records were set in Windsor, Ont., Kenora, Ont., Calgary, Red Deer and a handful of other cities. It was also the winter of the dreaded "polar vortex," or a circulation of frigid, dense Arctic air that moved much farther south than normal.

 

[OldBlackDog]

You are right triplenickle it is about the lack of accuracy of scientific predictions.

They the scientists and politicians hold it up to us and tell us what we are to believe, as they feel they are superior to us.

When they are proved wrong over and over, you might begin to wonder. Apply this lack of accuracy to anything else and it would be a dead issue.

Global warming and cooling, yes. It always was and will be.

Man Made global warming via C02 is a politicians / scientists dream via the U.N. and the IPPC.
It is all about money, just as always.

OBD has a way with taking predictions that were made 30 years ago and holding them up as some kind of proof that climate change is false. It's old trick and little more then "hand waving" ..... does it matter when the Arctic sea ice is gone in the summer? Is 2012 or 2030 the right date? The whole point is we have never seen a summer that is ice free there in 2.4 million years. It's the trend that is important and so far it looks like it won't stop. You don't need computer models or thermometers or peer reviewed science papers to see with our own eyes what is happening right now up there. That's why OBD comes back to this so often to somehow prove that it is not happening..... The problem is his team knows the only shot they have is to cherry pick the data so the less informed are left with an impression that the Arctic sea ice is "back to normal". A mugs game for sure.

 

[GLG]

Same question though maybe the third time will be the charm. Title (which I bet is meant to be a tad humorous) aside what's wrong with the subject matter?

- it's only half a story and the agenda is for expansion of coal like Vancouver Port expansion. Bait and switch and BAU for our current leaders.
- if that's going to happen then put a price on the amount that is burned and let the market sort it out. The question is do we put the price at the mine or where it is burned?
- I would rather see a price then a regulation.

As I'm sure you're well aware coal and O&G aren't only used for optional luxury items, they're mostly for basic necessities and driving the prices up to where consumption is cost prohibitive would be political suicide. A huge segment of society can't afford any extra costs for cars, fuel, food, or electricity consumers are ultimately the ones that will pick up the tab for the increases. Do you honestly believe that would fly?

It's a false argument as your giving us a choice of do nothing or do something. We can't do nothing, we have no choice, the science is clear we have to do something as this problem is getting out of hand and it's us, our kids and future generations that are going to pay for it. Is that something we want to do? Kick the can down the road and let someone else pay for it.

Who do you think will pick up the tab for that? What politician is going to make it happen?

Well that is at the heart of it. Do we have leaders that can lead or are they worried about being elected? Here in BC we have a carbon tax on fuel. How did that work out? 16% less fuel consumed and our GDP was one of the best in Canada. The carbon tax collected went back to consumers in the form of lower personal and business tax (revenue neutral). Did anybody freeze in the dark or go hungry?

That was just a side rant on my part, it was in no way an argument,

Leave it out because you don't need it and it paints you with the other crowd and that's not fair.

the argument can be found in the rest of the paragraph I'll put it back here again for you;
Just like the energy industry this one works to satisfy the wants and needs of an ever growing population that isn't willing to give up the things required to make the expansion or even current production go away.

Unless you think coal is going away it's just that easy. You need coal, you can't get away from it, so where do you want it to come from? Even windmills and solar panels need it and Mt. Polley copper to become reality.

Yes we need coal but price it to reflect it's effect on CO2. It's rather simple let the market do it's job. I'm not a fan of cap & trade but it did work for the acid rain problem and that didn't hurt the economy did it?

Cool, throw some levies on it and people will stop buying Canadian coal. That will stop the consumption right, not like they'll just fill the gap from some other part of the planet with no doubt worse practices than Canada's. The population is growing and the needs will be met somehow.

That's where we need to decide where to price the coal that is burnt and produces the CO2 that we need to control. Do we do it at the mine or where we burn the coal. If we do it where we burn the coal then the products have the price built in. If a country does not price the coal they burn, then we need to add that price to the import of their products to reflect it's cost. They would get the hint in a hurry and we would see them put a price on it.

