Locked up: US Park police transport Tar Sands protesters to the pokey

A typical group of leftists: the faces of "climate change" activists (Image from CBS news)

News update by Ryan Maue

Update:  The jails were emptied Monday morning.  Also, Daryl Hannah has announced that she is heading to the White House oil-sands protest.

Update:  New York Times editorial page comes out for against the Tar Sands Pipeline.  However, their language sounds half hearted, and they seem to be checking a box knowing that inevitably the pipeline will go forward regardless of it’s carbon footprint, or something.

The Tar Sands protest organized by Bill McKibben has hit an unexpected snag:  the US Park police have cracked down on the protesters.  Instead of a simple “traffic ticket” type of arrest and release with a few hours in jail, many climate activists were stunned to learn that their “civil disobedience” may keep them behind bars for at least 48-hours until arraignment [Link to Grist.com lament]. 

Meanwhile, President Obama is managing the end of Gaddafi in Libya from his beautiful luxury vacation spot in Martha’s Vineyard.  With Janet Napolitano always talking about the threats from domestic extremism typically orchestrated by environmental or “green” groups, one has to wonder if the US Parks police in the Capitol are sending a warning message by locking up the protestors for a good spell.

When Obama approves the pipeline and slaps these “true believers” in the face again, will they desert him for another candidate in the upcoming election?  Nah.

More pictures of the “protest” including McKibben hauled away in handcuffs here at the Puffington Host.  Please try and refrain from mocking these people as hippies or 70s retreads.

Also, has anyone heard if this upstart climate scientist (apparently the only academic currently employed as a professor “descending” on Washington) will still come — and will he risk being arrested?

Climate scientist Jason Box during an expedition in Greenland in July 2008. Photograph: Byrd Polar Research Center

Climate scientist willing to face arrest at tar sands pipeline protest

Climate scientist Jason Box says oil sands are a moral issue that he feels compelled to address at Keystone XL pipeline protests — UK Guardian

Advertisements

204 thoughts on “Locked up: US Park police transport Tar Sands protesters to the pokey

  1. I have told my dear wife: “If I ever want to grow a ponytail and beard, and drive a
    Prius you may shoot me.”
    Ok I hope it was more self deprecating than mocking…

  2. Did these idiots not get the talking point memo? We Canadians are cleaning up Gods Oil Spill.Only a planet hating self flagelating moron would Not want us to clean up this massive mess.

  3. I wouldn’t call 48 hours in jail “a good spell”. I doubt it’s even enough time to earn minimal “street cred”.

  4. I’m sorry, I tried but it’s just too tempting. They deserve to be mocked to the fullest extent possible.

  5. Well… given the choice, I’d rather have that group of white, sedentary gray-beards stage a protest, instead of the violent thugs who rioted in London.

  6. One can only hope Obamassiah says no to the XL Pipeline and thus provide whichever Republican party nominee with a giant stick to use in the 2012 election.

  7. Big Oil must really appreciate the efforts of these dupes to help restrict the supply of oil and thus keep prices as high as possible.

  8. Are you all completely mad? Or perhaps none of you have children? Otherwise, why would you be suggesting that these people should not be protesting? They are trying to prevent uncontrolled climate change from going forward by suggesting that continuing to develop ways to burn fossil fuels is insane. Get a grip, read NASA Chief Scientist James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of my grandchildren,’ and be informed before you talk this rubbish.
    [ryanm: Code Pink no longer serves a purpose when a Democrat inhabits the White House…]

  9. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    Are you all completely mad? Or
    Convinced that climate change is entirely natural. 😉

  10. “Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    Are you all completely mad? Or perhaps none of you have children? Otherwise, why would you be suggesting that these people should not be protesting? They are trying to prevent uncontrolled climate change from going forward by suggesting that continuing to develop ways to burn fossil fuels is insane. Get a grip, read NASA Chief Scientist James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of my grandchildren,’ and be informed before you talk this rubbish.”
    You forgot the “sarc/off”

  11. They mostly look fairly old. I thought the left tends to pride itself on “youth movements”? Perhaps they confused it for a rally to protect their precious social security benefits? 😉

  12. I wonder what the court costs will be. I am sure the court could come up with a special carbon tax for the protesters based on the costs to house them for a few days on top of the CO2 tax per mile, both ways, for their travel to the event.

  13. Boys and girls Maria has pulled your leg clean off and beat you over the head with it.
    Storms of my grandchildren, how obamaoesque!

  14. @ Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    Maria, you obviously have a computer, and electricity to power it. From that I can extrapolate that you live in some comfort, eat food that is transported from many countries, are seated at a desk with a chair, and likely have at least one fossil powered vehicle. You also have a lawn, perhaps lawn furniture, and a variety of common electrically powered appliances. All of that which you now enjoy is made possible by oil and it’s cousins. Do not preach to others until you abandon all of it.

  15. The Problem, PaulH, is that these “dosile” protesters get the message through that “The West is an Evil, planet destroying system”, and “your parents are to blame”. Which leads to some mal-adjusted lunatic translating that into “lets wreck the joint”.

  16. I just wish Bam would let us all in on the secret technology that allows his twin Darth Vader buses (and the accompanying 40-vehicle entourage trailing them) to run on leprechaun sweat and pixie dust instead of evil, evil oil. Then we wouldn’t need derricks or pipelines or cracking columns, and we could all dance naked around the non-carbon-emitting bonfire drinking cruelty-free wheatgrass juice and singing kumbaya.

  17. I’m glad you all enjoy one another. I am very concerned about Global Warming and wish you were too. We all live on this planet together. The people in the photo look like regular Americans to me. The difference between them and you is that they have figured out that tar sands oil piped into the U.S. will increase the risk of environmental damage in the event of pipe rupture and burning this dirty fuel will increase carbon in the atmosphere to a point of no return. Alternatives create jobs and need our support.

  18. “Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    Are you all completely mad? Or perhaps none of you have children? Otherwise, why would you be suggesting that these people should not be protesting? They are trying to prevent uncontrolled climate change from going forward by suggesting that continuing to develop ways to burn fossil fuels is insane. Get a grip, read NASA Chief Scientist James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of my grandchildren,’ and be informed before you talk this rubbish.”
    ROFLMAO! But you forgot the /sarc tag

  19. These people are so deluded there is simply no hope in trying to educate them. Spending the weekend in jail won’t help. Fining them the cost of policing them won’t help,

  20. @ Chris says:
    August 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm
    Chris are you perhaps related to Maria? Or maybe you are Maria? Read my comments to her. They also pertain to you.

  21. Quite sad to see the nasty comments from the bigots here. So we agree that man-made climate change is a myth. Why does that mean that land stripping (which will includes “eminent domain” stripping of privately-owned land) should be blindly supported? Sure, some fuel sources are okay, but some are not. Do we want oil wells and oil spills in national parks? I don’t think so. Anthony, I am disappointed that you posted this and seem to want people to make obnoxious bigoted comments about these earnest people They may have the wrong end of the stick, but demeaning them is not the correct way to respond. And I thought that free-speech, the right to protest without violence and the right not to be jailed arbitrarily were core values of the enlightened educated peoples of the world. Apparently not.

  22. Maria
    So what? I have to drive back and forth to work, to softball tournaments, the movie theater, etc. In other words, to live my life. It takes oil to do this. I don’t want to be a hunter gatherer (for survival, although I enjoy the hell out of driving my 4×4 out to my favorite spot, unloading my 4 wheeler and driving it to my tree stand and sitting there watching nature walk by, until my target appears).

  23. 1) Curiousgeorge is correct. 2) Canada is the largest exporter of energy to the U.S. 3) The largest investors in Canada’s oil sands are U.S. based energy companies. 4) North America is laced with many thousands of miles ( or kilometers ) of oil and gas pipelines that operate with safety and efficiency records that would be the envy of any airline. 5) China will be more than happy to import any and all oil that Canada can provide. 6) These protesters are funny!

  24. Chris;
    alternates create subsidized jobs at the cost of 2-4 self-financed private sector jobs each.
    Why is this a good idea?
    P.S. alternates provide trivial amounts of power, and almost no “base load” or dispatchable power that matches demand on demand. At nosebleed prices (plus LOTS of real estate, which it devastates).
    Why is this a good idea?

  25. Thank goodness Jim Jones is dead. Judging by the looks on their faces, if he were to walk by with a pitcher of Kool-Aid, everyone of them would have taken a drink.

  26. Chris says:
    The people in the photo look like regular Americans to me.
    But do they look like thousands of regular Americans.
    The point is kind of moot because the Puffho admits they’re climate activists, so they’re not regular Americans like you and me.

  27. Ultimately, these protesters against Canadian oil would prefer that we buy our oil from some of the most wretched regimes in history like, Sudan, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. Complete fools, all of them.

  28. Besides that, these people are running a con game. Ostensibly they protest a pipeline from Canada, but their true agenda is to stop the oil fracking process from eventually being used in Utah and Colorado.
    Hidden agendas don’t speak well of people pretending to care about the future.

  29. These look like a nice bunch of respectable citizens. And they certainly have a right to their opinions and to peaceful protest. Gloating over seeing people like these locked up is distasteful. This debate will eventually be won only when most of these people have been persuaded to change their minds.

  30. CO2HOG™ says:
    August 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm
    Haha…
    ================
    Drat. That was the first thing that came to my mind…
    @Surfer Dave. Over 20% of US oil comes from Canada. Almost half of Canadian oil is from oil sands. So go ahead and stop using Canadian oil. And if these people believe in their cause, 48 hrs won’t slow them down. By the way they aren’t protesters, they are activists. That is why they were stunned to find out that protesting is more than a parking ticket. And people who blog sarcastic comments aren’t automatically bigots. They are merely exercising their right to free speech.

  31. I wonder how many of them flew or drove to Washington? Hell, even if they hitchhiked, they could be accused of supporting the internal combustion engine. 😉
    They also now have celebrities Margot Kidder and Mark Ruffalo praising their actions, yet none of these armchair activists appear to be willing to let themselves be arrested.
    Why is it that when in politics, when a politician promises actions and then waffles or doesn’t act, the politician is chastised, yet in matters like this,not having any evidence or actions to back up your words seems to be the norm?
    Last I checked, when I’m supporting a point or opinion, I’m more then happy to show the information backing my claim. These guys aren’t.

  32. It does seem odd to arrest protesters for 48 hrs especially on the first day of a 15 day protest.
    From the link to Grist.com…
    …after arresting the first day’s 70 people, they decided to hold most of them, all those not from within a 25-mile radius of Washington, D.C., in jail until a Monday afternoon arraignment. This works out to 48 or more hours in jail before being released.
    =======================================
    This to me seems like an attempt at crowd control for the following days, especially for those out-of-town activists who may think twice. Organizations can pay parking tickets but can’t sub-in for a 2-day prison term.

