Joe Oliver's response to oil sands warning: 'It's frankly nonsense' - Macleans.ca
 

Joe Oliver’s response to oil sands warning: ‘It’s frankly nonsense’

Natural Resources minister says scientist’s oilsands comments were “exaggerated rhetoric”


 

A question for historians: Has any Canadian government ever pushed so hard for a private sector commercial project in the U.S.? (The Detroit-Windsor bridge doesn’t count.)

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver is in Washington, DC to press the case for U.S. approval of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. He gave a tough speech that boiled down the script that Canada and Alberta have been bringing here for a while: That the pipeline is good for jobs and for energy security. Oliver said that the combination of the domestic tight oil boom in the U.S. and Canada’s oil sands, North American energy independence is possibly within 20 years.

At a speech this morning to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a foreign policy think tank, Oliver also made a full-throated defense of Canada’s environmental record, emphasizing that Canada is doing more to combat climate change than any other major oil supplier to the U.S. He stressed that that oil sands production is less than 8% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and that steps being taken to reduce emissions from coal fired power plants should be taken into account when assessing Canada’s overall record.

Oliver also emphasized that the proposed pipeline would carry Canadian oil to refineries in Texas that face declining supplies of heavy crude from Mexico and threats of supply cuts from Venezuela.

He warned that a denial of the pipeline would mean a “serious reversal in our long-standing energy relationship” and would have “dire implications for economy and lives of citizens.” On the other hand, he claimed, that denying the permit would not be a “body blow to the oil sands” because the oil would be exported via rail, and in the longer term, via pipelines to countries in Asia.

Then there was this striking exchange with an environmentalist in the audience:

Q: Canada has a very good record as far as environmental protection issues and everyone in this room appreciates that. But how do you square that fact with your government’s intentions to exploit tar sands in view of that fact that Dr. James Hansen, recently retired from NASA, and probably the world’s preeminent climate scientist, has said, that tar sands has to remain in the ground to preserve a stable climate?

Oliver: First of all, let me address a point on terminology. There is no tar in the oil sands, that’s why we refer to it as oil sands. Secondly, with respect to James Hansen, recently with NASA, I mean, he was the one who said, I think four years ago, that if we go ahead with the development of the oil sands it’s “game over for the climate.” Well, this is exaggerated rhetoric. It’s frankly nonsense. I don’t know why he said it, but he should be ashamed of having said it. It’s one-one thousandth of global emissions. Coal fired electricity in the U.S. is well over 30 times that. I wonder why the focus on an area when there are 999 more important areas to focus on. Quite frankly, I think that kind of exaggerated rhetoric, that kind of hyperbole, doesn’t do the cause any good at all. People are sensible. Americans and Canadians are logical people. When they are presented with predictions four years ago that in four years we are doomed – and we’re not — it frankly undercuts an issue that is very important.


 

Joe Oliver’s response to oil sands warning: ‘It’s frankly nonsense’

  1. I am not overly partisan, having voted for different parties in the past — but I can not think of any government with as many bellowing unpleasant blowhards as this one: whenever I see Oliver or Vic Toews or Tony Clement or Bernard Valcourt, you just think “There’s a face that deserves a slap from someone!”

    • What about Baird? He has to be the worst

    • Glo-Bull Warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in human history.

      • Or, the greatest threat facing humanity.

        Like you though, I assume, I rarely take Prime Minister Harper’s pronouncements with anything less than a large grain of salt,

      • BullyBobby is a one trick pony.

      • 2nd biggest fraud

      • It depends on your perspective.
        I bet you the insurance companies that made all those big payouts over the last few years are turning into believers.
        I would like to see a graph of insurance claims due to weather incidents adjusted for inflation over the past 40 years to see if there is a trend.
        Once it hits your pocket book you will turn into a believer.

        • And I would like to see a graph of insurance premiums due to weather incidents too. I’ll bet they’re making a killing.

  2. I think I have to do a lot more reading to understand the contradiction between Oliver claiming that today, emissions from the oil sands are currently contributing only one-one thousandth of a percent of global emissions, and Hansen claiming that there is twice as much trapped carbon dioxide in the oil sands deposits as all of the combined global emissions from the burning of conventional oil spanning the entire history of humanity.

    Clearly, Oliver is tallking about emissions from the oil sands TODAY, and Hansen is talking about the consequences of the total emissions of utilizing the energy from all of our oil sands deposits over a much longer timeframe, but even so, the gap between the two numbers seems too huge for there not to be something else going on here.