Would you care to make a bet on how long until someone starts squawking about pumping c02 into the earth? I reckon if it ever goes large scale the same arguments used against fracking regarding the potential of the product migrating will be used.

CO2 flood is not the same as fracking but I understand your argument. So far we have not heard anyone squawk. That may come but would it not be wiser to not make the CO2 in the first place?

You are passionate and no doubt in my mind you're no dummy but I think your singular focus makes you unable to see the big picture and accept the reality of the world we live in and the compromises needed to make it run. Reality is a *****. I hate myself for getting sucked back into this vortex! lol Support responsible balanced resource management it's the basis for every product and economy on this planet.

I know there is a bigger picture and some would like policy to drive science but it's the other way around. We have a problem that needs fixing and solutions are out there and we need to start going down that road. We can't kick the can down the road anymore things are happening now and the costs are coming home. Look at the price of food and what problems that will make. There have been many studies on the cost of climate change. Bottom line is that it is cheaper to fix it then it is to let it play out and pay for the consequences.

Yes reality is a ***** but we need to start somewhere and we need to hold our leaders to a higher standard. Decisions we make today effect our future. Doing nothing is not on the table. You are either at the table or your on it. So far the far right is not at the table therefore they will be on the table. They will not like the out come if they continue down that path.

 

[triplenickel]

All the more reason to put a price on CO2 no matter where it comes from

I've been thinking more about this and I'm not sure it's the answer. You, Seadna, myself and likely most everyone else on this planet have something we love and aren't willing to give up that requires a fair amount of fossil fuels to participate in. Think of the big picture, the whole package of what it takes to build, purchase, maintain and operate a boat, a motorcycle, an ATV, a 4x4, a snowmobile, a horse, a high end bicycle, a cottage, an RV, the annual family holiday. Whatever you choose it's more than the few liters of fuel per day. If you were serious when you said you wouldn't give it up (which there's nothing wrong with) other than a lighter wallet what would another tax accomplish? It would actually put someone like yourself who has aspirations of going solar at home but can't due to cost back a step as you'd have less to spend.

Now lets think about essentials, transport to work, agriculture, ferries, hauling groceries and produce to the Island and the rest of the country especially in cold weather months etc. Again, not gonna get away from the consumption just gonna lighten wallets and give the government more money to **** away on $90k throw rugs for the Governor Generals foyer.

It's also not gonna slow down the pace of expansion in these industries, consider the way commodity prices are set it's just going to affect other areas as costs get passed down the line. Want to limit Island tourism further? There's the perfect way.

Stop making babies or limit the numbers, make responsible personal decisions, increase immigration to maintain the population required to keep the system we've come to depend on alive and we'll be fine. Don't buy a new truck based on some false economy (cost and environment wise) rather keep the existing one and buy a scooter for errands around town instead! I'd rather be able to make my own choices than have the government cram something that will increase the cost of everything down my throat.

 

[GLG]

Lol, pretending you are a scientist.

C02 works like a thermostat, really? Show us how that works.peer reviewed only.

Show how this works in 2014.

Remember, your group said this is man made warming, caused by mans addition of co2.

How much has the earth warmed in 2014 over previous years? Actual, no computer crap. Use the best and newest information. Remember they do not have stations all over the world to measure temperature.
Therefore you will have to use satellights.

How much are you attributing to mans influence on the co2 ? A percentage will do and peer reviewed is required.

What nonsense... you have no idea how things work do you? No I'm not a climate scientist but my background in science enables me to understand what is going on. I can read and comprehend the basic theory and I get the rest. How about you? Your questions are answered in hundreds of science reports from all the major science institutions in the world. Global warming is caused by the added CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere every year. If you don't get that part you really should not be here commenting on science. Even Watts understands this part..... Tell us OBD what would happen to the earth if we removed all the CO2?
This is simply stuff OBD you don't need a degree in science to know what is going on. If you can't understand then take the advice from science and act accordingly.