  33. On a side note
    While I disagree with some of the supporters of the protest who are on this thread, it’s still good to see them here. WUWT provides a wonderful medium for debates and opinions on both sides, and still allows a civil, rational debate. Keep up the great work, Anthony and mods!
    RC doesn’t know what it’s missing 😀

  34. Interesting to see the level of the debate going on here.
    I get that:
    – at the moment, the majority of the developed world lives an oil-dependent lifestyle;
    – my own lifestyle is completely dependent on oil/other fossil fuels;
    – it’s scary to imagine that how we live now is not something that can be sustained in perpetuity;
    – it’s hard to make the connection between how one lives and the consequences of our lifestyle.
    However, I can only look at what the global political and business community have now agreed are the facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord:
    – the climate change we are seeing right now is faster than any in the known history of Earth – in terms of speed of change over a period of time – that this is anthropogenic is clear from the scientific consensus that has been reached;
    – if the climate continues to warm we are now sure that we will see: significant sea level rise; species loss; increasingly violent storms and of increasing number; drought in some areas (we are already seeing climate effects in a number of countries) and floods in others – as a result food and water scarcity; increased risks from consolidating diseases such as malaria; and other impacts to varied to list;
    – that the physical impacts of climate change wil have serious social impacts and that these may be far-reaching and frightening; and,
    – we do not have enough resources of any kind to support the human population (~7bn) that we now have or the anticipated 9bn by 2050.
    From thinking and reading about what’s going on, and also by feeling some responsibility to the children growing up today and those that are not yet born, I can only conclude that we need to radically rethink our lives and how our world works. I would rather not see mass war, death, and horror. I would rather we try to find a new way forward that doesn’t involve causing more destruction of our own habitat than what has already taken place.
    It seems strange to me that one would not want to think these things through and instead just say ‘I’m happy with my status quo – to hell with my children and grandchildren and the world they will live in.’ The NASA scientist, James Hansen, is resolutely non-partisan – so I don’t think you can attribute his thoughts to Obama who, to my knowledge, is a lawyer by training rather than a climate scientist.
    The US military have declared climate change to be a ‘serious national security threat’ http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/FlipBooks/Climate%20Change%20web/flipviewerxpress.html and companies such as GM, GE, Alcan, Alcoa and BP have established the US Climate Action Partnership calling for ‘strong’ federal action to combat climate change http://www.us-cap.org/.
    What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it and use your minds to help come up with a solution?

  35. If this is a blog dealing with science rather than politics, why has the original caption to the photograph been substitutted for “A typical group of leftists…”
    [ryanm: because they were instructed to wear their Obama 2008 buttons — and they did — look at the photo.]

  36. Surfer Dave says:
    August 21, 2011 at 6:05 pm
    Quite sad to see the nasty comments from the bigots here.
    Bigots? That’s a bit strong, don’t you think? Those protesters hate oil (or think they do). Yet they depend on it as much as anyone, unless they live in a wood-heated yurt and ride bicycles instead of cars, grow their own food, etc. That makes them hypocrites as well as idiots. That isn’t being “nasty”, that is the truth.
    Here’s their slogan:
    “Defuse North America’s Largest Carbon Bomb”. That’s their agenda. Basically, they want us to go back to the stone age, based on a stupid, and extremely dangerous myth. They deserve to be locked up, and more.

  37. Maria, I have not read “Storms of my grandchildren”, but I did read the Wikipedia page about it. Tell me, why does Hansen think that we should “save the world” for the sake of *his* grandchildren. Doing it for the sake of the polar bears will get more traction. Hansen does at least allows us to have children. He does not seem to have come from the population bomb faction. How did Hansen first come to the realization that CO2 is bad for the climate? Who did he catch that bug from?

  38. What Surfer Dave seems to miss is that the “Tar Sands” are naturally occurring and massive areas of toxic sludge that are hostile if not outright lethal to plants and animals. Extracting the bitumen and rehabilitating the area actually provides enormous new stands of flora that are quickly being inhabited by critters of all sorts. The land is then left to go bonkers, teaming with life of all kinds! This is, as JRR stated above, a gigantic oil clean up operation! Imagine that — protesting the removal of massive amounts of toxic oil sludge and establishing millions of acres of wild, verdant wilderness. Sounds insane.

  39. Canada is the #1 supplier of oil to the USA. Saudi Arabia is #2.
    Obama (who bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia) wants the USA dependent on Saudi Arabia.
    As a Canadian I’d rather see a pipline to BC and sell the oil to Asia. The USA is doomed anyway. The sooner it happens the better.

  40. What kind of mental r-tard would be against us NOT using middle-east oil???
    Oh, the same one that buys the Gore/Hansen/Mann/Jones drivel….

  41. Myth Builder Inc.
    Quite sad to see the nasty comments from the bigots here. So we agree that man-made climate change is a myth. Why does that mean that land stripping (which will includes “eminent domain” stripping of privately-owned land) Myth # 1. Alberta Tar Sands = Federal (Canadian) land.
    should be blindly supported?
    Sure, some fuel sources are okay, but some are not. Do we want oil wells and oil spills in national parks? – ABSOLUTELY my dear Luddite! Do you know how minimally invasive an oil well is? Check the Philip’s Petroleum site for some documentary films on exploratory wells on the North Slope during the ’80’s. Amazing to see before and after shots, where —except for the J pipe cap for monitoring, you can’t tell that there was ANY activity on the tundra once the well equipment was removed.
    Anthony, I am disappointed that you posted this and seem to want people to make obnoxious bigoted comments about these earnest people. – Frankly, if I were emperor of the world, they’d be HAPPY to be merely arrested.
    They may have the wrong end of the stick, but demeaning them is not the correct way to respond. – Really? When I lived in Omaha and helped organize noisy counter protesters to the ritual Aug 6th, Strategic Air Command/Hippie – Radical “protests”, obediently covered by the local media SHEEP…the next year there WAS NO PROTEST. (Word got back, the MOCKING they got at the counter protest, covered by US News and World Report and AP, “damaged” the anti-nuke kooks, and they didn’t want to risk that again. )
    And I thought that free-speech, the right to protest without violence and the right not to be jailed arbitrarily were core values of the enlightened educated peoples of the world. Apparently not.
    -The right to shout “fire” in a crowed theater, the right to SCALE WALLS, chain oneself to property, interrupt normal business, and in general cause TORT or DAMAGES has NEVER been part of “free speech”. A little education here: Free Speech, in terms of the “founding Fathers” meant (look it up) FREE POLITICAL SPEECH. Thus I must thank you that you have
    VALIDATED that this is a POLITICAL matter, not an environmental matter? It’s nice to have that clarified.
    [ryanm: Anthony is not the author. I have no clue what his particular beliefs are in the matter. I haven’t read any bigoted comments — and no one is questioning their motivations. We all know what they are trying to do, and that’s the point of this news post. Even this peaceful protest according to the laws of the District is not allowed, which was explicitly known beforehand. Hence, that’s why McKibben and his rodeo went to DC — to get arrested — in order to get some publicity.]

  42. Bruce says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm
    Canada is the #1 supplier of oil to the USA. Saudi Arabia is #2.
    Sorry Bruce,
    You’re wrong on both counts. The USA is the #1 supplier of oil in the USA. Canada is a distant 2nd. Mexico is #3. Saudi Arabia doesn’t supply America except in the sense that they modify the world commodity price.

  43. @Toto
    Hansen is a physicist who worked first on the climates of other planets – I think Venus. He is not saying that CO2 is bad for our climate – there is no ‘bad’ or ‘good’ in terms of the planet. He is just pointing out that if CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) levels continue to increase, then Earth’s temperature will rise and that this will initiate a series of events (for example, the continental ice sheets will start to melt) that will push temperatures up further. This will have significant impacts for humans and many thousands of plant/animal species in terms of their likelihood of continued survival.
    The background to Hansen’s title is: he has been a scientist for more than 30 years; science as a discipline demands an impersonal examination of fact and experimental evidence; until his grandchildren were born he was resolute about staying out of politics and maintaining his role as a scientist; when his first grandchild was born, it brought home to him what the implications of his scientific work on Earth’s climate would mean for future generations; and this forced him to step out of his science comfort zone and start to publicise his, and other scientists, findings about what we could expect from global warming. He says that he must bear witness as he could not bear for his grandchildren to, in the future when they are adults and dealing with the significant impacts of climate change, to ask him why he had known what was coming but had done nothing. Rather than interpreting his title as a selfish plea for his own progeny, it seems to be intended more as a plea for all of us to think about what we will hand over to future generations.

  44. Politically, James Hansen is like 95% of climate scientists, professors, and other academics: a liberal Democrat and Obama voter. Ironically, Keynesian economic policies may have accomplished more “carbon” reduction than the dreamiest of EPA regulations. It’s sort of like how the Soviet Union met its Kyoto targets…

  45. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    Maria, Thanks! For so long I have been under the impression that Hansen was a third rate scientist, at best, who found new life as a propagandist for Al Gore’s global warming scam. We know that he has done everything in his power to rejigger the historical temperature numbers so that he can use them to support his claim that today is warmer than the decade of the 1930s. We know this because he published his rejiggering, though not his methods.

  46. Ian H says:
    August 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    “These look like a nice bunch of respectable citizens. And they certainly have a right to their opinions and to peaceful protest. Gloating over seeing people like these locked up is distasteful. This debate will eventually be won only when most of these people have been persuaded to change their minds.”
    Ian:
    Indeed, the debate will eventually be won only when most of these people have been persuaded to change their minds. I know nice people that believe the AGW meme. They don’t really read any of the technical information that relates to AGW. They just hear the common message in the main stream media and half heartedly accept it as ‘science’. They do not feel compelled to disrupt anyone else’s livelyhood or chain themselves to trucks or trees, however. I gently try to inject opposing facts that they can verify and suggest simple experiments with good humor. Sometimes, it works.
    For those that have so thoroughly accepted the AGW dogma that they pursue illegal actions, several days behind bars may be more self reflective and educational. A nice phat fine to pay off can also be instructional. Think of this as ‘a teaching moment’…….

  47. So, these guys are essentially pro-nuke protesters trying ressurect their lost Enron investments in carbon trading?

  48. Maria- So many howlers in your few posts here. Thanks for these in particular-
    “The NASA scientist, James Hansen, is resolutely non-partisan…”
    Bwahahahaha!!!!! Two howlers in 8 words! By the way, his aka is the Jester-Jousting Adjuster.
    “…US Climate Action Partnership calling for ‘strong’ federal action to combat climate change.”
    Umm, you do know what the CAP is all about, right? Hint- it ain’t about combating climate change.
    “we do not have enough resources of any kind to support the human population (~7bn) that we now have or the anticipated 9bn by 2050.”
    Hahahaha! Someone still thinks Malthusian theory applies to modern civilization! Hahahahaha!
    “…climate change wil have serious social impacts and that these may be far-reaching and frightening.”
    So far the only measurable impacts of anthropogenic climate change are an utter lack of knowledge of historical weather events, and an unwarranted fear of anthropogenic climate change, especially among children and climate scientists.
    “…and other impacts to varied to list;”
    Fortunately the ‘list’ is well-established by the erudite John Brignell, and continues to expand: see here-
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
    “I would rather not see mass war, death, and horror. ”
    Try banning fossil fuels and see what happens. Do you think banning DDT was a good idea, based on sound science? How about banning CFC’s?
    I am specifically interested in your plan to deprive Canadians access to over $20 Trillion of their own oil reserves. Will your military invasion come from south of the 49th parallel? Will UN IPCC green-helmet forces will be deployed to enforce the ban?

