Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 26
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline DelayedPage 2 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)

And then we have this: http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm


Aw geez. Every one of those 'facts' is in fact a myth that has been thoroughly debunked. Skeptics come in many flavors, but none of them are backed up by science.

Correction: there are a few bona fide climate scientists who think the human impact on climate will be less than the mainstream projections. Of course there are also bona fide climate scientists who think it will be worse, and so far every IPCC report has had to be modified as observed phenomena keep outpacing predictions.

"It's just a theory" is the most rudimentary form of skepticism, followed by "logic" like your list presumed to present. And then there's always the "it's a liberal/commie/socialist plot" or "it's just scientists lying to keep the grants coming". I'm not going to get down in the weeds with you. If anyone really wants to know the debunk info for any of your "facts", feel free to message me privately.

It still boils down to this: We can either believe the scientists or those non-scientists who think they know science better than the scientists do.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 27
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/15/2011 11:44:39 PM
^^^^ Your correction must have come about after perusing something along the following lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Wasn't it also "experts" in their scientific field who had us being taught for years that Pluto was a planet, only to deduce with further knowledge that it didn't quite fit the category anymore? Didn't scientists, with governmental approval, inform people that various drugs were safe (and continue to do so as evidenced by the number of class action suits there are). In "theory" they should have been safe but not enough study was allowed to be conducted before coming to a hard and fast conclusion and making false proclamations. Scientists have not had the ability to globally track atmospheric changes over the length of time required to come to an absolute conclusion about man made emissions in much the same way when it comes to this topic.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/16/2011 5:52:48 AM
Perhaps one of the reasons most Canadians are unfamiliar with the cancer clusters from tar sands is that they are occuring in the idigenous populace.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/19/edm-cancer-oilsands-fort-chipewyan-study.html
http://oilsandstruth.org/rare-cancer-strikes
"Meanwhile, in an environmental assessment commissioned by Suncor, the levels of arsenic found in local moose meat were found to be 453 times the acceptable levels.

In a subsequent study by Alberta Health, scientists lowered those arsenic figures drastically to between 17 and 33 times the acceptable levels.

"There is a function of mistrust," said George Poitras, the former chief of the Mikisew Cree and chairman of this month's Keepers of the Water conference in Fort Chip. "We feel the government's not respectful of the community.

"The government's usual position is to suggest the claims are far-reaching and absurd. But our fisherman see this time and time again," he said of the mutated fish. "It's happening more frequently than the government would like to acknowledge."

When O'Connor challenged the accuracy of the cancer reports, Alberta Health officials filed complaints against O'Connor for professional misconduct, billing irregularities and raising "undue alarm" in what critics say were attempts to muzzle a whistleblower." end snip.

The US also disporportionately places the pollution burden on it's minority communities as well in Cancer Alley.
http://seeingblack.com/x040901/toxic_gumbo.shtml

The equivalent of everything we pump out of the Gulf of Mexico is going to exports, much of it to Canada. More drilling in the Gulf is not going to change things. The oil market is a big shell game. The flow of money has more to do with the price of oil than does piddling supplies from the Gulf or hugely inefficient tar sands production.

The massive water pollution, assaults to human health, and desperation of tar sands and fracking for gas are insane given that we have barely touched on conservation and efficiency incentives and technology that could avert doing so much destruction for so little fuel. The Yellowstone pipeline burst this summer lends little confidence about the "safety" of metal tubes that rust, corrode and are subject to earthquakes.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/16/2011 10:25:53 AM
Well Keystone agreed to seriously consider a re-route. That's something positive indeed.

Before I let my opinion fly I thank everyone that has contributed to the thread whether I agree with you or not.

I don't appreciate "science" that is far from peer reviewed and far more often than not industry sponsored. IMO even suggesting mankind is not exascerbating arguably natural cycles is delusionaly and willfully ignorant if not deceitful. When we get cold we generally put a coat on. To not see how putting particulates in the atmosphere can't help but make us warmer, is of course IMO an example of less than critical thinking. And of course "warming" isn't the only aspect of anthropogenic climate change to consider. Saying "its just a theory" demonstrates nothing less than an unwillingness to consider the basic precepts of logic. If not for thousands of theories we'd still be rubbing sticks together and have no idea of the missionary position.