 

[GLG]

You are saying Man Made Global Warming.
Well, explain this then.
No warming here??

I see more nonsense coming from you again.
What part don't you comprehend.
This part.....

Stick a thermometer into Canada and it read a measly 0.1 C above normal — the coldest year since 1996 and certainly out of step with the planet, which was on target to being the hottest year since modern records began in 1880," Environment Canada says.

Extreme heat and extreme cold gave us a 0.1 C above normal.
Would it be nice to have an average heat and average cold for a normal temp?
That's not the case and why I consider your arguments nonsense.
You like to cherry pick the news story don't you... Is that the what you call an argument?

 

[GLG]

I've been thinking more about this and I'm not sure it's the answer. You, Seadna, myself and likely most everyone else on this planet have something we love and aren't willing to give up that requires a fair amount of fossil fuels to participate in. Think of the big picture, the whole package of what it takes to build, purchase, maintain and operate a boat, a motorcycle, an ATV, a 4x4, a snowmobile, a horse, a high end bicycle, a cottage, an RV, the annual family holiday. Whatever you choose it's more than the few liters of fuel per day. If you were serious when you said you wouldn't give it up (which there's nothing wrong with) other than a lighter wallet what would another tax accomplish? It would actually put someone like yourself who has aspirations of going solar at home but can't due to cost back a step as you'd have less to spend.

Now lets think about essentials, transport to work, agriculture, ferries, hauling groceries and produce to the Island and the rest of the country especially in cold weather months etc. Again, not gonna get away from the consumption just gonna lighten wallets and give the government more money to **** away on $90k throw rugs for the Governor Generals foyer.

It's also not gonna slow down the pace of expansion in these industries, consider the way commodity prices are set it's just going to affect other areas as costs get passed down the line. Want to limit Island tourism further? There's the perfect way.

Stop making babies or limit the numbers, make responsible personal decisions, increase immigration to maintain the population required to keep the system we've come to depend on alive and we'll be fine. Don't buy a new truck based on some false economy (cost and environment wise) rather keep the existing one and buy a scooter for errands around town instead! I'd rather be able to make my own choices than have the government cram something that will increase the cost of everything down my throat.

We don't have a choice not to do something. The debate is how do we get it done. How do we not put the world economy in the tank and still curb our CO2? The only way I see forward is with a price on CO2 and let the market do it's thing. Currently we are paying for the rise in CO2 and that's reflected in food and damages to our cities through flooding events. We are also paying in upgrades to infrastructure to handle current and future problems. Insurance rates going up from more damage events then normal. Taxes going up so we can harden our towns from weather events. The problem is we are not putting the true cost at the source. We will keep paying one way or another until the cost are tied to the problem. Does that mean we have to give up everything? No it means we have to do things a lot smarter then we are currently doing it. Why can't we have an electric car to run to work? Why can't we have electric heat pump to heat our house. Why can't we have hybrid system where pure electric won't work? Is it going to be easy? No it's not, but we have some clever people in the world that can help, given the chance.

We don't have to give up everything right now. We do have to start now so that we are on a path to stop putting more CO2 in the atmosphere then is removed. That is something that can be and is measured right now.

Tech has a way of going from the high end to the low end over time. Just look at air bags, anti-lock breaks and fuel injection. At one time they we only available in high end cars. Now you would be hard pressed not to find those items on any car. Things change and the market adapts. Canada's economy did not collapse just because we brought these things out. Same with computers they have gotten faster and more powerful and cheaper to boot. We are seeing that with solar power panels. They are not on the same curve but they are close. Look at the telephone, we started with land lines and then cell phones have taken over the market. Some countries skipped the land line and went straight to cell phones. That worked...... if we can do that what is stopping us from doing the same thing elsewhere?