    • LKO, one can make that same argument for coal usage in the US by applying it over the next 100 yrs of consumption. It’s not meaningful. Oliver is right about overblown rhetoric. Hansen, for his part, is no longer employed by NASA and is now a full time activist, probably with a sizable arsenal of overblown rhetoric at his disposal.

      • There’s certainly overblown rhetoric on this issue, but i think it’s on both sides.

        On the one side, there are people who make it sound as though within my lifetime I’ll be living on a planet where trees spontaneously burst into flames. On the other side though, there are people who make it sound as though they’ll continue to believe that climate change is a massive socialist conspiracy of the global scientific community until they actually see trees bursting into flames.

        • True, but those two extremes leave an awful lot of room in between for reasonable discussion and engagement, as well as the development of technologies to mitigate CO2 production. Until that happens, pipelines are still the best way to move fossil fuels.

          • Pipelines are the best way to move fossil fuels, but I can nonetheless see a reasonable argument to be made that perhaps we shouldn’t be working to make it easier to use fossil fuels.

          • I think the strongest argument against oil-sands oil is the energy (and hence carbon production) associated with extracting and processing it.

          • Yea, not very strong indeed. And the strongest argument for oil-sands is the warmth it brings to my house, my school, my grocery store, my car, my office. It allows us to live in this frozen wasteland we call home.

          • the strongest argument for oil-sands is the warmth it brings to my house, my school, my grocery store, my car, my office. It allows us to live in this frozen wasteland we call home

            Isn’t it almost entirely exported? We don’t even have the ability to refine it in Canada, do we? Isn’t that kinda the whole point of the pipeline discussion? If we were using the oil sands to keep our homes and schools and grocery stores in Canada warm, I don’t think the whole thing would be economically sustainable. The whole reason we need the pipeline is because we need to sell this stuff to people outside of Canada.

            Also… your CAR??? Is there ANY oil sands oil that ends up in cars anywhere on the planet??? Who told you that the refined product from the oil sands oil ever made it in to your car???

    • “I think I have to do a lot more reading to understand the contradiction
      between Oliver claiming that today, emissions from the oil sands are
      currently contributing only one-one thousandth of a percent of global
      emissions,..”

      You don’t need to look far. Remember, the earth produces thousands of times more greenhouse gas emissions every day than all of humanity combined. Its called water vapor, the biggest factor in the greenhouse effect by far. The public wants you ignore water vapor and concentrate on that invisible trace gas, otherwise you could end up a climate heretic. Can’t have that.

      cheers.

      • This comments seems suspiciously similar to Ronald Reagan’s famous “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do” bafflegab.

      • When it starts raining diamonds, you can talk to me about water vapour being worse.

        CO2 isn’t as bad, gram per gram, as water vapour, true. However, unlike water vapour, CO2 remains in our atmosphere for a century or more.

        And that’s *also* why contributing even one-one thousandth of a percent is a bad thing if we can possibly avoid it.. because it all stays up there and builds a cumulative effect.

        • I won’t talk to you about much Thwim. You’ve been a recognized troll on MacLean’s for way too many years now.

          cheers

          • No, trolls, you see, like to start arguments. That’s why so often they have utter non-sense in what they say. Easy bait for people to go after.

            I don’t like to start arguments.

            I like to end them.

            Kind of like I just did since you obviously have nothing of substance you can refute with.

          • Yes we’ve all have noticed that you do like to end them. I think it makes you feel like you’ve won. Lol!

  3. As more and more years pass with no sign of the rapid warming typical of the end of the 20th century, more and more people of the 21st century are turning away from the exaggerated hype of Hansen and his greedy ilk.

    The IPCC predicted that if CO2 continued to increase, so would global temperatures:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-10-4.jpg

    And sure enough, CO2 continues to increase unabated:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg

    Yet global average temperatures have shown trivial, if any, increase for more than a decade now:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

    • As more and more years pass with no sign of the rapid warming typical of the end of the 20th century…

      Oh good grief.

      2010 was the hottest year ever recorded in the 132 year record. What’s more, 9 of the top 10 hottest years on record were in the 21st Century, and 6 of those years were La Nina years, during which scientists would expect temperatures to be lower than normal.

      As we moved towards the end of the 20th Century, 1997 set a record for the highest global temperatures ever. In the 15 years since then, that 1997 record has been surpassed 12 times. And all three years that failed to be as hot as 1997 were La Nina years. 1980-1989 was the hottest decade on record at the time. Then it was surpassed by 1990-1999. Then THAT record was surpassed by 2000-2009.

