There is no such thing as man made global

[deziloooooo]

warming correct?, So many said so, right here they did so on this one..nothing to worry about, correct? Just let her rip..am I right..nothing to worry about, just more of Gore's BS ..right?
--------------------------------------

english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/20118371657511698.html
-------------------------------------
[Click on link to read complete article]
-------------------------------------

Opinion

New pipeline to challenge Obama's promises

Obama finally has the opportunity to make good on his environmental promises, but will he?

Bill McKibben Last Modified: 04 Aug 2011 13:15

Potential 1,500 mile pipeline could be 'essentially game over' for the climate [GALLO/GETTY]

It took some serious digging in the sock drawer, but eventually I found my 'Environmentalists for Obama' button left over from the '08 campaign. I needed it because I'm headed to Washington in a couple of weeks to get arrested in front of the White House, and I wanted to make sure I wouldn't be misunderstood.

I'm not alone - as many as a thousand people will risk arrest in daily protests at the White House over the last two weeks of August, making it the largest outbreak of civil disobedience in recent environmental history.

The target: a proposed 2,400 km pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. Those tar sands are the largest pool of carbon on the continent; the federal government's pre-eminent climate scientist, James Hansen, said recently that if we begin burning it in large quantities, it's "essentially game over" for the climate.

The politics

So in scientific terms it's a no-brainer (in fact, earlier this week more than a dozen of the nation's most senior climate scientists weighed in against the proposed pipeline). But in political terms? That's harder, because there's serious money at stake. Since the first permit must come from the State Department, for instance, it's probably no wonder that the pipeline consortium hired Hilary Clinton's former deputy campaign director as its chief lobbyist. And indeed, even before any data was collected, the secretary of state said she was 'inclined' to grant the permit.

There's real worry that the fix is in, especially since recently released WikiLeaks documents show American officials working with the tar sands companies to develop a strategy to 'spin' reporters and win favourable press coverage.

Still - the ultimate decision will rest with President Obama. Hence the sit-ins. And the buttons."

[handyman2]

I wonder what the problem is with enviormentalists. The oil is extracted from the sand before it is transported through the pipeline so it is no different from what we have been doing for years in moving crude from the wells to the refinery. The oil in the sands is a higher grade crude than what we get from many of our own wells.
The process is that they heat the sand base to a high tempriture and the oil seperates from the sand then pipelined to the refinery. What is so catastrofic about that?

[formerexpat]

biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/06/23/lawsuit-seeks-ethics-filings-of-nasas-global-warming-activist-james-hansen/

You mean this James Hansen?

Yeah, he hardly has anything to personally gain from perpetuating this myth.

[pappyjohn99]

I note that this is posted on the aljeezera network. I am sure they do not want those American dollars that they use to fund their terrorist activities going to Canada. How will they afford vests to strap on their children to blow up Israelis?

[Virgil Showlion]

From Oil Sands Now (bold be me):

Question: What percentage of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are released into the air from the oil sands?

Answer: Total GHG emissions from the oil sands industry are approximately 33 million tonnes per year. This is equivalent to about 5 per cent of Canada’s GHG emissions, 0.5 per cent of GHG emissions of the United States and 1/1000th per cent of global GHG emissions. Average GHG emissions per barrel in the oil sands industry has decreased by about 39 per cent since 1990. Approximately half of this reduction is due to technology advancements and energy efficiency improvements, and the balance is primarily due to an increasing percentage of oil sands production being refined in the U.S. rather than in Canada.

Despite these numbers, we have Dr. Hansen's proclamation that the tar sands are "'essentially game over' for the climate". We might have been OK if the emissions had amounted to 0.0005% of the global total, but at 0.001% well...

In fairness, Hansen seems to be claiming that the product (i.e. oil) of the tar sands rather than the tar sands themselves are the problem (the author of the article makes no such distinction). I've seen projections where the US is deriving 30% of its energy needs from the tar sands by 2050. Still, blaming the tar sands for the fact that Americans will need energy between now and 2050 is attacking the proverbial mote in America's eye. The plank, meanwhile, is "do as we say" six-figure climate scientists jetting between conferences, sucking down oil at six times the national average, wondering why oh why Americans aren't clamoring for policies that will send fuel prices into the stratosphere.