  49. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
     “read NASA Chief Scientist James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of my grandchildren,’ and be informed”
    Hansen’s lack of writing skill was at least acknowledged by Hansen in the book, endlessly.  This made for a poor read which was slow going and difficult to finish.  This aged and boring tome is an unfortunate combination of climate catastophy science primer and political novis memoir.  Emotionally charged and endless hyperbole.
    Not informing, convincing or current, Maria. 
    You are correct about one thing, although you express the thought poorly if at all. The fools being arrested are certainly Hansen’s believers in the church of CAGW.
    Round ’em up! 
    Cheers,
    Big Dave 

  50. About 10 paragraphs down in the Guardian piece, the results of the very
    s t r a n g e Penn State investigation into Mike Mann’s role in
    “hide the decline” as a spin-off of Climategate are discussed. Somehow this
    investigation has been transmorgified into a complete exorneration of
    NASA/GISS’s Jim Hanson.
    ?????
    If this is true, then it’s news to many folks who thought they were paying
    attention to what Penn State said and did.
    If not true, then the accuracy of anything related to Hanson in the press
    coverage of the “tar” babies lacks credibility.

  51. They did not mention the number of protesters… from the picture it look like a massive demonstration involving perhaps 200 people… perhaps a couple fifty more. LOL

  52. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    Maria,
    1. People who are skeptical of global warming claims are also concerned about their grandchildren’s future.
    2. Not every scientist offers an impersonal examination of fact and experimental evidence. In fact I offer that it is a rarity.
    3. Hansen violates your “impersonal examination” by becoming political, whether or not he does so in his grandchildren’s interest.
    4. When these activists are arrested who pays their traffic ticket? Who puts them on the bus in the first place? Are the people organizing these protests political or just concerned citizens?
    Steve

  53. By the way, my latest issue of Nature Climate Change, August 2011, page 241 has an article about well-to-wheels CO2 emissions of various oil sources. Canadian oil sands finished product produces about 550 kg CO2/brl. The lowest, West-Texas intermediate produces about 480 kg CO2/brl. The claim by various NGO’s that oil sands processing releases 3 to 5 times more CO2 than conventional oil, is specious drivel.

  54. papertiger says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:23 pm
    Bruce says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm
    Canada is the #1 supplier of oil to the USA. Saudi Arabia is #2.
    Sorry Bruce,
    You’re wrong on both counts. The USA is the #1 supplier of oil in the USA. Canada is a distant 2nd. Mexico is #3. Saudi Arabia doesn’t supply America except in the sense that they modify the world commodity price.
    ====================================
    Papertiger,
    I think Bruce meant #1 exporter to the USA. The USA imports over 40% of its oil.
    I can’t format tables but below is the list of imported crude into the US for 2011, 2010.
    Canada is #1, Saudi Arabia #2-#3, Mexico #3-#2.
    Why did you think Saudi Arabia wasn’t an exporter to the US?
    BTW the US imports oil from some very nice countries /sarc.
    I wonder if the protesters are aware of which countries export oil to the US?
    Steve
    ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
    Country May-11 Apr-11 YTD 2011 May-10 YTD 2010
    CANADA 2,006 2,079 2,114 1,997 1,928
    SAUDI ARABIA 1,197 1,089 1,122 1,093 1,068
    MEXICO 1,154 973 1,108 1,290 1,130
    VENEZUELA 895 902 917 1,011 918
    NIGERIA 808 856 886 1,004 981
    COLOMBIA 414 462 348 295 306
    IRAQ 407 519 403 394 483
    ANGOLA 356 277 308 423 408
    RUSSIA 339 288 228 358 250
    ALGERIA 263 207 253 352 313
    BRAZIL 260 210 211 312 276
    KUWAIT 200 78 142 219 201
    ECUADOR 134 142 166 160 190
    CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 59 86 54 89 90
    NORWAY 58 88 54 78 39

  55. Political lesson:
    The Obama administration has one card in their deck to play for the 2012 reelect, and that’s to demonize their opponents in the most demagogic and Saul Alinskyite manner. This involves questioning the motivations AND personal beliefs of GOP Presidential candidates.
    To folks on the left, this is standard operating procedure and there is no attempt at introspection. However, they are quick to cry when the shoe is on the other foot. According to the liberal media, the only reason that the majority of Independents wiped away the Democrat House majority in November 2010 was because the GOP is malevolent and run by extremist elements of the Tea Party.
    Newsflash: this “climate change” protest in DC is happening during the Obama administration, which is presiding over a crippled economy on the verge of a double-dip recession. Obama had full control over the legislative branches (2009-10) and could have and did pass anything he wanted without GOP input or “compromise”. This occurred with ObamaCare and the Americans in Recovery Act (Stimulus) which received zero GOP votes and zero GOP input into the final bill. No amendments offered by the GOP were considered or voted upon.
    We know that Cap and Trade or an energy reform bill was killed by the White House and Rahn Emanuel especially after the BP oil well blowout. Coal-state Democrats balked at supporting the draconian regulations. Rahm is gone, and now the EPA is running the show, doing by fiat what Congress refused to pass into law. And, this is exactly what McKibben and his followers want: Presidential rule by fiat — explicitly asking Obama to “kill” the pipeline. They have to realize that the shoe is about to be on the other foot…

  56. Maria
    I felt compelled to respond to some of your comments.
    First, I’d like to say that, not that I’m accusing, but from the way your posts are made, you almost seem to be reading off a script. ( Or even copying and pasting.)
    You claim that because of Global Warming, there will be increased species loss.
    Well, if we’re going to figure that out, we must first do an equation:
    N ( Number of species ) times the amount of species ( A ), going extinct within a set time period. ( Let’s say over a 1000 year period.)
    Then, you take another 1000 year period, ( preferably one with the same set of perameters, except for CO2 levels, because you are trying to prove that it is the CO2 levels that are driving the distinction,) and measure N times A with that period as well.
    Well, there is already a large flaw in the equation.
    WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY SPECIES THERE ARE.
    Estimates run from 1 million to 100 million different types of species. That’s a huge difference, and, as such, makes it impossible to estimate the rate of extinction.
    Let me put it this way: If you didn’t know how much money you had in your wallet, and then you were robbed, how come you calculate how much money was taken from you? You can’t because you don’t know how much you had in the first place.

  57. I found Hansen’s book disappointing. It talks very little about the science. It is mostly a book about politics and the history of efforts to bring about “action” on climate change, starting from the premise that such action is essential to save the planet.

  58. What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it
    I dunno. If Jesus Christ were to come down from on high, or maybe Mohammad from the mountain.
    Some people I guess Buddha would do it for them to believe. But that’s not science is it.
    For me, Jesus, Mohammad, or Buddha better be packing iron clad, cross referenced, immutable climate data & proxies that I can check. And they better make some accurate predictions of what the weather will be like over the next 3 or 4 years – since they’re God and all.
    That last bit I wouldn’t expect from Hansen.

  59. Steve from Rockwood says:
    Why did you think Saudi Arabia wasn’t an exporter to the US?
    Would you believe wishful thinking ?
    I was winging it on that one.
    So was Bruce.

  60. @ Maria says: August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
    Quick, someone get that poor girl some prozac and xanax!

  61. chris y says:
    August 21, 2011 at 8:13 pm
    I am specifically interested in your [Maria’s] plan to deprive Canadians access to over $20 Trillion of their own oil reserves. Will your [the mighty Maria’s] military invasion come from south of the 49th parallel? Will UN IPCC green-helmet forces will be deployed to enforce the ban?
    ==============================================
    This is a very good point. What happens if the USA says no to an oil pipeline and Canada sells the same oil to China instead? I’m sure the farmers in Nebraska won’t care.

  62. I just gotta ask – wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to build a new refinery close to the border rather than piping it across the entire nation?
    We need a new refinery anyhow – wasn’t the last built around ’79 or something? Plus, having one up north would provide some coverage for any southern outages due to hurricanes, and I’d think be better located should our government, in it’s infinate wisdom (wish to heck it were!) finally deign to allow us to use our own very abundant shale oil.
    Anyone know if refinery v. pipeline was even considered and what the major results of such wound up being? Thanks in advance for replies.

  63. papertiger says:
    August 21, 2011 at 9:33 pm
    Would you believe wishful thinking ?
    I was winging it on that one.
    Winging is good. Got me through university. I was surprised at how much Saudi Arabia actually does supply. In fact if you look at the list, Venezuela, Nigeria, Colombia, Iraq, Angola, Russia, Algeria, Brazil, Kuwait, Ecuador and the Congo? I’m liking Brazil and it looks like Russia is my next favorite. Some pretty unsavory countries in that list.

  64. @ Surfer Dave 6:05 pm
    Believe it or not the “freedom of speech” road runs both ways, and has no “opposite opinion” stop signs, or even any “all bigots must exit here” ramps. That’s why we even let the anti-venter’s vent (yes, this means you).

  65. I second the observation on Maria’s scripted response. A bang-up job of reciting all the salient points of the Hopelesshagen COP15. Maria: do you believe these things, or understand them? I admire your bravery to come amongst a hostile bunch, but, unlike the Grists and Real Climates out there, we will keep the snide and ugly to a dull roar, at least. But please, try to understand the issues at hand before translating them into a recited belief system. You must realize by now that these assertions increasingly fall on deaf ears, the thing is, perhaps you might endeavor to find out WHY.

  66. reply to: Chris says: August 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    …The difference between them and you is that they have figured out that tar sands oil piped into the U.S. will increase the risk of environmental damage in the event of pipe rupture and burning this dirty fuel will increase carbon in the atmosphere to a point of no return. Alternatives create jobs and need our support.

    Actually Chris, the difference between them and us is that we really believe in actual hard core science, not pseudo-science or advocacy. Plus, we are willing to take a bit of time to be sure real science is what we are basing our opinions on, and are willing to withhold judgement until there is sufficience scientific basis to even form such opinions. Perhaps we’re also a little less anthropocentric, narcissistic, or megalomaniacal.
    Meanwhile, as to ‘alternatives creating jobs – thus far all experiences pretty clearly prove the opposite. One thing we certainly do agree on – ‘alternatives’ do need our support because they can’t compete without massive subsidies and waste massive amounts of money with very little to show for it beyond massive eye-sores and wasted land and resources – which is exactly why such programs ought to be cut off from any tax payer support ASAP.

  67. @ Janice says: August 21, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    Moira, that was really unfair. Now I’ve started humming Sound of Music songs.

    ROFL! Good one.

  68. Rational Debate:
    Not a bad idea, but consider this: The oil gets piped to a refinery, say, in Sunburst, Montana. Now it gets refined into gasoline, diesel, asphalt, on and on. Now you have the problem of transporting volatile refined products the rest of the way, instead of [relatively] less-hazardous crude. The refineries should logically be near the point of consumption to minimize transport of volatiles. The latter scenario is unlikely, because along with the consumers comes a NIMBY clause, or busloads of McKibben clones. So, the compromise is, put the refineries where they always have been…easier from a regulatory point of view, and less tolerant of endless eco-protesting.
    Bottom line: If the pipeline gets nixed, the Oil Sands product will go to somewhere else. The Carbon Bomb will not be defused, as is the fanciful rhetoric of those wishing it so.

  69. Mike… if the crude is piped down south (Texas) to be refined and then trucked back north as volatile gasoline, what difference does it make whether you are transporting the fuel north or south? It is still being transported the same distance so that argument is illogical. Makes much more sense to build refineries up north in the non populous states. You still have to deal with the NIMBY’s but… lets deal with em.