Take fishing boats.... what is stopping us from going electric? Can we do it right now? Yup but I don't think it is prime time yet. We could go electric kicker right now with current tech. Future tech would replace the main at some point. Let's say you and I like to fish on the weekends. Could we have a solar panel charging our boat during the week and have enough power to make it through the weekend fishing. Free fuel but we had an up front cost with the equipment. It's not common now but could it be in 10 years?

It's all possible if we start down this path and we have the courage to face the fact that we need to do something. There are enough troubling signs that we can't afford not to do something. I don't expect everyone to fall in line as there will always be freeloaders that ride the coat tails of us. I'm hoping that there will be enough of us pushing the tech to get the job done. It would be helpful if we put a price on the CO2 to assist the market so that we can speed up the transition to clean energy.

One last point....... Make the carbon tax revenue neutral like we have here in BC, it works. That way we send the signal but we reap a delayed benefit long after we spent the money.

 

[GLG]

Climate Scientists Vs. Actual Scientists
Many climate experts are scientifically illiterate, and get confused by this graph showing the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatureScreenHunter_1314 Jul. 26 07.06

The graph shows us two important facts.

CO2 lags temperature, and responds to changes in solubility as the oceans warm or cool. This is one of the first things which freshman geology students learn, as it explains the formation of limestones.
The recent rise in CO2 due to burning fossil fuels has had no impact on temperature.
Al Gore’s associate Laurie David didn’t like this relationship, so she simply reversed it in her children’s book – in a blatant attempt to defraud schoolchildren.

Lying to schoolchildren has made her a hero of the left and the White House.

What nonsense.... get your facts straight ..... or can you?
Do you even know how limestone is formed?
Here read this....
http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

How is OA going to effect sea life and making limestone?
Will we have to count on precipitation to remove CO2?
Do you even know what takes to get done.
Do you even understand why I say NONSENSE.....

As for your teams bubble head idea on CO2... well ... what nonsense.
As if your team some how knows and they think they are smarter then the people that actually study this.

Yea throw in an Al Gore that always makes you look smart.... LOL

 

[GLG]

I just opened this thread not to read it but to say, take the some time off guys. Enjoy the holidays with your families.

Merry Christmas,

Thank FA.... here is one for you.... Enjoy...
[vhg7Xm4FXAY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhg7Xm4FXAY

 

[OldBlackDog]

Alex Epstein: Making the world a better place — by using more fossil fuels

Growing up in Chevy Chase, Md., a suburb inside the Beltway of the D.C. metro area, I learned only one thing about fossil fuels in school for the first 18 years of my life: They were bad because they were causing global warming. It wasn’t very clear in my mind what warming was or how it worked, but the gist was this: The CO2 my parents’ SUV was spewing in the air was making the Earth a lot hotter, and that would make a lot of things worse.

Oh, and there was one more thing I learned: that everyone who knew the relevant science agreed with this.

“You’re an environmentalist, right?” the girl, college age, asked me. It was 2009, in Irvine, Calif. I had stopped at a farmers’ market near my office for lunch, and she was manning a Greenpeace booth right next to it.
“Do you want to help us end our addiction to dirty fossil fuels and use clean, renewable energy instead?”
“Actually,” I replied, “I study energy for a living — and I think it’s good that we use a lot of fossil fuels. I think the world would be a much better place if people used a lot more.”
Perhaps this would make a better story if I told you that I promptly joined Greenpeace and fought fossil fuels until discovering a massive hoax that I will reveal later in this chapter.

But that’s not quite how it went. As a young free-marketer, my 16-year-old self did not like all the talk of political restrictions that went along with global warming. So I wasn’t going anywhere near Greenpeace. But at the same time, the idea that this was a matter of established science was extremely significant to me. I come from a family of scientists (two of my grandparents were physicists, two were chemists) and I was being told about global warming not by scientifically illiterate teachers who repeated what they read in the paper (well, not only by those), but by my math and science teachers at the internationally renowned Math, Science, and Computer Science Magnet Program at Montgomery Blair High School.

My strongest memory from my senior year statistics class is of the time when my teacher, a very bright woman, stopped talking about statistics one day and started talking about the perils of global warming. That she brought it up in statistics class and that she was so adamant about it gave all of us the impression that this was an issue the scientifically minded should get involved with.