Beyond atmospheric considerations how so many of our neighbors in the Great White North don't appear concerned with more than arguable threats to clean water supplies baffles me.

We used to joke that the "N" in Nebraska stands for knowledge. Today I commend my Cornhusker Natives for standing up to far from altruisitc interests.
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/16/2011 12:05:00 PM
I have to say I'm a little torn on this issue, I do believe our climate is changing and since we now have about 7 billion people on this planet consuming resources, it makes sense to me that humans are having an adverse effect on the planet as a whole.
Aslong as we do not have viable alteratives for energy sources we will have to continue to rely on what we already have and that includes the tar sands. I am concerned about the environmental impact it might have but I also know that tons of toxic chemicals,nature gas, oil ect.. are being shipped all over the world by ship, train,pipeline and transports everyday. This pipeline would be no different, there will always be a risk of an accident happening, at least this pipeline would have the safety measures in place to minimize the environmental impact. I do find it interesting thou that these celebrity individuals complaining about the oil sands are still driving cars, not using public transportation to help the environment and those huge mansions/pools use large amounts of energy to heat and cool and waste water, don't see them downsizing at all to help lift the energy burden and golf courses are also a huge waste of fresh water reserves, just saying.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/16/2011 12:40:10 PM
Saying "its just a theory" demonstrates nothing less than an unwillingness to consider the basic precepts of logic.


How so? The jury is still out on whether people have a lot to do with making the earth warmer. I don't know what that has to do with logic--it's a matter of fact. The average temperature of the earth has changed drastically many times before, and the predictive power of computer models depends largely on the assumptions built into the model.


IMO even suggesting mankind is not exascerbating arguably natural cycles is delusionaly and willfully ignorant if not deceitful.


That's your opinion only. There are a great many reputable earth scientists who flatly disagree with it. You don't know for a fact that anything people are doing is significantly aggravating natural variations in the earth's temperature, and neither does anyone else. I could just as easily say it's willfully ignorant if not deceitful even to suggest otherwise.

Until a few years ago, almost all astrophysicists had accepted Alan Guth's inflation theory of how the universe began. It was even being taught to graduate students as fact. During the past few years, though, even some of the leading supporters of inflation theory have come to doubt it. You are trying to claim a theory about the cause of global warming is beyond any reasonable question, and that is false.
 statemachine500
Joined: 8/25/2011
Msg: 32
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/16/2011 5:48:45 PM
Why would cheap oil return?It would be like taking money out of their pockets and giving it away.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/17/2011 10:21:30 AM
Matchlight,

With all due respect IMO and the opinion of scientific consensus your last post is nothing but fecal material. It is NOT my opinion "only," it is the widespread consensus of PEER REVIEWED science. As to any "jury" you allude to there are very FEW reputable climate scientists that agree with your ignorant agenda riddled propoganda.

The propogation of deceitful tripe like yours is not going to benefit your grandchildren. Whatever you believe about the theory of anthropogenic warming and climate change clean drinking water and clean air to breathe is something anyone with a critical eye to the future has to be concerned with unless they really don't care about much beyond their portfolio and personal planetary tenure.

There is no one solution to weening ourselves off of undeniably dirty and environmentally damaging fossil fuels. Ridiculing and ignorantly dismissing pieces of the puzzle is sad to put it kindly. The idea the earth will always absorb our filthy indulgences is not grounded in any semblance of critical thinking.

The extent to which we are negatively impacting our environment may indeed be "inconclusive." Yet the idea we can do anything we want without negative consequences is IMO and WADR inane. If you have some actually widespread peer reviewed and accepted science to counter the claims of extent consensus please present it. Of course you and I both know that is a rhetorical request for it indeed does not exist however much you'd like to propogate deceitfull fatasy.

Veracity is not just for breakfast anymore. you should be ashamed Matchlight, assuming you have a capacity for it.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/17/2011 1:13:36 PM

If you have some actually widespread peer reviewed and accepted science to counter the claims of extent consensus please present it . . .