  70. As with others here, I live in Alberta. As with a LARGE percentage of Albertans, I work in an industry that is indirectly connected to the oil industry. I have friends who work everywhere from in the Oilsands doing grunt work all the way up to executives in what you’d call Oil Companies. I’ve done contract work directly for Oil Companies. I own shares of Oil Companies.
    And here’s the thing. The Oil industry employs millions, directly and indirectly. Take that up to an even higher percentage if you want to include everything that Oil provides for: the auto industry, virtually anything made of plastic, auto repair, road paving, auto parts, buses, trains, aircraft industry, almost our ENTIRE CIVILIZATION is based on petroleum products.
    Now, it would be grand to replace what we pump, dig, frac or squeeze out of the ground with something else. But before you can go “protesting” something that you clearly have no idea about, you first need to understand that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Find us one. Really, we’ll listen. Wind, solar, and anything currently classed as “alternative” is, simply, inadequate. Period. Prove me wrong… I challenge you. Because you can’t.
    Now, we hear about hydrogen for cars. Great! But… where does the POWER come from that can give us liquid hydrogen? It takes an immense amount of power to separate hydrogen from water, so unless you’re going to start building nuclear plants all over to do that, that’s another alternative gone.
    Ethanol? Other biofuels? We can’t afford to take away food production to barely power 5% of our energy needs. Maybe we in affluent first world countries can, but at the expense of starving the third world that depends on us for food. Nope, not an alternative.
    The big complaint about “dirty oil” is that a large amount of energy, typically natural gas, is used to extract the crude from the sands. And that’s a valid complaint (technically, they take the slurry of sludge and boil the oil out of it, leaving relatively clean sand behind). But the fact is, since the 70s when they were first playing with recovery of the sands the techniques have gotten incredibly more sophisticated and efficient. There will continue to be improvements in the process.
    To all the Maria’s out there, it’s very nice that you believe in something, but I’m sorry that whoever taught you about this planet was an idiot. Really, I am sorry about that. Because while they are teaching you to worry and stress about your future, ruined by the indiscriminate burning of dirty, nasty stuff out of the ground, they also neglected to tell you that the alternative is a short, brutal life, filled with disease and hunger. Only 100 years ago that was a pretty common way of living. Just 5 generations. Look how far we’ve come with a cheap, easily available source of energy.
    The alternatives might as well be unicorn farts and rainbows. Wind and solar are utterly hopeless endeavors, which you would know if you actually researched them. We saw the same flim-flammery in the 70s, often by the same people. They’ve had decades to work on it and “perfect” it. It can’t be done. And don’t forget to research “unintended consequences” while you’re diligently confirming what I’m telling you. Bird destruction, the utter horrors of people forced to live around windmills, the incredible concrete and clearcutting stories from building the ugly towers. The lunacy of trying to keep acres of solar panels clean and weed-free. Is that a job you want? Solar panel windmill cleaner?
    Protesting Oilsands development is like voting to cut off your legs. Someone might be able to talk you into it, but actually going ahead and doing it is nothing short of stupid.

  71. Steve from Rockwood says:
    Some pretty unsavory countries in that list.
    Ain’t that the truth. That’s a list that needs to be seen. A Canadian pipeline will take at least one of those countries off the list. Maybe two. For the cost of a pipe. That’s good business.

  72. @ Maria says: August 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    Yes, Maria, Hansen is so selfless, just caring for us all and all of our children, it’s clear. http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/06/23/lawsuit-seeks-ethics-filings-of-nasas-global-warming-activist-james-hansen/

    …Hansen’s widespread, well-documented, high-profile and, it turns out, extremely lucrative “outside employment and other activities”, permission for which must be obtained in writing, in advance. Public financial disclosures and other documents reveal that he has received at least $1.2 million in the past four years, more than doubling his taxpayer-financed salary. ….
    That is, although we removed from the final version a reminder of Hansen’s escalation to knee-jerk invocation of Nazi analogies, this remains a key point about this gusher of outside income. All of which comes on top of — and, more troubling, is all “related to” and is sometimes even according to his benefactors expressly for — his taxpayer-funded employment.
    This pursuit began on January 19 when ATI filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (PDF) with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which Hansen directs, seeking records detailing his and NASA’s compliance with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations and with NASA Rules of Behavior. …
    But of course, whether NASA complies with ethics laws is patently of public interest. This is affirmed by Hansen’s position being senior enough to require him to file vastly more detailed Public Financial Disclosure filings,…
    Dr. Hansen engages in high-profile public advocacy with regard to global warming and energy policy, directly trading on his platform as a NASA astronomer to gain interest and attention. This outside employment and other activities relating to his work have included consulting, highly compensated speeches, six-figure “prizes”, a commercial book, advising Al Gore on his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” and, lately, advising litigants on suing states and the federal government. [thus costing taxpayers even more to foot the bill of such litigation]
    …these outside activities have become extraordinarily profitable — yielding on average more than a quarter of a million dollars per year in extra income between 2007 and 2010 from outside sources, all relating to the work he is paid by the taxpayer to perform for NASA.
    As we note in our complaint Hansen, by his own admission, turned down the first offer of a mere $10,000, to avoid the improper appearance of escalated public advocacy being for the money. The offers soon became larger, sometimes much larger. He also became of a different mind.
    While ATI sues today seeking only transparency, the fact remains that, under federal statutes and NASA rules, employees may not privately benefit from public office; also, outside income must be disclosed, certain activities avoided, and permission must be applied for before engaging in permissible outside employment or activities.….

  73. “And people who blog sarcastic comments aren’t automatically bigots. They are merely exercising their right to free speech.”
    Yup, even idiots and bigots can feel proud of being idiots and bigots. Nothing clever in demeaning these people.
    Gosh, the level of the “sarcasm” (that tag is being used to cover the inherent unkind attitude of the writers) is like being in a high school yard at lunch. Petty, trivial, it lowers you all to the level of school children.
    I understood these shales oils were taken by excavating vast swathes of land, not tiny pin-pick oil wells. Even if fossil fuels have minimal impact on the atmosphere when burnt, the terra-forming from the harvesting of shale oils and the short- to medium-term degradation from spills and leaks from “ordinary” wells can be significant. What happened in the Gulf of Mexico, or are you all okay with coastlines ruined? And do we not all agree that “peak oil” has been reached? Surely these methods of harvesting fossil fuel should be avoided and we should be trying to develop other energy sources with long lives, eg thorium-cycle nukes, ever more efficient solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc?

  74. Ted Dooley says: August 21, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    [Doubftul the jail food is organic… they’ll probably sue!]
    The food will of course be organic (a carbon compound).
    But if you meant Organic (a marketing compound), then they can bring in some Organic bean sprouts, grown with LED lighting using windmill electricity, not irradiated, pesticide free, from Germany; I hear people have been dying to try them.

  75. Surfer Dave says:

    I understood these shales oils were taken by excavating vast swathes of land, not tiny pin-pick oil wells. Even if fossil fuels have minimal impact on the atmosphere when burnt, the terra-forming from the harvesting of shale oils and the short- to medium-term degradation from spills and leaks from “ordinary” wells can be significant.

    Um… and what do you think happens to any “vast swathes of land” once we’re done with them? Do you actually think there is any danger of simply leaving them exposed and open? Really??? Wow.

    What happened in the Gulf of Mexico, or are you all okay with coastlines ruined?

    Show me a “ruined coastline” Dave. Really. I suspect you’re pretty sure they’re out there… but… show me one. You might be surprised. Even Valdez is free of problems, and NOT because of people “fixing” it. Sure, you can look around and locate some evidence that there was a spill, but I understand the same can be said around Santa Barbara, from natural seeps. In fact, the Gulf has far more natural seepage than spill damage.

    And do we not all agree that “peak oil” has been reached?

    Um… you’re new around here, right?

    Surely these methods of harvesting fossil fuel should be avoided and we should be trying to develop other energy sources with long lives, eg thorium-cycle nukes, ever more efficient solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc?

    Uh, go right ahead and develop these other energy sources. The FACT is that right now, we run on petroleum products.

  76. Re: Maria @ 6:45 p.m.
    Wow. Okay, let’s take our post one sentence at a time, shall we?
    – it doesn’t matter what “the global political and business community” have agreed. This is a scientific topic and thus must be addressed via the scientific method, i.e., observation, hypothesis, experiment and synthesis
    – Wikipedia is not a scientific source
    – observed data (not model outputs) demonstrate that:
    1. the average global temperature appears to have risen by about 1 degree centigrade over the past century and a half. It has not risen over the past 13 years
    2. there is no significant change in the rate of sea level increase (i.e. no acceleration, which is what “change in the rate” means) in the instrumental record
    3. neither the number nor the intensity of storms is increasing; the accumulated cyclone index is in fact declining
    4. droughts and floods are not new; nor are the scarcity of food and potable water
    5. malaria is endemic throughout the world and has historically been a problem in places like Washington, D.C. and Siberia; malarial risks are mitigated through medication and mosquito control, which requires money and stable governments
    6. the “physical impacts of climate change” may frighten you but the do not frighten me; as a resident of Ottawa my climate changes by roughly 80 degrees centigrade twice a year. Two months ago it was 40 degrees outside, and in three months it will be -40. I have survived this transition, and all of its physical impacts, 45 times thanks to modern technology, principally fossil fuels.
    7. your Malthusian argument about our inability to “support the human population” is the same one that Ehrlich made 40 years ago when he predicted mass starvation before 2000. Oops.
    8. we have experienced “mass war, horror and death” within living memory and they had nothing to do with climate change – they were caused by the Soviet-imposed political famines, Nazi atrocities, Communist China’s disastrous “great leap forward” and “cultural revolution”, and jihadist terrorism.
    9. bleating “WON’T ANYONE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN” like you and your hero Hansen have done is a transparently ludicrous attempt to seize the moral high ground. It is not a scientific argument. If you’re concerned about your children and grandchildren, then I suggest you petition the US government to fix the business environment in the US, stay away from green pipe dreams, and stop racking up debt like sailors on a drunken rampage in Singapore. The “physical impacts” of the obliteration of the US economy over the next 10 years will far outweigh those modelled as an alleged consequence of “climate change” over the next 100.
    10. That the US military has declared climate change a “threat” simply demonstrates that (a) they work for Barack Obama, and (b) they don’t know what the word “threat” means. Without intention formed by a human agency, “climate change” cannot be anything other than a condition of the military operating environment. However, nothing that is projected to happen as an alleged result of “climate change” will impact US military operations over any realistic planning period. As for “climate wars”, as an historian I can assure you that there has never been one. Until there has been at least one, we have no data to indicate whether there may be others.
    11. Your final comment demonstrates why you simply don’t get it. You ask “just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it”? I answer, anyone – so long as they support their arguments with data. Those of you who are “true believers” simply want a “smart guy” to tell them what the truth is. This is a plea for argumentum ad verecundiam – an argument from authority. You want the climate pope to issue an encyclical to get everything on track. But there are no popes in science. All it would take to convince me would be a single experiment demonstrating that, as the IPCC argues, human-produced carbon dioxide is the key driver of global temperature. Scientists – real ones, that is – aren’t looking for a burning bush. All it would take to convince us is data.
    But like the rest of the true believers, you’re not interested in data. So you’d probably be happier on a different website, like Romm’s place, where they’re not interested in data either.

  77. Canada is a cold place in the winter. I wonder how many of the protesters practice what they preach when they warm their homes? Let them get by on “sustainable” solar and wind like they want us all to do. Maybe they’ll come to their senses before they freeze.