      Your spin is a great way to distract people from the fact that even though the 1990s were the hottest decade ever at the time, the first decade of the 2000’s was nonetheless HOTTER. This notion that temperatures aren’t rising as “rapidly” as they did in the 1990s is silly, and also immaterial.

      Sure, it’s true that in the 1990s the record for hottest year ever was set 4 different times, but that 1998 record was still broken two more times in the 2000s and we’ve only had one El Nino year (temperatures expected to be higher) since 2000. Compare that to the FOUR El Nino years from 1987-1999. What’s more, we had FIVE La Nina years (temperatures expected to be lower) from 2000-2009, and there was only ONE from 1990-1999. So, scientists EXPECTED 2000-2009 to tend to be cooler than 1990-1999 given the prevailing El Nino/La Nina trends, and yet the first decade of the 21st Century STILL set a new record for hottest decade ever, and contained 9 of the top 10 hottest years ever recorded.

      • Gunter hates you, you know that don’t you? :)

        • I’m just glad no one’s brought up that graph that starts in 1997 yet!

          • shhh…Biily Boy is listening. Luckily i’ve got Francien tied up on the other blog…for now.

          • Good, I hope it’s on a railroad track.

          • LOL

            She got away. No ordinary logical bounds gonna hold that one. She could argue away the big bang theory on the grounds that she wasn’t there to witness it…therefore it logically ipso facto hadn’t happened.

          • LOL I thought that this was supposed to be a serious discussion.

      • Look at the temperature datasets.

        Don’t just parrot meaningless political talking points.

        • What am I supposed to be looking for exactly? What did I write that’s not reflected in the data that I linked to?

          I have difficulty being convinced by this “Yes, the first 12 years of the 21st Century broke all of the all-time temperature records set in the last 12 years of the 20th Century, but why weren’t those record-breaking temperature levels even more dramatic?” line of argument.

          • (sigh) There is a big difference between the adjective “warm” and the verb “to warm”.

            While the global average temperatures are now higher than, for example, 40 years ago, they are not currently increasing.

            So while the globe remains warm, it is no longer warming.

            Which makes clear that the increases in CO2 are not resulting in increases in temperature. The AGW fear-mongery cause-and-effect is manifestly not working.

          • No you’re right they’re not warming, there really hasn’t been record setting hot years in the past 15 years, they are all figments of everyone’s imaginations. Those record setting hot years mean nothing and they certainly don’t mean it’s warm or getting warmer. The fact that there are so many record years cannot be taken as an indicator of anything can it?

          • Read my post again.

            The rate of temperature increase has slowed to essentially zero, while the rate of CO2 increase remains as high as ever.

          • I notice also that most deniers limit their question to earth surface temperature and carefully ignore the massive warming that is happening in the earth’s oceans. The globe is still warming, it’s oceans are now acting as heat sink, which is hardly surprising given how much ocean there is on earth and the fact that water is a pretty good heat store.
            I use it to keep my greenhouse frost free in the fall and the spring there by extending the growing season, which is a pretty good small scale illustration of the issue.

          • That fails to explain why the oceans weren’t acting as a heat sink over the 1970-2000 period, and the equal warming of 1910-1940.

            The laws of physics do not change.

            In any case the temperature increase of the deep oceans is on the order of 0.006 degrees per decade, way too small to affect the surface and atmosphere.

          • Hah very good.
            I have a dog that has black and white patches on its fur. When it lays in the sun the dark patches heat up first, but the whole dog warms up eventually. Oceans are shiney things, land not so much Radiated heat gets absorbed by the land and is then conducted into the oceans along with some radiated heat. Then there is the run off from the land that will take warmer water back to the oceans. Oh and let’s not forget the amount of crap bobbing about on the ocean surface and in the ocean, that will change its properties with respect to absorbing heat. Then there is the amount of people producing the run-off, effluent etc. Not to mention increasing the heat absorption of the land through development, deforestation etc.
            All these are subject to the laws of physics too. Most of these principles have been knocking about since Newton’s time and before.

          • In any case the climate models of the IPCC predict the combined sea surface and land surface temperatures to rise in response to CO2, regardless of the deep ocean temperatures whose changes are at the limit of observational error.

            It is the failure of those oh-so-confident predictions that gives the lie to the AGW alarmism paradigm.