It was the same story at Duke. In freshman chemistry, local legend teacher James Bonk explained that the greenhouse effect was simple physics and chemistry and denounced the Republicans who denied it.

At that time, as I went searching for alternative views, I became familiar with the existence of professionals in climate science, such as Richard Lindzen of MIT and Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, who argued that global warming wasn’t the big deal it was made out to be.

What was I supposed to make of all this? Should I go by the more popular position? My science teachers had taught me that this, historically, was a recipe for failure, and that we should believe things only if someone can give compelling evidence for them.

But there was so much going on in discussions of global warming, I didn’t know how to decide where the evidence lay. I would hear different sides say different things about sea levels, polar bears, wildfires, droughts, hurricanes, temperature increases, what was and wasn’t caused by global warming, and on and on.

With such a mess to work with, I — like most, I think — tended to side with the scientists or commentators whose conclusions were more congenial to me. I will admit to reiterating the arguments of skeptics of catastrophic global warming with the lack of rigor I think is extremely common among believers. But I didn’t do this for long. I acknowledged that I didn’t really know what to think, and the idea that we might be making the Earth fundamentally uninhabitable scared me.

My greatest moments of clarity came whenever I discovered an author or speaker who, instead of giving his particular answer to the question of global warming, would try to clarify the questions. For example: “What exactly does it mean to believe in ‘global warming’?” Some warming or a lot? Little deal or big deal? A little man-made or a lot man-made? Accelerating or decelerating?

Having a background in philosophy, I recognized that most discussion of global warming would not stand up to 15 seconds of scrutiny by Socrates, who alienated fellow Athenians by asking them to define what they meant when they used terms vaguely. I think Socrates would have been all over anyone who spoke vaguely of global warming or climate change without making clear which version of that theory they meant: mild warming or catastrophic warming.

Once I got clearer on how to use experts as advisers, not authorities, and how to always keep in mind the big picture, I had a much better chance of getting the right answers to the right questions

A huge source of confusion in our public discussion is the separation of people (including scientists) into “climate change believers” and “climate change deniers” — the latter a not-so-subtle comparison to Holocaust deniers. “Deniers” are ridiculed for denying the existence of the greenhouse effect, an effect by which certain molecules, including CO2, take infrared light waves that the Earth reflects back toward space and then reflect them back toward the Earth, creating a warming effect. But this is a straw man. Every “climate change denier” I know of recognizes the existence of the greenhouse effect, and many if not most think man has had some noticeable impact on climate. What they deny is that there is evidence of a catastrophic impact from CO2’s warming effect. That is, they are expressing a different opinion about how fossil fuels affect climate — particularly about the nature and magnitude of their impact. Once I was clear on how unclear the questions we were asking were, I could ask better questions and get better answers. And once I got clearer on how to use experts as advisers, not authorities, and how to always keep in mind the big picture, I had a much better chance of getting the right answers to the right questions.

Given that our standard is human life — we want the climate we live in to be as livable as possible — there are two types of impacts we need to study and weigh. The first is the impact of CO2 on climate itself. CO2 affects climate in at least two ways: as a greenhouse gas with a warming impact, but also as plant food with a fertilizing impact (plants are a major part of the climate system as well as a benefit of a livable climate). I’ll refer to these as the greenhouse effect and the fertilizer effect. The second impact of CO2, which is rarely mentioned, is the tendency of cheap, plentiful, reliable energy from fossil fuels to amplify our ability to adapt to climate — to maximize the benefits we get from good weather and ample rainfall and minimize the risks from heat waves, cold snaps, and droughts. I’ll refer to this as the energy effect.

Discussion of climate change often assumes that any man-made climate change is large if not catastrophic and that our ability to adapt is not all that important. This is unacceptable. It is prejudicial to assume that anything is big or small, positive or negative, before we see the evidence. We have to actually investigate the facts. It might be that the greenhouse effect leads to a tiny, beneficial amount of warming or that having or not having fossil fuels to build sturdy infrastructure is the difference between 200 and 200,000 people dying in a hurricane.