  78. When has the right to protest (even if you think they are wrong) fallen out of favour in your country? Isn’t it the so called “land of the free”? What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

  79. Surfer Dave says: August 22, 2011 at 12:08 am
    [I understood these shales oils were taken by excavating vast swathes of land, not tiny pin-pick oil wells. ]
    Spoken like a Western European.
    In Western Europe (and other crowded small places) the Athabasca Oil sands development is a ‘vast swath of land’; to people in Canada it is a tiny piece of otherwise useless rocky and sandy and oily, pre-polluted wasteland that is unfit for man or beast.
    If you were to spill a teaspoon of oil in Hyde park in London and dig it up with a tablespoon, and then wash the oil out of the dirt using a tablespoon of hot tea then you would have had the same impact on Hyde park as the Athabasca Oil sands production has on Canada.
    ‘vast swathes of land’, like Luxembourg or Andorra?

  80. What’s wrong with being against Tar sands
    Can I just make the point that you can be against the unscientific nonsense of global warming, but also against the never ending usage of fossil fuels. Indeed, the biggest irony of the global warmists, is that the big oil companies all seem to have their snouts in the wind energy trough and splattering the countryside with windmills just as keenly as they are digging up the wilderness and splattering it with oil debris.
    Personally, I think that whilst increasing fossil fuel use has brought great wealth, it hasn’t brough great happiness. I see society has been alienated from itself by the motor car as I see the car-less youth turning against their own society, I see the car owning adults treating children as filth with no rights – except the right to appear in court under laws that they have no say in.
    Yes I own a car and use oil, but my children walk and cycle to school and are not chaffered around in the aggressive armoured cars most parents use. So, I do use oil and I would prefer cheaper oil. But to celebrate the destruction of the wilderness for tar oil is not the way to go because:
    1. No sane person ought to want to see the destruction of the environment
    2. The fact we are having to resort to tar sands shows that we are very close or even beyond the end of “cheap oil” and as the Western economies have been built on cheap oil, you might as well say we are very close to the end of the Western economies … which doesn’t sound to me like something we should be celebrating!

  81. @ papertiger says: August 21, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    For me, Jesus, Mohammad, or Buddha better be packing iron clad, cross referenced, immutable climate data & proxies that I can check. And they better make some accurate predictions of what the weather will be like over the next 3 or 4 years – since they’re God and all.
    That last bit I wouldn’t expect from Hansen.

    Amen brother! 😉

  82. @ Surfer Dave says: August 22, 2011 at 12:08 am

    …or are you all okay with coastlines ruined? And do we not all agree that “peak oil” has been reached? Surely these methods of harvesting fossil fuel should be avoided and we should be trying to develop other energy sources with long lives, eg thorium-cycle nukes, ever more efficient solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc?

    Conversely, are you ok with rotten food, vastly increased deaths associated with fuel poverty and diminished standards of living for all, the most poverty stricken in 3rd world countries to remain in such conditions, and vastly worsened environmental conditions because no one has the luxury of looking out for the environment and so many default to much higher polluting fuels such as burning dung and wood for cooking and heating, because other forms of energy are either unavailable or too expensive?
    Why do you think it’s the developed nations that have cleaner water and air, boatloads of environmental protection laws and regulations and large environmental movements? It’s because we have had access to reliable cheap abundant ENERGY.
    Wind and solar are far too unreliable and expensive, aren’t nearly energy dense enough, and require large amounts of rare earths also. Hydro and geothermal are extremely limited in terms of available useful sites, and at least for hydro, environmentalists are up in arms about them and trying to stop construction where ever possible, at least in the USA. Not to mention that hydro often ruins vast tracts of land by innundating with water to make the reserviors, making that land entirely unusable for humans, animals, or plants for the most part. Look up Three Gorges Dam – or how huge Lake Mead is. They can also be quite unsafe (look up deaths due to dam failures).
    Nuclear is great for producing electricity – no need to wait for development of thorium nukes either, generation III nukes are already developed, operating, and ready to go for any country that wants to build them. As it is the USA has had just over 100 commercial nuclear power plants for decades reliably and safely producing about 20% of our electricity at quite competitive cost. France has done the same, but as they are far smaller it has been with less actual plants, but enough that for decades they’ve gotten about 80% of their electricity from nuclear power.
    Generally agreed that we’ve reached peak oil? Please. The world is nowhere near peak oil – especially not the USA, which makes our oil imports all the more insane. Please see this 2004 US DOE report, and note the size of the USA shale oil resources. Its been years since I read the report, but IIRC that oil is competitive at about $80/barrel and there’s enough to power the USA at what was current consumption levels when written for something like 100 years: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qOervTFZdcIJ:www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/publications/npr_strategic_significancev1.pdf+%22department+of+energy%22+%28oil+OR+petroleum%29+%22100+years%22+shale&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShcwnGjFS-7wq2LTc2mbQuyNdEe9aJoRSOujFt7nhgUGbyW7L6k5qv_KU2wxt0_N9jIFnv06DdNMStRAWDs9QPmUUa1nfLIi1GoCdYfKkkJ1VOCB2IEuxDYSijodGZVMIdTiJZr&sig=AHIEtbQDgfWY0uWpF7G2cLjv2PfJHz3efg&pli=1
    Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource
    It is generally agreed that worldwide petroleum supply will eventually reach its productive limit,
    peak, and begin a long-term decline. What should the United States do to prepare for this event?
    An objective look at the alternatives points to the Nation’s untapped oil shale as a strategically
    located, long-term source of reliable, affordable, and secure oil.
    The vast extent of U.S. oil shale resources, amounting to more than 2 trillion barrels, …..Addition of shale oil to the country’s proved oil reserves could occur in a manner similar to the addition of
    175 billion barrels of oil from Alberta tar sand to Canada’s proved oil reserves. As a result of the
    commercial success oil from tar sand, production now exceeds 1 million barrels per day. U.S. oil
    shale, which is as rich as tar sand, could similarly be developed and become a vital component in America’s future energy security…. [emphasis added]

  83. Friends:
    I support the right of protesters to protest.
    In the case of the demonstrators being discussed here, I am certain that their ’cause’ is wrong.
    But it is important that every person be enabled to demonstrate a ’cause’ they believe.
    Hence, I strongly support their right to protest.
    A democratic society needs to ensure provision to enable demonstrations and protests about anything, including (as in this case) demonstrations that call for destruction of society, the nation and civilisation.
    And I think it important that there is proper provision for protests and demonstrations.
    The USA has proper provision for protests and demonstrations.
    However, nobody should be allowed to protest and demonstrate in a place and/or a manner that harms or risks society as a whole. So, for example, rioters need to be stopped. Similarly, a demonstration alongside the Whitehouse is forbidden because it provides a security risk (e.g. opportunity for terrorists to use such a demonstration as a ‘cover’ for attack on the Presidential Palace).
    The demonstrators are being arrested for demonstrating in a place where such demonstrations are rightly forbidden. They have chosen to demonstrate in that place because they know they will be arrested and thus will gain publicity for their demonstration.
    So, the demonstrators are deliberately breaking the law in a manner that threatens national security with the intent of being arrested as a method to gain publicity for their cause.
    I fail to understand how a mere 24 hours in jail is sufficient punishment for those arrested.
    Richard

  84. Scottish, you’re a perfect example of what we’re up against. I understand what you’re saying, but you’ve been lied to. Developing the Oilsands (not TAR sands, that term is used as a pejorative) does nothing even remotely like “destroying the environment”. Contrary to the popular view, the area is a vast wasteland, NOT HABITABLE. Fly over some day, you’ll see lakes and rivers awash in an oily sheen, stunted trees, and very little wildlife. That is the natural state of the area. It’s not a beautiful natural environment to start with.
    So for your 2 points:
    1. It’s a vast oil spill that is being cleaned up, not a destructive process
    2. Nobody is “resorting to” developing the Oilsands. It’s a viable source of obtainable oil.
    There were some experimental recovery projects through the 70s and 80s, but it was generally determined that until oil was at $35/bbl for over a certain amount of time it was not economical to start working on production in quantity. Now the breakeven point is a lot lower since techniques have been developed to lower the cost of production.
    And yes, I’ll continue championing the cause. I live here. I know what’s going on. I’ve been all over Alberta and seen for myself what is going on.
    Again: if the US doesn’t want it, there are other buyers with cash in hand. It’s actually mind-boggling that what I consider the “forces of evil” are succeeding in demonizing Oilsands production. Don’t let them win.

  85. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it and use your minds to help come up with a solution?

    Ooh! Ooh!, I know!, Pick me, pick me!
    F A C T S
    NB: Model output is merely a product of the input parameters and the model settings. It needs to be backed up with actual empirical data over time (in this case) to have any validity whatsoever. So far, no facts whatsoever have demonstrated that CO2 will do anything other than mildly warm the air. This will also likely be beneficial, as it has been the last two times the climate did this all by itself (without our help). The enrichment of plants is yet another benefit.
    When there is proof that any of the doom-laden scenarios is even likely, then we can talk about what we should do about it.
    As for dependency on fossils fuel, as it gets rarer and harder to find, it will get more expensive. When that happens, and not before, the market will naturally find cheaper alternatives, most likely nuclear, although there may be all sorts of new options by then.

  86. Baa Humbug says:
    August 22, 2011 at 1:16 am

    I support the rights of these folk to peacefully protest at whatever shakes their shingles. Jailing them sends society back many years.

    I have to agree. Locking them up for protesting peacefully is not progress.
    I also support the right of other to mock them, however.

  87. Tony Mach says:
    August 22, 2011 at 1:07 am
    When has the right to protest (even if you think they are wrong) fallen out of favour in your country? Isn’t it the so called “land of the free”? What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
    They are breaking the law, and they know it. That is the whole point of their “exercise”. It is ironic that you mouth the words “land of the free”, without, apparently even knowing what they mean. They are certainly free to be morons and hypocrites, and say idiotic things. And we have the right to criticize them for their words and actions. What’s ironic, though, is that what they are doing and saying is actually in the service of anti-democracy. Attacking oil in this case is simply a proxy for attacking “carbon”. They are defending the biggest, most destructive lie in human history. That way lies the road to fascism.

  88. Why aren’t these protesters protesting wind mill farms? Nature Canada claims that over 50,000 flying creatures (that’s bats and birds) are being killed every year (http://naturecanadablog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wind-farm-on-wolf-island-is-killing.html) with only 84 wind mills. Considering there are 900 wind mills in Ontario, it is possible that over 50,000 flying creatures a year are being killed in Ontario every year!!).
    They hypocrisy of environmentalist never ceases to amaze me

  89. Scottish Sceptic says:
    August 22, 2011 at 1:28 am
    What’s wrong with being against Tar sands
    Can I just make the point that you can be against the unscientific nonsense of global warming, but also against the never ending usage of fossil fuels.

    Your statement is illogical. We use “fossil fuels” because they are still relatively inexpensive. Other energy forms are being developed, but so far, alternative, so-called “green” energy is far too expensive and/or unreliable. They also have their own set of environmental problems. No one expects fossil fuel use to be “never-ending”, so that’s a strawman argument.
    But to celebrate the destruction of the wilderness for tar oil is not the way to go because:
    1. No sane person ought to want to see the destruction of the environment
    2. The fact we are having to resort to tar sands shows that we are very close or even beyond the end of “cheap oil” and as the Western economies have been built on cheap oil, you might as well say we are very close to the end of the Western economies … which doesn’t sound to me like something we should be celebrating!