          • You have nothing.
            There is no research from the denier site and the research that deniers say they would value was ditched as soon as it was apparent that it didn’t fit in with their pre-conceived ideas or bought and paid for beliefs.

          • It’s very simple really.

            In Science, theories make predictions.

            In Science, theories are tested against their predictions.

            When the predictions FAIL, theories are normally revised, re-evaluated, reconsidered, re-examined, recalculated, or just plain re-jected.

            The only forces keeping the AGW alarmism theory from being abandoned are those of political correctness, for it is in Politics that lies have long legs, and can run far.

          • Or , as Oliver is showing us, those with vested interests now do their damnedest to shout out the real world evidence that undercuts their insistence to the contrary.
            For some reason, rich men’s cash outweighs reality. So we end up with graphs beginning in 1997, people insisting 12 record setting years in the last 15 is meaningless and whole host of other static. The only reason the fact of warming are doubted is because the lobbyists are chucking a crap load of cash at some very disingenuous people

          • No, the problem remains that the temperature is no longer rising at all, much less at the rates predicted by the AGW alarmism and its proponents.

            It’s just not working out the way it would had the 1970-2000 temperature increase been due to CO2.

          • Ah now I see the issue, you can’t actually read a graph.
            The temp anomaly graph that my link include shows that warming is still happening, it is not at the highest rate that it has happened but it isn’t far off.

          • The globe is 1.7C warmer since 1900 according to the IPCC and assuming all their “adjusted” temperature data for the globe is accurate. Now no warming for 15 years.

          • Too bad they had no satellites in 1900 to record that the globe was 1.7c cooler. A couple hundred backyard temperature measurements from Europe and N America is the same as the entire globe, that’s right.

          • (sigh) 10 of the 12 years so far in the 21st Century were warmer than all but TWO of the years between 1990-1999. The coldest year since 2000 was warmer than 80% of the years from the 90s, and the second coldest year since 2000 was warmer than 90% of the years from the 90s. If that does’t fit the definition of warming, what does?

            It seems to me that people are putting an awful lot of weight on that one crazy year in 1998. You couldn’t even make the argument that there’s been no recent warming in the last 15 years or so if 1998 wasn’t so high, because a blind monkey could see the trend in the graph.

            ETA: I suppose I could have been even more extreme with my analysis. Technically, the coldest year in the 21st century was warmer than 98.3% of the previous 119 years from 1880-1999. The second coldest year in the 21st Century was warmer than 99.1% of the years from 1880-1999.

            Here are the 10 hottest years ever recorded, in order:

            2010
            2005
            1998
            2003
            2002
            2006
            2009
            2007
            2003
            2012

            People who want to claim that the planet stopped warming in 1997 are being disingenuous, and the numbers above would seem to indicate that it’s deliberate. When 1997 came in at 0.5 degrees above the 132 year average it was the fist time that level had ever been reached. In the 15 years since then, that plateau has been exceeded 13 more times.

            The hottest 16 years ever recorded were all in the last 16 years. The hottest 25 hottest years ever recorded were all in the last 31 years, with only two of those falling outside of the last 25 years.

            The last time the planet had a year that was cooler than the 132 year average was 1976. The last decade that was cooler than the decade preceding it was the 1950s.

          • The ENSO index was negative (more nina than nino) during the 1940s-1970s cooling, and more positive during the 1910-1940 warming as well as the 1970-2000 warming. This merely indicates that natural variation over the long term played a significant role in the 1970-2000 warming.

            Yet the AGW alarmist models assume almost all of that warming to have been due to CO2, and to the known 1.2 degrees sensitivity for CO2 they arbitrarily added 2, 3, or 4 more degrees to account for the warming for which they failed to be able to explain.

            As the years pass they’ve had to downgrade their estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2

      • It is less confusing to create a new post, rather than make extensive additions to an existing one.

      • The British Met office and NASA has admitted there has been no global warming for 15 years. Other sources have as well. Look it up.

        • Random commenter on the internet: “NASA has admitted there has been no global warming for 15 years”.

          NASA Website: “NASA Finds 2012 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend

          Quote from the NASA article: “One more year of numbers isn’t in itself significant,” GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming.

        • No matter how they try to ignore it or change the subject or try to explain it away, they can’t get around the fact that there has been no warming for 15 years.

          The fact that they aren’t cheering is rather revealing, yes?

          cheers

          • I’ve been saying for years, the real deniers are the so-called alarmists. And in the end, climate alarmism will do tremendous damage to the environmental movement.