And pollsters scratch their heads when the world at large call bunkum on "senior climate scientists'" conclusions.

[weltschmerz]

"The Tar Pit Sands project is one giant nightmare," Haverstick said, "There are major social, environmental, economic, legal and political consequences. And it's just not a local issue, but global. This project affects every living being, human or non-human on the planet. The carbon footprint is enormous, possibly bigger than anything we've seen before."



Haverstick feels, "in a time when we are supposed to be working toward reducing our carbon footprint, scaling back the amount of carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere and searching and developing renewable energies, this project instead puts us back another hundred years, if not more. From a carbon emissions footprint, Tar Sand Mining may be the filthiest form of energy production we know of. And that's not including the ecological damage that occurs when drilling for this stuff. Who knows what type of condition the remaining Boreal Forest in Alberta, Canada and the surrounding watershed will be in when this project is completed in 50 years. It will be on par with, if not much worse off than mountain-top removal projects occurring in West Virginia right now."



There are approximately 100 tar sand projects (comprised of 3,200 mining leases, covering an area the size of Maryland) planned in Canada, with at least $200 billion dollars already invested.



"The tar sands themselves have been called the most destructive industrial project on the face of the plant for good reason," Stocks, whose group is active on four continents and growing, told Truthout, "The devastation of this mining to the Alberta boreal forest, the Athabasca River, the Athabasca Delta and the communities, both First Nations and not, have been well documented."



Indigenous communities both downstream from the tar sand mines in Canada as well as those along the proposed trucking route of the mining equipment are concerned about threats to their physical health, sacred sites and the health of their land base.



Some First Nations people who live downstream from the tar sands mines in Canada are reporting increased incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, multiple sclerosis and rare types of cancer due to toxic wastes leaching into the waterway from tailings ponds. Also arsenic, at 33 times the acceptable level, is being found in game meats that First Nations people rely on, as well as some animals being found with tumors and mutations.



The mining of the tar sands, being as much solid as they are liquid, requires great effort. The easiest method is strip mining, though some newer mines heat and dilute the bitumen underground to make it flow easier. Once removed from the ground, bitumen is too viscous to flow through pipelines as conventional crude does, thus, it is next converted into synthetic oil to aid transport. These processes can use huge quantities of water and require so much electricity that one tar sand mine has considered building a nuclear power plant to power the mine itself.

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19284

[Virgil Showlion]

The carbon footprint is enormous, possibly bigger than anything we've seen before. ... From a carbon emissions footprint, Tar Sand Mining may be the filthiest form of energy production we know of.

0.001% of global GHG emissions. I'm quakin' in my boots.

There are approximately 100 tar sand projects (comprised of 3,200 mining leases, covering an area the size of Maryland) planned in Canada, with at least $200 billion dollars already invested.

...roughly a third of 93,000 km² of arboreal forest that was flooded for sake of "green" hydroelectric dams in Quebec, which by the way have no reclamation/restoration policies whatsoever.

Also, less than a 10th of the 350,000 km² in Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico that would be required to supply America's energy needs with solar panels--not including the energy costs of producing and maintaining the solar panels themselves.

Haverstick and Stocks have a bucketful of narrow-minded rhetoric. No solutions. No comparisons to the alternatives. No numbers, and no more of my wasted time vested in their opinions.

[deziloooooo]

Aug 4, 2011 21:23:23 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

I note that this is posted on the aljeezera network. I am sure they do not want those American dollars that they use to fund their terrorist activities going to Canada. How will they afford vests to strap on their children to blow up Israelis?

Pappy I use the media source..it is what it is , a article..usually they are ahead of the normal media , CNn is another one but all ways seems to have more fluff then substance..and the rest of your rant so childish and worse actually..just yadda , yadda BS

[floridayankee]

Aug 4, 2011 18:57:37 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

warming correct?, So many said so, right here they did so on this one..nothing to worry about, correct? Just let her rip..am I right..nothing to worry about, just more of Gore's BS ..right?
--------------------------------------

english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/20118371657511698.html
-------------------------------------
[Click on link to read complete article]
-------------------------------------

Opinion

You did see the word in bold quoted above, right?

Nobody actually said it isn't true...just that it hasn't been proven true. If it's a foregone fact, it should be quite easy to prove, shouldn't it?