    “Celebrate the destruction of the environment”? What are you smoking? That’s just another strawman argument as well as a red herring, since the issue here is “carbon”, not “the “environment. Your 2nd argument is the old, “peak oil” argument greenies love to use, and another red herring. New energy forms will come along eventually which will be competitive with oil. Government meddling is not needed or wanted, nor would the result be good.
    So, the question is, why do you hate oil so much, and since you still use it, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?

  90. Hi all,
    It is getting late here in New Zealand, and I have looked back at my own first post and I guess I should have tried to be more polite. Or at least less blunt. I am, however, disappointed by the abuse and grandstanding. The blog post itself is written to elicit certain responses and written, obviously, for an audience of ‘believers.’ But I read it and have a different point of view.
    I think we need to have these debates openly and I will continue to engage with whoever wants to talk about it. I can’t think of anything worse than only talking about issues with people I know agree with me. I read anything and everything I can to try to get an idea of what is going on in my world. I’ve got an undergrad degree in Physics and have worked in public policy in Europe and now in New Zealand for around ten years.
    I can’t respond to everything now – I need to sleep! – But on few specific points:
    1. A 3,000 mile long pipeline makes for a pretty sweet terrorist target.
    2. Tar sands are, until dug out, mostly located under forests. They are not just gaping oil pits that we need to clean up.
    3. When the (huge areas) of forest and top soil (it seems to vary between 15 and 50 feet) are removed to get to the tar sands, extravagant amounts of water and energy are needed to turn the bitumen in the sands into something fluid enough to be pumped out. The waste water is left behind in large ponds. The land around is contaminated. This is not a playground for local wildlife.
    4. On population growth, global population (not just the population in the area where you might live) is growing faster than ever before. Though the population is expected to stablise at 9-10bn people by the end of this century, that’s still too many people for the Earth to sustain. At least it is if you think that everyone should have enough food to eat, water to drink etc. Here’s what the World Bank says http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf
    Goodnight.

  91. According to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/21/my-surfacestations-project-at-the-ams-conference/ the minute warming effect could potentially just be urbanization. So it is no wonder UNIPCC choose CO2 and it’s non proven global effect instead, for just imagined if the IPCC reports stated CAGW is all about the horrible evil urbanization? They would potentially have risked these climate hippies burning cities to the ground instead of just mere silly protesting the stuff of life.

  92. Doug in Seattle nailed it: “These people are so deluded there is simply no hope in trying to educate them. ”
    That’s exactly what informed people think of the WUWT crowd. (And still, I have hope!)
    Why are we like enemies? What a tribal world: he has a beard so he’s in the other clan…
    I’m a nice guy, you know. We could be friends. I’m actually pretty pro-free-market and all that. I like sports cars! I like the taste of meat! Don’t think that ‘our side’ consists only of hippies who drink goat yoghurt and go to meditation retreats the whole time. Don’t think that all the sientsts are unscrupulous misanthropes who are only after grant money. Seriously, do think scientists earn more money than […]?
    I hope you can admit that you reject the mainstream scientific opinion about climate based on tribal grounds. Based on politics and ideology. It’s about your world view.
    It really is.
    I’m totally serious. I really know what I’m saying. I’m one of the most skeptical persons on the planet. I’ve thought about this a lot and I doubt about my own opinion every day.
    When you take a close, objective look at the science of climate change, you’ll see where the truth lies.
    What the policy response should be, is a different matter.
    Yes, there are communists who dream of a back-to-nature society. Those are the ones that scared. But there are also lots of people who share your values, who just happened to stumble upon some irrefutable facts.
    I mean, seriously. The post about Norwegian climate scientists predicting cooling in the 70’s. Is that a cherry-pick, yes or no? -Yes, I know that the ‘other side’ also does some cherry-picking from time to time.
    There actually was a literature review of all peer-reviewed papers from the 70’s that came to the conclusion that the majority of papers predicted warming back then. There was still a debate, back then.
    I could go on and on like this.
    Pick out logical fallacies – on both sides, yes!
    But how are we supposed to have a debate when you guys are like: “you’re wrong because you have dumbo ears.”
    So, please, do some introspection. Anthony, it’s ok, you know. People can be wrong. I know you can see things that are wrong, for example when you let Joe Bastardi post about the laws of thermodynamics. You know it’s not true. How does a greenhouse work? Because the plants are generating massive amounts of heat? Hell no! You know it’s not true.

  93. Fred from Canuckistan says:
    August 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    One can only hope Obamassiah says no to the XL Pipeline and thus provide whichever Republican party nominee with a giant stick to use in the 2012 election.

    Apparently he already has:
    Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart of its own weight,” said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a candidate for president. It’s the most harmful hoax in history, because President Barack Obama bases job-killing policies on it.
    http://post-gazette.com/pg/11233/1168499-373.stm

  94. Maria says:
    August 22, 2011 at 3:52 am


    4. On population growth, global population (not just the population in the area where you might live) is growing faster than ever before. Though the population is expected to stablise at 9-10bn people by the end of this century, that’s still too many people for the Earth to sustain. At least it is if you think that everyone should have enough food to eat, water to drink etc. Here’s what the World Bank says http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

    Just one questioin Maria: Does the World Bank adhere to the findings of the IPCC? If yes, then scrub your “that’s still too many people for the Earth to sustain” comment. If not, then you have a valid point.
    (You don’t have a valid point.)

  95. Bruce Cobb says:
    “Celebrate the destruction of the environment”? What are you smoking? New energy forms will come along eventually which will be competitive with oil.
    You ask me what I’m smoking! On what basis do you say “New energy forms will come along”? The last new energy form was “discovered” almost 100 years ago and fully operational by the 1960s. We’ve been burning coal for millennium, using solar for bio-fuels since the neolithic. The Egyptians were using wind energy to sail up the nile and hydro to come down it thousands of years ago. The last major advance other than nuclear was electricity at the end of the 19th century and possible the turbine to replace technology from the water wheel. (strike that I read: A rudimentary steam turbine device was described by Taqi al-Din in 1551 and by Giovanni Branca in 1629.
    The national grid hasn’t changed much since the 1950s, no new energy forms since the 1960s only last week I asked a UK industry insider about fusion and got the same negative synopsis for its prospects.
    All in all I totally fail to see any prospect for any new form of energy this century and people who believe in the miraculous coming of energy forms either have not studied the subject in any detail or as you are say … must be smoking something”.
    New energy forms are just pie in the sky warmist type claptrap. The evidence shows that the energy forms we have today are the energy forms we must live with for the foreseeable future and personally I’d prefer to base an energy policy on the realistic prospects for the future and not wishful thinking.

  96. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm

    Get a grip, read NASA Chief Scientist James Hansen’s book ‘Storms of my grandchildren,’ and be informed before you talk this rubbish.

    Maria, I attended the Mensa Annual Colloquium at the end of February in Atlanta in part to hear keynote speaker James Hansen and in part to make sure he didn’t recruit Mensans unfamiliar with all sides of the story. He left early to get to a Washington protest before a snow storm snarled traffic in both areas. I wound up spending two extra days in Atlanta trying to get home. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/hansens-coal-and-global-warming-protest-may-get-snowed-out/#comment-92826
    Heidi Cullen was there (in the process of leaving The Weather Channel), as was Noah Diffenbaugh (unknown to me at the time, but has become an alarmist at Stanford).
    I bought James Hansen’s book, but confess I can’t make it all the way through. Hansen and several other scientists are fixated on CO2 as the main driver of our climate. It is not. It is one component, and possibly a surprisingly minor one at that.
    All this is well covered here in past posts and will be covered in future posts. Hang around, read a lot, then tell us what you think.

  97. @ DN
    1. You can draw a line from 1998 to 2010 which is nearly flat in all cases and rises or falls, depending on the dataset you use. You are an intelligent person, so you know that this is not how statistical analysis works. Hence, your claim is directly at odds with what Roy Spencer and Patrick Michaels say. You know that natural variablity, or noise is at work and that statistical analyses of all datasets show a rising trend.
    Since, you’re an intelligent person, I don’t understand how we could disagree about that.
    2. I’ve read otherwise. You provide no sources, so won’t I.
    3. There seems to be uncertainty about the trend of frequency. Anyway, the intensity is increasing.
    4. I totally agree.
    5. okay… so?
    6. “as a resident of Ottawa my climate changes by roughly 80 degrees centigrade twice a year” Obviously you know weather is not climate. If it gets so hot in Ottawa, how come there are no coconut trees? Have you ever looked at a mountain? There’s a line past which no trees grow. Below the line the climate is hardly a degree warmer than above that line. And on both sides of the line, there are huge temperature swings. Regardless how the explanation of this phenomenon, it’s a fact. The average temperature in Detroit is 3,4ºC higher than in Ottawa, about the temperature rise expected in Ottawa during my life time. Would you agree that there’s a big difference in vegetation between those places. (Yes, there are other factors.) It’s nice to know that, thanks to modern technology, you can survive the climate in Ottawa. And that you could survive even if Ottawa’s climate changed to that of Miami, which isn’t going to happen any time soon. It’s just a pity that almost none of the thousands of species that share your habitat would ever survive such a change.
    7. Ok. Ehrlich was wrong. And so were many others. Does that mean people predicting bad things today are wrong? No. Does it mean you can’t be skeptical? Hell, no! At least you would agree that, since we are already consuming 25% of the world’s biomass, it would be hard to conceive a world with more than 30 billion humans. Of course, nobody’s saying that.
    8. Yes. Oh, you forgot. 1 million dead in Iraq. No WMD. Bin Laden was from Afghanistan, not Iraq. Would it be reasonable to say that the Iraq war was mainly fought over strategic oil reserves? Oh, I know another one: Vietnam! Oh, and Darfur. Why did their lake dry up?
    9. Of course, that depends entirely upon your perspective. I’m convinced that you want the best for next generations and that you believe certain policy options will be beneficial for them. Others disagree.
    10. http://www.s-e-i.org/pentagon_climate_change.pdf 2003. Sure, it’s just a scenario.
    11. It’s part of basic modesty to question yourself if your personal interpretation of the same data is at odds with all the experts on the matter in the world. It’s good to be skeptical, nullis in verba, I know. But, seriously. NO WORKING CLIMATE SCIENTIST in the world agrees with you that the world has stopped warming since 1998. Shouldn’t that make you a tad skeptical of your own skepticism?
    Over at Romm’s place, there are usually quite a lot of links to papers and databases. They’re not interested in data? That’s plain wrong. I won’t say that of Watts. He is interested in data. i don’t deny that.
    You’re a bit emotional, that’s ok. So am I.

  98. Maria says:
    August 22, 2011 at 3:52 am
    Hi all,
    …………..
    I think we need to have these debates openly and I will continue to engage with whoever wants to talk about it. I can’t think of anything worse than only talking about issues with people I know agree with me. I read anything and everything I can to try to get an idea of what is going on in my world. I’ve got an undergrad degree in Physics and have worked in public policy in Europe and now in New Zealand for around ten years.
    ====================================================
    Outstanding! And welcome! While it may not be obvious, your presence is very much welcomed by many here. As you note, “I can’t think of anything worse than only talking about issues with people I know agree with me.” I, too, get bored to tears when stuck in an echo chamber. But that’s why I pop by here fairly frequently. When we’ve no alarmist to argue with, we’ll argue amongst ourselves about tangential issues! Its very engaging. Seeing that you’re new to this site, I’d encourage you to peruse the archives here. The article presented doesn’t lend to a heady discussion, but that isn’t the norm. While there were opportunities to delve more into the underlying socioeconomic issues raised, sometimes its better just to enjoy a laugh at someone else’ expense. As to your friend Dr. Hansen, he’s not someone I’d bother quoting if you truly believe we should be looking for solutions. Dr. Hansen claims alarm about an imagined problem but offers nothing in the form of a solution, rather, he believes the problems can be fixed with a tax. He openly receives graft and then has the U.S. tax payer subsidize his electric bill….. well…. go here, http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/hansen-was-right-in-part-for-once Be sure to click on the links provided to see for yourself.
    As to your education and work experience, you may at times feel out of your depth…… no worries, we’ll explain if asked. Again, welcome!