            As it is now, grass roots environmental movements are beginning to pop up across N America. They are old school greens who want clean water, land and air. They are rejecting modern day environmental delusions of grandeur like wind farms, nuclear power, carbon rationing and global governance.

            Old school environmentalism is coming back, thank God.

    • JD From 2010;

      Before we get too worried about NASA’s latest stamping-its-little-feet
      claims that the world is getting hotter it is it is it IS, let us first
      remind ourselves why we should trust their temperature records slightly
      less far than we can spit.

      Then let’s have a closer look at the character and motives of the man
      in charge of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), Dr
      James Hansen. Last year, he was described by his former course
      supervisor at NASA, Dr John Theon, as an “activist” and an embarrassment.

      • Still plucking that chicken even though you had your butt handed to you on another thread with regard to supervisor are you?

    • “As more and more years pass with no sign of the rapid warming typical of the end of the 20th century, more and more people of the 21st century are turning away from the exaggerated hype of Hansen and his greedy ilk….”

      That is true.

  4. When they are presented with predictions four years ago that in four years we are doomed – and we’re not — it frankly undercuts an issue that is very important.

    Just to be clear, Hansen’s prediction from four years ago was not that “we’re all doomed in four years”.

    Hansen’s “near term” predictions were about what will happen “over the next several decades”. His long term prediction was about what would happen if we exploited the ENTIRETY of our oil sands deposits, while continuing to burn other conventional fossil fuels at today’s rates. I don’t believe that he has (nor could he) put a timeline on that prediction, since he can’t know how aggressively and quickly the oil sands will be exploited/exhausted.

    • Hansen’s predictions from the mid 80s have been shown to be vast overestimates of rising temperatures. In fact, current world temperatures are on lower track than all his projections including one that included a hypothetical halt to anthropogenic CO2 production in the year 2000 (which obviously didn’t happen). His calculations of no or partial CO2 reductions now seem bizarrely outlandish. Whether this trend holds remains to be seen, but highlights the problems associated with climate forecasting. Indeed, multiple recent studies have revised climate sensitivity to CO2 downwards, which perhaps account for Hansen’s increasing shrillness.

      • It seems strange that the Athabaska Tar Sands got a name change since our seismic crew did the original seismic work at the the Tar sands. Sounds like the casino spin, gaming and not gambling.

        • Producing formations are referred to by what they produce.

          Thus we have gas sands and oil sands.

          Whatever the ignorant called the place before.

      • Source please…for those multiple studies, if you have them handy. Nothing from Watt please. That heads straight for the trash icon :)

        • Here are 3 of the latest:
          M. J. Ring, D. Lindner, E. F. Cross and M. E. Schlesinger, “Causes of the Global Warming Observed since the 19th Century,” Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 4, 2012, pp. 401-415. doi: 10.4236/acs.2012.24035

          Nicholas Lewis “An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity” Journal of Climate

          2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1

          Troy Masters ”
          Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models,

          Clim Dynamics 2013 DOI 10.1007/s00382-013-1770-4

          • I was afraid you might do that. Thx, i’ll do my best. Not my area at all really. Like most of us i’m dependent on the scientists being honest and above board.

          • Just read the abstracts first…if that helps, read on.

  5. Hansen, like Al Gore, is all about promoting himself with histrionics. This serves nobody well, because as their ridiculous estimates prove to be completely out of line, the entire “problem” is ignored.

    Al Gore predicted that the world will end in 2014 due to global warming. Does any serious person believe that? If not, why would you take any of his other statements as truth?

    • Ever notice that no matter what estimates have turned out wrong, instead of holding these people accountable the alarmists simply let them off the hook.

      Would that have happened if George Bush had made the same prediction?

      The news media and lefties would have raked him over the coals.

  6. Oliver should know all about exaggerated rhetoric. He’s been spouting it for a couple of years now re: environmentalists as “radicals” in the pay of US socialists…not mention his recent alignment with CC skeptics, whose views he has probably just skimmed out of the post over his morning coffee…the guy’s a clown.

  7. “On the other hand, he claimed, that denying the permit would not be a
    “body blow to the oil sands” because the oil would be exported via rail,
    and in the longer term, via pipelines to countries in Asia.”

    No it wont Mr O. The ndp in bc [ who barring a miracle will win the election] have committed to no pipelines through either Vancouver or Kitimat.