You are the one claiming the effect exists. It's for you to prove it. Your acknowledgment that "the extent to which we are negatively impacting our environment may indeed be 'inconclusive'" is an admission that you can't.

Spare me the "please," "with all due respect," and other such phoniness. You can't refute what I said, so you make a lame attempt to attack me personally. That's just what I've come to expect from leftist true believers, when someone dares question one of the tenets of their secular religion.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/17/2011 4:05:52 PM


If you have some actually widespread peer reviewed and accepted science to counter the claims of extent consensus please present it . . .


You are the one claiming the effect exists. It's for you to prove it.


As noted before, science doesn't "prove" anything. Science does, through rigorous application of the scientific method, reach sufficient degrees of certainty for policy makers to make decisions. That point has been reached for quite some time now regarding anthropogenic climate change.

The following national and international science academies and associations have issued statements supporting the human role in a warming planet. Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.



Academies of Science
[edit] Joint science academies' statements

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

of Australia,
of Belgium,
of Brazil,
of Cameroon,
Royal Society of Canada,
of the Caribbean,
of China,
Institut de France,
of Ghana,
Leopoldina of Germany,
of Indonesia,
of Ireland,
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
of India,
of Japan,
of Kenya,
of Madagascar,
of Malaysia,
of Mexico,
of Nigeria,
Royal Society of New Zealand,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
of Senegal,
of South Africa,
of Sudan,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
of Tanzania,
of Turkey,
of Uganda,
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
of the United States,
of Zambia,
and of Zimbabwe.



InterAcademy Council

As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[18][19] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[20] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[21]

National and international science organizations that have issued statements supporting the human role in a warming planet:

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

Polish Academy of Sciences

National Research Council (US)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Chemical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

Australian Institute of Physics

European Physical Society

European Science Foundation

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

American Geophysical Union

American Society of Agronomy

Crop Science Society of America

Soil Science Society of America

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Geological Society of London

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

American Meteorological Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

World Meteorological Organization

American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated

International Union for Quaternary Research

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Society for Microbiology

Australian Coral Reef Society

Institute of Biology (UK)

The Wildlife Society (international)

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Medical Association

American Public Health Association

Australian Medical Association

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Health Organization

American Astronomical Society

American Statistical Association

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

International Association for Great Lakes Research

Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand


The above I edited for space. If you'd like to see the statements associated with each organization, go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

A smattering of individual scientists have issued statements of varying degrees of dissent, mostly asserting human activity does impact the climate, but to a lesser degree than the vast majority of climate scientists assert. As with any group of people, there will always be those on the fringe. It's important to note that there are also individual scientists who assert that even the worst case predictions of the IPCC are not as dire as what will actually happen.

You, of course, are free to reject all of this. But please acknowledge if you do so that you reject science, at least as it has been practiced for the past couple of centuries.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/17/2011 5:40:25 PM
You, of course, are free to reject all of this. But please acknowledge if you do so that you reject science, at least as it has been practiced for the past couple of centuries.


I have no idea how doubting there's a consensus that people have contributed significantly to warming the earth is rejecting science--as practiced at any time. If a jury isn't convinced a defendant is liable, are the jurors who say he's not rejecting reason?


A smattering of individual scientists have issued statements of varying degrees of dissent, mostly asserting human activity does impact the climate, but to a lesser degree than the vast majority of climate scientists assert. As with any group of people, there will always be those on the fringe.


I think your statement is inaccurate. There are far more than just a "smattering" of scientists who are not convinced that people are a major cause of observed changes in the temperature of the earth. And there's no justification for your portrayal of them as "on the fringe." You are trying to suggest that the evidence is so compelling that no serious person could question it. But the evidence is not even close to being conclusive or compelling. You make it sound almost as if we can predict what will happen to the earth just as surely as we can predict that a ball dropped from someone's hand will fall toward the ground.