  99. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING ON MARIA…
    It is very apparent to me that Maria is a BOT. She and other bots are popping up more and more here and at other “skeptic” websites. While I think it can be good to debate and refine one’s position, there is no point in addressing the simple and easily dismissed arguments. I have a feeling we are going to see more of these “troll bots” used as tactics to divert conversations. Maybe someone smarter than myself can come up with a solution to this new problem.

  100. 1 – They’re Oil Sands, not Tar.
    2 – 20% is close enough to the surface to be mined. The other 80% is drilled (in Situ)
    3 – The land is reclaimed and may end up in even better shape that the original condition.
    4 – The Oil Sands represent between 5 and 6.5% of Canada’s Greenhouse gas emissions.
    5 – That equates to…get this….. Point One per cent of Global GHG’s
    6 – More and more water is recycled. in 2009 the Oil Sands used Point Five per cent of the average total river flows. (3.4% of the lowest weekly winter flow)
    7 – I would prefer that most of the oil be refined in Alberta.
    http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=191904&DT=NTV

  101. Surfer Dave says:
    August 22, 2011 at 12:08 am
    “…………..
    Gosh, the level of the “sarcasm” (that tag is being used to cover the inherent unkind attitude of the writers) is like being in a high school yard at lunch. Petty, trivial, it lowers you all to the level of school children.
    I understood these shales oils were taken by excavating vast swathes of land, not tiny pin-pick oil wells. Even if fossil fuels have minimal impact on the atmosphere when burnt, the terra-forming from the harvesting of shale oils and the short- to medium-term degradation from spills and leaks from “ordinary” wells can be significant. What happened in the Gulf of Mexico, or are you all okay with coastlines ruined? And do we not all agree that “peak oil” has been reached? Surely these methods of harvesting fossil fuel should be avoided and we should be trying to develop other energy sources with long lives, eg thorium-cycle nukes, ever more efficient solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc?”

    ============================================================
    lol, Surfer, there is no amount of sarcasm we can heap upon those people that could ever come close to what we’ve endured as skeptics. So, don’t begrudge us of a bit of fun at their expense. Comes around, goes around.
    I’m wondering what you think is being torn up? This is sandy dirt saturated with oil! Have you visited the gulf lately? One of the best things about that spill, is that it became known that nature leaks more oil into the ocean than any spill we’ve ever had….combined! A better question would be why were they forced to go so far out to sea in deep water? And no, we haven’t reached “peak oil”. Texas continues to increase its oil production. As does any other place that is allowed or desired. OPEC nations intentionally throttle production to keep pricing. As far as alternatives, yes, they need developed. But, that doesn’t take care of the here and now, though, does it? This is something that just boggles my mind. How is it that otherwise intelligent people don’t understand the need for fuels and energy today? Dave, the reality is we need oil in our current socioeconomic condition. And it isn’t going to change in the near future. Are you wondering why the world is in economic upheaval? Look no further than your mirror. Any modern nation’s economic activity can be measured by fuel and energy use. To throttle either is to throttle that nations economy. I’ll repeat and embolden so it can soak in. Any modern nation’s economic activity can be measured by fuel and energy use. To throttle either is to throttle that nations economy. This is why the western world can’t raise itself out of the economic doldrums we’re experiencing today. Show me a nation that isn’t touched by this obsession over CO2 and enough resources for growth and I’ll show you an advancing economy. History shows us that all conditions of humanity improve with prosperity. Conversely, poverty kills, poverty is the cause of crime, disease, wars, morbidity, and early mortality. Ecologically, there isn’t anything worse than a poverty stricken nation. Go visit a third world nation or squalor infested slum for proof of my last assertion, or any of my other ones.
    We need more energy use, not less. We need more fuel use, not less. Everyday that passes without the western world acknowledging this reality is another day of damning countless people to a shortened life of hardship.

  102. Rational Debate says:
    August 21, 2011 at 9:52 pm
    I just gotta ask – wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to build a new refinery close to the border rather than piping it across the entire nation?
    We need a new refinery anyhow – wasn’t the last built around ’79 or something? Plus, having one up north would provide some coverage for any southern outages due to hurricanes, and I’d think be better located should our government, in it’s infinate wisdom (wish to heck it were!) finally deign to allow us to use our own very abundant shale oil.
    Anyone know if refinery v. pipeline was even considered and what the major results of such wound up being? Thanks in advance for replies.

    Here you go again, trying to inject “sense” into the energy debate.
    Actually, it’s not a bad idea, if you can get around all the regulatory burdens. But even if you do build a refinery in say, Montana, you still need pipelines to get the refined product distributed.

  103. That did look like Hansen. Science confused and gender identity confusion? I hope climate doesn’t cause those changes.
    Our Middle eastern oil is beneath the sands. This comes from a natural oil spill in the surface sands. Actually this should be noted as an environmental clean up operation. Keystone has been pumping crude to Cushing Oklahoma in a brand new piple line for less than a year. This one will take it to the Gulf coast.

  104. AllenC
    Are you sure about that statistic… that would mean that if you went to virtually an wind mill you’d see a new dead animal there everyday. (50000/84 = 595 dead animals per wind mill per year).
    I very much doubt that…

  105. I support the right of these people to protest. I also support the rule of law. This was an illegal protest. They should be arrested. Given the nature of the crime I have no problem with a slap on the wrist for the first offense but not on second or subsequent convictions of the same person for the same offense as that demonstrates that a slap on the wrist was not sufficient motivation to act in accordance with the law.
    In other words go ahead and protest but do it in accordance with the law.

  106. I’ve got an undergrad degree in Physics and have worked in public policy in Europe and now in New Zealand for around ten years.
    Well that explains much . Then one has also to add that you seem to be new to the climate issue in general and to this web site in particular .
    So for your education – many posters here are scientists with a PhD degree as well as active and retired engineers with extensive experience in energy matters .
    Many of the posters have been interested in climate science and/or did active research in this field for more than 10 years . This is for instance the case for A.Watts to just give an example .
    So to stop you making waste our time , I would like to make a short list of things that we ALREADY know , so please avoid beating those dead horses over and over .
    1) Hansen is an unhinged political activist . His real scientific work is too far in the past and his predictions were all proven wrong . Nobody trusts Hansen today and even the green activists take distance from his radicality .
    2) We know that there has been no variation in the frequency of storms , hurricanes etc in the last century despite a “global warming” . Most scientific papers show that there is no reason to expect a correlation with temperature . (Reminder : Hansen and Al Gore are not relevant scientists , see 1)
    3) The climate has been changing for billions of years ; sometimes at an impressively high speed and will do so for the next 5 billions of years . Better get used to it and teach your children to get used to it too . Despite your wishful thinking , a “stable climate” that would happen to be the climate of 1975 (fill in your own year if you don’t like the 70ies) doesn’t exist and will never exist .
    4) We are actually in an interglacial . That means we are just getting out of the last glaciation what happens cyclically . Expect for the next thousands of years “global warming” . Whether you like it or not , this will happen . Temperature will get MUCH warmer , sea levels will rise and polar ice will melt . Get used to it . When it will turn around and begin the cooling towards the next glaciation THEN our great great … children will REALLY have ground to worry . In the meantime we might have accelerated this warming a very little bit . But be very sure that it will slow down again once we have burned all carbon we could . The nature is a carbon SINK – left to its own devices it tends to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere what is of course an unpleasant threat for all life on this planet.
    5) Spare us the whining and arrogant “Think of your children” meme . Your children are not more important than ours and I certainly don’t want that my children have to live in an economy destroyed by lunatic environmentalists and their pathological doom&gloom prophecies . You are perfectly free to live in a cave , wear “bio” clothes , drive a bicycle (will be fun to see how you manage with 80 years) and eat grass (of course strictly without fertilizers , pesticides etc). But you are absolutely NOT free to impose on anybody to share your middle age preferences . You will learn that most skeptics are people who just want to be left alone and don’t take kindly to all these deranged activist preachings .

  107. “Do we want oil wells and oil spills in national parks?” Sure. Humans use resources. Always have, always will. Once the oil is gone, the humans will leave also, and the park will return to normal.

  108. AllenC
    Ok just read that report that says 6.99 birds were killed in a 6 month period per turbine adn there’s 86 turbines. That makes 1200 birds a year, slightly less of an alarmist number don’t you think?

  109. I believe the crude oil will be piped to the refineries on the gulf coast because they have an established network of gasoline pipelines to regional distribution points that a new refinery built up north would not have, thus it is more efficient and less of an impact on the environment to build one pipeline.

  110. Maria
    As another Kiwi I am wondering what you are smoking.
    World population is growing but the rate of growth is slowing and will continue to do so.
    The rate of population growth will slow faster and population growth will halt earlier if we ensure all Countries can enjoy a first-world standard of living. This is a complex issue invovling development, education, finance, law, government etc. This goal will not be served by reducing consumption of fossil fuels. An increased use of fossil fuels is necessary.
    The length of the pipeline is entirely irrelevant. There are so many terrorist targets already that I find it hard to imagine why you think this one would be in any way interesting to a self-respecting terrorist. And being Kiwis it is hardly any of business anyway.
    The mining and petroleum industries are pretty well-behaved most of the time these days. Yes there are some risks. But oil spills are expensive and the companies work hard to prevent them ever occuring. These industries are far more responsible now than you give them credit for. You should be embarrassed by your little rant.
    By the way water is a reuseable resource. It can be recycled. Thats what miners do these days. SO although a mining or industrial process may need lots of water, often the same water is used hundreds of times over. Perhaps you should wake up and smell the Roses for once. The world is not going to hell in a hand basket. The environment is improving in almost all modern westernised countries, though naturally we should all remain vigilent (esp re the Dairy industry in NZ). The primary enviromental worry at present is that we are exporting environmental damage to pooer parts of the world by over-regulating ourselves in the developed world. This largely unintended leftist agenda needs to be turned around.

  111. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it and use your minds to help come up with a solution?

    A solution to what, exactly?
    There is no actual physical evidence that climate is changing at an unprecedented rate, or that greenhouse gas emissions have much to do with the climate change we are experiencing.
    As far as our civilization being based upon an unsustainable fuel, that’s been a normal state for centuries, perhaps millennia. Have you an idea of the history of the oil crisis? It’s been ongoing for over a century; only recently have some alarmists coined the term “peak oil.”
    I have no doubt oil supplies in the future will continue to get tighter, especially when people like you and these misguided protesters whom you admire do everything possible to keep oil supplies off the market. (BTW: Please quit warning us about peak oil while trying to force it upon us!) I also have no doubt that technology will continue to advance and solutions will be found.
    Build a better mousetrap, Maria, and people will buy it. Central planning always fails.