    The Kitimat decision i fully endorse[ its nuts!] The Vancouver decision i’m ambivalent. As an enviro i don’t want AB or anyone else to dig up any more of that crap than is absolutely necessary. As a pragmatist, i think folks in Vancouver are being nimby-ish about allowing an existing pipeline to expand.
    As a long time resident of BC and still a frequent visitor, one thing i can predict – a hell of a fight if Ottawa just tries to bull this through. There will be no pipeline to Kitimat period!

  8. Ah yes. More heated debate about the cause and effect of climate change. While there’s absolutely no doubt that we are able to measure the quantifiable effects of man made emissions, please do a search on “interglacial periods.” There’s some really interesting information on the subject that can explain some of the fluctuations in global warming weather patterns. I believe that we are currently in the Holocene Period.

  9. Oliver was too kind. Every thing he said about the oil sands is accurate unlike Hansen. The oil sands are producing almost 2 million barrels of oil per day much of it already being exported to the US through the Trans Mountain pipeline and pipelines into Chicago and the midwest. The big mistake is Canada’s buying into the global warming fraud at huge cost with no benefits.

    James Hansen’s doomsday predictions on AGW are laughable. Starting in the 1970’s long before the IPCC, Hansen has made exaggerated claims on global warming that have failed totally. Nothing he predicted about the climate over the last 25 years has come true. Nothing.

    We now have 15 years of no global temperature change even though we are producing CO2 at a rate 58% higher than at the start of Kyoto. This is a stake in the heart of AGW hysterics like Hansen.

    Or it should be, but the AGW industry and politicians who have staked careers on AGW and the tax revenues and political control it allows will never admit they have failed. AGW has always been about fear, with its science based on computer models that predict what “might”, “could” happen 50-100 years from now.

    Now we have “climate disruption” (global warming and climate change already replaced) with the fraud by Hansen and others that “they knew this all along, its another part of CO2 levels”.

    Funny they never mentioned it before.

  10. In 2009, Dr. James Hansen was awarded the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society, for his “outstanding contributions to climate modeling, understanding climate change forcings and sensitivity, and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena.”

    We are pushing 400 ppm of CO2 — this has not happened in 800,000 years. Where is Mr. Oliver’s head?

    There is presently 97% consensus among climate scientists that “business as usual” will lead to disaster and is now out of the question. We are at war with our own behavior and it is time to gear up, impose discipline, and win the planet back.

    For further reading into the situation, and possible ways out of it, see:

    1) Prof. Emeritus Dr. Eric Grimsrud, at http://ericgrimsrud.com/short-course_281.html and

    2) “The Climate Bomb,” at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-climate-bomb-failures-to-confront-the-unspeakable-and-the-way-ahead/5329875

    @Abettervision

    /the-climate-bomb-failures-to-confront-the-unspeakable-and-the-way-ahead/5329875

    • Oh my lord, not the 97% consensus thingy again. Its a zombie I swear.

  11. Regarding the future of the oil economy, we should be cautious about Canada’s “carbon bubble,” according to this report from the Canadian Center for
    Policy Alternatives:

    “Mounting evidence of climate change impacts worldwide will inevitably
    lead to a new global consensus on climate action. Based on recent
    research, between two-thirds and four-fifths of known fossil fuel
    reserves have been deemed to be unburnable carbon — that cannot safely be
    combusted. This is of profound importance to Canada, a nation making
    fossil fuel development and expansion the centrepiece of its industrial
    strategy. This study looks at the implications of unburnable carbon for the Canadian fossil fuel industry and in particular for financial markets and pension funds. We argue that Canada is experiencing a carbon bubble that must be strategically deflated in the move to a clean energy economy.”

    See:
    “Canada’s Carbon Liabilities,”
    http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/03/Canadas%20Carbon%20Liabilities.pdf

    @Abettervision

    @Abettervision

  12. Don’t worry, Obongo lowered the seas.

  13. NASA? Isn’t that the clown outfit that missed Mars because they confused feet with metres?

    NASA only achieved success because of the great German scientists it draft in 1945. Since that generation died out the joint has gone to the dogs.

    “NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin engineering team used English units of measurement while the agency’s team used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation.”

    http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/

  14. Joe Oliver is part of a highly oppressive undemocratic petropolitical government. Big Oil runs Canada and the United States! What Big Oil wants, Big Oil gets from Stephen Harper. Under Harper’s leadership he has eroded environmental law, eroded our democratic rights, muzzled scientists, pulled out of Kyoto, showed nothing but disrespect for First Nations people, and threatened the world climate with his support for the expansion of the Tar Sands. The Harper Government makes me ashamed to be a Canadian.