We know the earth's temperature has varied drastically, many times, long before there was any industry, or even people. What made it so warm once that dinosaurs ran around in lush vegetation where there's now tundra and glaciers? Unusual volcanic activity can both decrease the sunlight which reaches the earth and produce enormous amounts of gases that affect the atmosphere's capacity to retain heat. The dust and smoke caused by giant rocks from space slamming into us at 100,000 mph or so, as we know they often have, would have put the whole earth in darkness for years at a time. The sun's output is always fluctuating somewhat. Clouds reflect sunlight, and the amount an distribution of cloud cover changes constantly. The earth wobbles slightly as it rotates, so that the axis through the poles points to a slightly different position in space and drifts back again, in a 26,000 year cycle. We know the earth's magnetic field has reversed itself many times, and that its distribution of land and ocean has gone through many changes. The oceans release CO2 to the air, or absorb CO2 from it, depending partly on the water temperature. All these things--and probably hundreds more--interact in such a fantastically large number of constantly changing combinations that the idea anyone could accurately simulate or predict what the result will be years from now is far-fetched.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/17/2011 6:31:41 PM

There are far more than just a "smattering" of scientists who are not convinced that people are a major cause of observed changes in the temperature of the earth.


No, there aren't. At least not that have actually done any research of their own. Sure there are a couple of bogus "lists" circulating around on the internet, but those who have actually published independent research are very hard to find.


You are trying to suggest that the evidence is so compelling that no serious person could question it.


Yes, I am.

You saw my list of national and international science organizations who have explicitly issued statement endorsing the human role in global warming. Find me ONE that has issued a statement denying it.


We know the earth's temperature has varied drastically, many times, long before there was any industry, or even people.

...All these things--and probably hundreds more--interact in such a fantastically large number of constantly changing combinations that the idea anyone could accurately simulate or predict what the result will be years from now is far-fetched.



Yes, the earth has been through many changes, and a stray asteroid could certainly make all this discussion moot. But none of those consensus scientists question that. They've studied historic events exhaustively and continue to do so. They've studied ALL the climate influences just as exhaustively and continue to do so.

They do NOT presume to be able to accurately predict exactly how warm the planet will get how soon. That's why they offer ranges to allow for variability in all those factors, including how soon we actually reduce our carbon output.

It's like having your doctor tell you that your lousy diet, obesity, and smoking put you at serious risk for a heart attack. Would you insist every doctor you can find agree on exactly when and how severe your heart attack will be before taking action to change your habits?

I understand that in this country and the UK the media has made it look like there's a lot more doubt about AGW than actually exists. Skeptics get disproportional attention, and headlines often don't accurately reflect what scientists actually say. Toss in our entire republican party rejecting climate science and our general public find themselves far more doubtful than the science community is.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 38
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/17/2011 9:57:20 PM
If we're getting into providing lists, here's more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/18/2011 6:05:03 AM

f we're getting into providing lists, here's more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


Yes, I meant to compliment you on that link when you provided it earlier. It's an improvement over the earlier one you cited.

The 'smattering' I mentioned are included in your citation. People like LIndzen, Christy, and Michaels who have actually done climate research and constitute the fringe in one direction who think the IPCC is overstating their case.

Of course the fringe on the other side don't get anywhere near the press recognition.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090214162648.htm
http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/underestimates.php

And indeed, even though we are very early in the climate change timeline, just in the past couple of decades observed results have outpaced IPCC predictions, and each subsequent report has had to upgrade those projections.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/18/346333/evidence-builds-that-scientists-underplay-climate-impacts/

A couple of important notes from your citation:

first, it opens by acknowledging the scientific consensus on climate change as follows


Climate scientists agree that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming were as follows:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[3]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[4]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[5] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[6]


Then it goes on to identify the criteria for inclusion in their list


Each scientist has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the natural sciences (broadly defined). The article need not have been written in recent years nor be in a field relevant to climate.


So what we have is a fairly short list of scientists who have proven that they are able to pass peer review at least once in their career making some sort of statement questioning the consensus on climate change. Of that short list, I repeat, only a smattering have actually done climate research and had it published.

As a side note, I once had an article published in a peer reviewed science journal. It had nothing to do with climate and in no way adds to my credibility here on this topic, but would have made me eligible for inclusion in your link had I published a letter to the editor or some such taking an opposite view to the one I have.