Granted, acquiring evidence is often hard because of so many conflicting reports, which is why it’s so important to get experts to explain what they know and what they don’t know clearly and precisely.

The bottom line: For the three major climate impacts of fossil fuels — the greenhouse, fertilizer, and energy effects — we want to know how they work and how they affect us, all the while asking, “How do we know?”

National Post

 

[OldBlackDog]

Alex Epstein: Wrapping our minds around climate change

Exploring the evidence about mankind’s use of fossil fuels so far, we have seen that the fossil fuel industry is far and away the world leader at producing cheap, plentiful, reliable energy and that that energy has radically increased our ability to create a flourishing society, a more livable climate, and greater environmental quality. On these fronts, so long as we are able to use fossil fuels, the evidence is overwhelming that life can get better and better across the board, as we use fossil fuel technology and other technologies to solve more problems — including those that fossil fuel technology and other technologies create.


One big question remains: What are the long-term prospects for this way of life? While today we are rich in fossil fuel resources and the wealth they help us create, what is in store for the future?

With so much consuming, can this way of life really last? Is it sustainable?

The answer is better than yes. Not only can our way of life last; it can keep getting better and better, as long as we don’t adopt “sustainability” policies.

Earlier, we saw that the amount of unused fossil fuel raw material currently in the Earth exceeds by far the amount we’ve used in the entire history of civilization by many multiples and that the key issue is whether we have the technological ability and economic reason to turn that raw material into a resource.

For years, actually centuries, opponents of fossil fuels — and some supporters of fossil fuels — have said that using fossil fuels is unsustainable because we’ll run out of them.

Instead, we keep running into them. The more we use, the more we create. Fossil fuel energy resources, as we discussed, are created — by turning a non-resource raw material into a resource using human ingenuity. And there is plenty of raw material left.

In the last few years, the shale energy revolution has unlocked vast new oil and gas resources, making the “running out of fossil fuels” claim seem implausible for the foreseeable future. Many environmental leaders have therefore shifted from saying that we’re running out of fossil fuels to saying that our abundance of fossil fuels is causing us to run out of other resources — arable land and water, most alarmingly, but also a whole host of other materials that are crucial for civilizations.

“Consuming three planets’ worth of resources when in fact we have one is the environmental equivalent of childhood obesity — eating until you make yourself sick,” says David Miliband, at the time secretary of state for the environment, food, and rural affairs in the United Kingdom. In response to criticisms of renewable energy plans as utopian and far-fetched, environmentalist Bill McKibben says, “Perhaps it’s the current scheme, with its requirement of endless growth in a finite world, that seems utopian and far-fetched.”

The theory behind these predictions is that Earth has a finite “carrying capacity,” an idea that was spread far and wide in the 1970s. Two of the leading exponents of this view were Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren. In their landmark book, Global Ecology, they wrote: “When a population of organisms grows in a finite environment, sooner or later it will encounter a resource limit. This phenomenon, described by ecologists as reaching the ‘carrying capacity’ of the environment, applies to bacteria on a culture dish, to fruit flies in a jar of agar, and to buffalo on a prairie. It must also apply to man on this finite planet.

These theories were not idle banter — they were used by many to call for drastic restrictions on fossil fuel use, much as we have today.

Ehrlich and Holdren announced, “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States.” This meant an attempt to reverse industrial development — by law: “This effort must be largely political.”

These ideas were viewed highly enough that Holdren’s body of work, which stresses these themes over and over, gave him the prestige to become science adviser to President Barack Obama.

As we’ve discussed earlier, these predictions were wrong, but why, exactly, were they wrong? The most direct reason is that there are far more fossil fuel raw materials and far more human ingenuity to get them than Ehrlich and Holdren expected. But there is a deeper error here, an error at the root of the whole concept of sustainability. The error is a backward understanding of resources.

The believers in a finite carrying capacity think of the Earth as something that “carries” us by dispensing a certain amount of resources. But if this was true, then why did the caveman have so few resources?

Those who believe in the ideal of human non-impact tend to endow nature with godlike status, as an entity that nurtures us if only we will live in harmony with the other species and not demand so much for ourselves.

But nature gives us very few directly usable machine energy resources. Resources are not ;taken from nature, but created; from nature. What applies to the raw materials of coal, oil, and gas also applies to every raw material in nature — they are all potential resources, with unlimited potential to be rendered valuable by the human mind.

Ultimately, a resource is just matter and energy transformed via human ingenuity to meet human needs. Well, the planet we live on is 100% matter and energy, 100% potential resource for energy and anything else we would want. To say we’ve only scratched the surface is to significantly understate how little of this planet’s potential we’ve unlocked. We already know that we have enough of a combination of fossil fuels and nuclear power to last thousands and thousands of years, and by then, hopefully, we’ll have fusion (a potential, far superior form of nuclear power) or even some hyper-efficient form of solar power.

The amount of raw matter and energy on this planet is so incomprehensibly vast that it is nonsensical to speculate about running out of it. Telling us that there is only so much matter and energy to create resources from is like telling us that there is only so much galaxy to visit for the first time. True, but irrelevant.

Sustainability is not a clearly defined term. According to the United Nations, it has over a thousand interpretations, but the basic idea is “indefinitely repeatable.” For example, the idea of renewability, which is usually synonymous with sustainability in the realm of energy, is that the fuel source keeps replenishing itself over and over without the need to do anything different.

But why is this an ideal? In most realms, we accept and desire constant change. For example, you want the best phone with the best materials, regardless of whether those materials will be there in 200 years and regardless of whether it would be more “renewable” to use two cups and a string.

Why would we use solar panels or windmills over and over if they keep giving us expensive, unreliable energy?

Why should we want to use solar panels or windmills over and over (leaving aside the fact that they quickly deteriorate and thus require a continuous series of mass-mining projects) if they keep giving us expensive, unreliable energy? Why not use the best, the most progressive form of energy at any given time, recognizing that this will change as we advance and the best becomes better?

At the beginning of this book, we observed that human beings survive by using ingenuity to transform nature to meet their needs — i.e., to produce and consume resources. And we observed that the motive power of transformation, the amplifier of human ability, the resource behind every other resource, is energy — which, for the foreseeable future, means largely fossil fuel energy. There is no inherent limit to energy resources — we just need human ingenuity to be free to discover ways to turn unusable energy into usable energy. This opens up a thrilling possibility: the endless potential for improving life through ever-growing energy resources helping create ever-growing resources of every kind. This is the principle that explains the strong correlation between fossil fuel use and life expectancy, fossil fuel use and income, fossil fuel use and pretty much anything good: human ingenuity transforming potential resources into actual resources — including the most fundamental resource, energy.

Growth is not unsustainable. With freedom, including the freedom to produce energy, it is practically inevitable. We are not eating the last slice of pizza in the box or scraping the bottom of the barrel; we are standing on the tip of an endless iceberg.

National Post

 

[OldBlackDog]

Global warming, not global freezing.
This is your scientific reply,extreem heat and cold gave us this?
Really. Beautiful.

I see more nonsense coming from you again.
What part don't you comprehend.
This part.....

Extreme heat and extreme cold gave us a 0.1 C above normal.
Would it be nice to have an average heat and average cold for a normal temp?
That's not the case and why I consider your arguments nonsense.
You like to cherry pick the news story don't you... Is that the what you call an argument?

 

[GLG]

Global warming, not global freezing.
This is your scientific reply,extreem heat and cold gave us this?
Really. Beautiful.

I see you can't comprehend this... typical isn't it....
What good would it do to explain if you can't comprehend?
I have gone down this road and it has not helped.
You either do get it or you don't want to get it.
Either way it is a waste of my time trying to teach an OBD a new trick.
Sad really.....