That's why I rely instead on those scientists who HAVE done the dedicated research on the climate, rather than try to pose as a climate scientist myself.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 40
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/18/2011 2:28:41 PM

You are trying to suggest that the evidence is so compelling that no serious person could question it.


Yes, I am.


So you do not consider the eminent, highly regarded scientists who DO question the evidence that people play a major part in the observed warming of the earth--and there are quite a few of them--to be serious people. It's revealing that you presume to judge them that way.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/18/2011 4:28:07 PM

So you do not consider the eminent, highly regarded scientists who DO question the evidence that people play a major part in the observed warming of the earth--and there are quite a few of them--to be serious people. It's revealing that you presume to judge them that way.


I'm familiar with about a half dozen scientists who have done research on the climate and questioned the extent of human influence. I've read their work and compared it to the work they were criticizing and the work that criticized them. In my view the collective weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a major human role in a warming planet.

And that's what a jury does, isn't it? Listens to expert witnesses on both sides and decides who is most credible.

But maybe I missed someone somewhere. Care to share the names of some of those eminent, highly regarded scientists and their published research on the climate?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/18/2011 6:45:38 PM
In my view the collective weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a major human role in a warming planet.


I said you were trying to suggest that evidence is so compelling that no serious person could question it. You agreed that IS what you're suggesting.

I then pointed out that since quite a few eminent scientists DO question that evidence, you must not consider them serious persons. Here are a few of those unserious scientists.


This first group has questioned the accuracy of the climate projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; former Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University

Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre


And here are some who believe natural causes explain most global warming:

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware


Here are some more, who believe the cause of global warming remains unknown:

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks

Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma


These unserious scientists believe global warming won't have many negative consequences:

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University

Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia


Finally, there are these scientists, now deceased, who did not subscribe to the party line about global warming:

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming

Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin

Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences


Anyone who wants to read statements by these people on this subject, or review their qualifications in more detail, or find citations to articles and books they've written about it, can go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/18/2011 10:10:25 PM
How clever of you, Match, taking chameleon's link and just dropping the lot on me. Of those listed I've looked closely at Seitz, Michaels, Christy, Soon, Singer, and Lindzen. I'm prepared to offer a detailed rebuttal to any of their positions, or if you prefer, pick one of the others whose work you find particularly convincing and I'll take a look at what they have to offer.

So far, whenever I've investigated a purported credentialed expert skeptic, I've found they fit into one or more of the following categories:

They haven't actually done any of their own peer reviewed research.

They have serious credibility issues

Their position actually isn't as anti AGW as it is purported to be

or their position has been soundly countered by subsequent research, which is how science is done.

And I'll grant I may have been too smug when I agreed to your 'serious person' assertion. All sorts of people question all sorts of things, and most, I'm sure, are quite serious in their questioning. People question whether we landed on the moon, whether a plane really hit the pentagon, who really shot Kennedy, and whether the theory of evolution is valid.

But you've also stated that the jury is still out on AGW, and I submit to you that no impartial jury of serious persons would have any difficulty agreeing that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports the premise that human activity is playing a major role in a warming planet. That's what I intended when I agreed to your 'serious person' statement.

So I'll give you two options:

You can declare victory because I clarified what I meant by 'serious person", or you can offer up your most seriously credible skeptic scientist and I'll tell you why I don't think a seriously impartial person would agree with their position.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/19/2011 12:53:26 AM
The Deniers/Creationists arm of the Teapublican Party HAVE been successful at dumbing down US citizens to the point where basic information has to be censored so as not to make us uncomfortable in our collective selective ignorance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061663/Frozen-Planet-Climate-change-episode-wont-shown-US.html

And to the North, any semblence of not toting the tar sands party line is equivalent to treason.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1088755--tim-harper-for-conservatives-contrary-positions-are-treasonous

Yes, we are cursed with a growing denier public that loves to stick their heads in the tar sand. Beyond the obvious contributions to atmospheric Carbon bombing however, there are a number of horrific environmental and social costs of the desperate extraction of oil from tar sands and gas from fracking. Those issues alone should shut down these criminal enterprises.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/19/2011 8:56:02 AM
Maybe SOME people aren't getting poisoned...some are. That's not good, no matter who they are or where they're from!
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/19/2011 10:08:21 AM
Your links are funny earthpuppy...


Perhaps one of the reasons most Canadians are unfamiliar with the cancer clusters from tar sands is that they are occuring in the idigenous populace.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/08/19/edm-cancer-oilsands-fort-chipewyan-study.html


This is from the above link...


A 414-page report by an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada concluded last December that "there is currently no credible evidence of environmental contaminant exposures from oilsands reaching Fort Chipewyan at levels expected to cause elevated human cancer rates."


That's weird because it's just not like indigenous populations to complain.


Beyond the obvious contributions to atmospheric Carbon bombing


Do you just ignore the actual numbers in favour of scary wordings? The actual numbers are 5% of Canada's total co2 out put comes from the oil sands, .1% of global emmissions. This absolutely pales in comparison to the coal burning power plants throughout the usa. Why no screaming about that? Where's Daryl Hannah ? Oil sands product is at this point 6% more emmission intensive than oil from other sources. But again, if it's worth buying oil from people who fund civil wars with your money, beat the living TAR out of women, keep people in jail for no reason and seriously pillage their own environment without any regulation, finance their own totalitarian socialist paradises, then by all means, spend your money wherever you'd like.
 whiskeypapa
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 47
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/19/2011 11:32:44 AM
No credible evidence if you ignore the fish with tumours and all the dead people who have died from various cancers.

There are liars, there are damned liars, then there are statistics. Saying you are not to bad because other people are worse doesn't make you better.

The tar sands are dirty, extracting the tar and upgrading the tar to oil costs to much in damage to the environment.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/19/2011 11:42:47 AM

I submit to you that no impartial jury of serious persons would have any difficulty agreeing that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports the premise that human activity is playing a major role in a warming planet.


No way to determine that, until you specify how high the standard of proof has to be. Before agreeing to political decisions which seriously harm the economy, I want a he!! of a lot better than "more likely than not." A 49% chance of being dead wrong about what will happen decades or centuries from now--or even a 10% chance--just isn't good enough when the jobs and well-being of millions of people are at stake.

As for the project, it's obvious that oil will be extracted anyway, even if it's not sent to the U.S. The decision not to go ahead with this pipeline means we can forget about the thousands of jobs it would have created. In this economy, it will be interesting to hear Mr. Obama try to defend it during the election campaign.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/19/2011 3:40:31 PM

No way to determine that, until you specify how high the standard of proof has to be. Before agreeing to political decisions which seriously harm the economy, [/quote

What harm to the economy? Every independent analysis of economic impacts of taking direct action to address climate change has indicated anything from zero net impact to a great deal of net benefit, depending on the time range and factors analyzed.

Let's see - increased energy efficiency, less pollution, less dependence on finite fossil fuels whose cost can only go up as supplies are depleted, not to mention new jobs created to put it all in place. Unless I'm missing something, every change needed to shrink our carbon footprint is a change we'll ultimately have to make anyway. Why wait?
 a_lonewolf
Joined: 5/21/2010
Msg: 50
Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed
Posted: 11/19/2011 5:47:35 PM

The tar sands are dirty, extracting the tar and upgrading the tar to oil costs to much in damage to the environment

Oh do tell me what extra damage it does to the enviroment that it doesn't already do?
Take a walk on the Athabasca river shore on a hot summer day. It oozes tar from the ground, leaching into the river. It's not from the mines, it's from nature itself. You have to remember, the oil sands are only a few feet under the soil. Rivers and streams run through it naturally.
Do some history research, the natives used to use the tar that they would collect from the shores to waterproof their home made wooden boats.

Consider the people who are mining it as actually cleaning the place up to make it healthier.

Either way, you have to agree that we as people need this product, at least for now. So would you rather get it from a place that has strict guidelines and protocalls and safety systems in place to help proctect the people or get it from some foreign country that uses child labor, stones women and kills the inocent for a hobby?

You want to do something productive as tree huggers? do some reasearch about the mining practices of gold....... all that to just look pretty.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Decision On Keystone XL Pipeline Delayed