  112. Maria,
    May I, an aging and mostly polite Brit, apologise should any of the other comments on yours have caused you offence. Yes, commenters here do often tend to levity, as they do in almost any community of like-minded folk, but mostly the butts of the worst of them are regular “trolls” who simply post some fragment of the AGW Testament and disappear, unlike yourself. I hope you call by again and read this.
    FWIW, I’ll mention also that I have spent more decades than I want to think about reading every scientific mag and paper I could find, just for the raw pleasure of finding stuff out. Also, I’ve spent most of those decades as one or another flavour of technician or engineer – one of those weird geniuses who can make almost anything work because we understand the processes behind it. The real world has a way of completely disregarding your personal preferences as to how it “should” work!
    Truly, though, there’s nothing in your comments so far which hasn’t been torn to bits here more times than Anthony has had hot dinners. “NASA Chief Scientist James Hansen” is merely one among many megaphones who clamour for us all to believe the outputs from their “climate models” rather than the actual, physical evidence – and, to be blunt, the folk here have seen rather too much of the real thing to give those “models” any credence at all.
    Think for a moment. If there’s one thing which shines forth in this debate, it is that nobody, Hansen included, could give you an even halfway complete list of what factors influence Earth’s weather systems. If you can’t even list the influences then how can you possibly claim to have modelled them? You can’t. Indeed, spend awhile paging back through WUWT (an excellent and time-consuming way of achieving climate information overload, IMO!), and you will find the revelation that most of these models simply assume (a) that CO2 is the main driver of the planet’s climate system (it’s not) and (b) everything – CO2, temperature, you name it – will just increase forever in straight lines (no way – climate, like everything in Nature, is the result of cyclical processes).
    You believe that “the climate change we are seeing right now is faster than any in the known history of Earth”? … but it’s not. You doubt that? I can only recommend that you read through “A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events” – okay, not a “peer reviewed paper”, but a collection of actual historical records of conditions which will make a chill run down your spine and make you profoundly glad that you weren’t there to live through – or die in – them. The present day is nothing to write home about in comparison.
    You say “if the climate continues to warm” … don’t worry, it won’t. It’ll just go on following its multiple cycles:
    Roman Climate Optimum (ca. 0 AD) warm,
    Dark Ages (ca 550 AD) cold,
    Mediaeval Climate Optimum (ca 1100 AD) warm,
    Little Ice Age (ca 1600 AD) cold,
    Present Climate Optimum (now!) warm
    … or,
    1880 – 1910 (cooling),
    1910 – 1940 (warming),
    1940 – 1970 (cooling),
    1970 – 2000 (warming),
    2000 – 2030 (cooling)
    … never mind the granddaddy of them all, the ice age cycle. That, when the Earth next decides to flip into its cold state, will cause social disruption far beyond anything a bit of life-giving warmth could. Why worry about “the warmest (whatever) since records began, when the records began in the cold conditions prevailing in the Little Ice Age?
    If there’s anything I, or most of the others here, really fear, it’s the dark political manipulation which is behind all this climate alarmism, and much else besides. There are mentions of that too in previous WUWT posts and comments, and far, far more hard evidence of it than there is – or could be – of “manmade, unprecedented climatic disruption”.
    No, Maria, we may be a bit offhand here sometimes, but I promise you we care very deeply about handing a working world to our descendants. Of course the human race needs to clean up its act – particularly “homo economicus”, the vile jellies behind the political plans. All that needs saying on that front is, “Shell, Nigeria” – just the pictures wil make you weep. Of course we need to work out ways of providing ourselves and our descendants with cleaner energy – but not because of some fairy story about CO2 being “pollution” which “is destroying the environment”, and not by stupidly closing down the best civilisation we’ve got. Again, it’s all here (somewhere) on WUWT. For a start, check out thorium reactors – astonishingly clean, cheap, safe nuclear energy which is so benevolent that it can even eat the dangerously radioactive wastes from uranium reactors. We want to hand down a world where science aims at an accurate assessment of reality, not one where people are bamboozled into believing whatever tosh is the political flavour of the day.
    (Sigh) Another long diatribe. Like Mark Twain, I never can find the time to write a short one … but truly, please, take us seriously. Should anyone actually produce hard evidence in favour of the CO2 conjecture, I think you’d find that most WUWTers, at least, will accept it, even if it does shatter our previous convictions. Hell, I’m only here because I went looking for the evidence and found absolutely nothing that didn’t come out of a monstrously simplified “model” – I’ve already had my convictions shattered once. It would have been so much easier just to “keep taking the Kool-Aid” (what is that stuff? – we don’t have it in the UK AFAIK) – but in all honesty I simply can’t.
    Read, Maria – endlessly. Mark. Learn. Inwardly digest. The more you do, the more you realise that, like Socrates, “all that we know is that we know nothing”. And do please forgive us – though we’re still a darn sight kinder to “dissenting” views than some (ahem) “Real” Climate sites I could mention.
    Best wishes,
    Steve

  113. Philip Shehan says:
    August 21, 2011 at 6:47 pm
    Thank you for the explanation ryanm but the idea that the people involved are “typical” leftists is odd on a site which is supposedly about science.
    Unlesss there is a new finding about the identification of a new subspecies Homo politicus sinister which can be distinguished by sight from the typical rightist, Homo sapiens nullius.

  114. CodeTech says: August 22, 2011 at 2:53 am
    Scottish, you’re a perfect example of what we’re up against. I understand what you’re saying, but you’ve been lied to. Developing the Oilsands (not TAR sands, that term is used as a pejorative) does nothing even remotely like “destroying the environment”. Contrary to the popular view, the area is a vast wasteland, NOT HABITABLE. Fly over some day, you’ll see lakes and rivers awash in an oily sheen, stunted trees, and very little wildlife.
    Come on I live in Scotland and that is a perfect description of vast areas of Scotland … vast areas which they are now filling up with wind industrial parks to “save us” all from the warmth that in the Bronze age meant that those vast areas of Scotland were thriving agricultural communities.
    I don’t like Tar sands, any more than I like electricity pylons or mobile phone masts.
    Indeed, if you asked my honest opinion, I’d say we would all be happier with a lower level of GDP, less consumption and more free time to spend with children and less time spent trashing the environment. But I also realise the hypocrisy of that position, because the very wealth (cheap oil) that has gives most “greens” their love of the wilderness is the very wealth that has given them the means to travel all over the place and especially to the wilderness which is the very wealth that we least want to see destroying the wilderness.

  115. Maria et al;
    It is obvious that nothing will dissuade you from your opinions. Several of my fellow Canadians have tried — repeatedly — to explain that many of the points you use to support your positions are in fact distortions and bear little resemblance to facts on the ground. I have been, and continue to be, an ardent environmentalist, and I have found — after extensive study and first hand examination — little to be concerned about with the extraction of petroleum products from the Alberta Oil Sands. Thanks to decades of massive public involvement, the companies that do the work are leaving these areas in far, far better shape than they found them. I will state again that the end result of the extraction of bitumen is millions of hectares of thriving wilderness, where before there existed little more than a failing and nearly barren ecosystem. Even a cursory review of actual conditions will confirm that, but incredibly powerful and wealthy activist groups have made the truth all but impossible for most people to find, much less believe. Yes, there are still some aspects that need to be addressed in this process, and a great deal of hard work is taking place to ameliorate these issues, with, I might add, continued and significant success. Alberta’s Oil Sands are the most ethical source of petroleum on the planet.
    The following site will give you some much needed facts about what is actually going on.
    http://oilsands.alberta.ca/

  116. Some European says:
    August 22, 2011 at 4:29 am


    I’m totally serious. I really know what I’m saying. I’m one of the most skeptical persons on the planet. I’ve thought about this a lot and I doubt about my own opinion every day.
    When you take a close, objective look at the science of climate change, you’ll see where the truth lies.

    Oh puuuhhhlleeaasseeee…. Enlighten us. Outline what you know, not just a statement that you know it.
    Because when I “take a close, objective look at the science of climate change” as you suggest, I see a bunch of people like Hansen and Gore and Mann and Jones… all psuedo scientists, ideologues, or grant chasers than don’t dare debate or show their data. When their papers are challenged, they want to sue or obfuscate or throw temper tantrums or go picket some power plant that provides them electricity.
    That’s what I see. And that’s what a majority of people are now seeing also. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/22/al_gore_goes_on_a_tirade_111039.html

    According to a Harris poll in July, only 44 percent of us now believe carbon dioxide emissions are warming the Earth, down from 51 percent in 2009 and 71 percent in 2007.

    It really doesn’t look good for the pseudoscientists I call “climsci”.
    But continue with your expose` of “scienct of climate change” because the more you sound off, the lower go the poll numbers of people who belive that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the Earth. You’re killing your own cause.

  117. What this shows is how thuggish our overlords, I mean government has become. Protest is a basic civil liberty. I don’t agree with these people, but they have a right to protest and to not have their rights violated by an out of control criminal government.

  118. Scottish Sceptic says:
    I’d say we would all be happier with a lower level of GDP, less consumption and more free time to spend with children and less time spent trashing the environment. But I also realise the hypocrisy of that position, because the very wealth (cheap oil) that has gives most “greens” their love of the wilderness is the very wealth that has given them the means to travel all over the place and especially to the wilderness which is the very wealth that we least want to see destroying the wilderness.
    Maybe you’d be (or more likely, just think you would) happier. Perhaps you are currently consuming “too much” (whatever that means – too much fast food, maybe), and don’t spend enough time with the children. I have good news. You already have it within your power to change those aspects of your life. So does anyone else. Problem solved. Meanwhile, we still need oil. See, the problem is, the only real “solution” to cutting GDP and consumption is government involvement, and we don’t want that, do we?

  119. But even if you do build a refinery in say, Montana, you still need pipelines to get the refined product distributed.
    There is a refinery infrastructure in Utah?

  120. Scottish Sceptic,
    You say that we’d all be a lot happier with a lower GDP, less consumption and more time to “spend with our children,” without realising the contradiction.
    It is the fact that GDP is higher today that has given us: hospitals, life saving drugs and hip replacements for the elderly; dry, warm homes built to a standard of comfort unimaginable a century ago; free education for all children up to age 18 and free university education in your home Scottland; a vast array of cheap and nutritous food that was unheard of 50 years ago; a global telecommunications network that allows us to keep in touch with our friends and loved ones; freedom from back breaking physical toil; afforable leisure of all kinds; and most notable, the higher productivity gives us more leisure time to spend more time with our children.
    In truth, we would not be happier with a lower GDP – quite the contrary.

  121. Indeed, if you asked my honest opinion, I’d say we would all be happier with a lower level of GDP, less consumption and more free time to spend with children and less time spent trashing the environment. But I also realise the hypocrisy of that position, because the very wealth (cheap oil) that has gives most “greens” their love of the wilderness is the very wealth that has given them the means to travel all over the place and especially to the wilderness which is the very wealth that we least want to see destroying the wilderness.

    I am happy to live in a society where people can choose what is happiest for them. I don’t respect people who want to eliminate my freedom to choose.

  122. Andrew30
    But if you meant Organic (a marketing compound), then they can bring in some Organic bean sprouts, grown with LED lighting using windmill electricity, not irradiated, pesticide free, from Germany; I hear people have been dying to try them.
    Gosh darnit! Ifen that thar global warmin don’t git yer the bean sprouts will.

  123. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm
    He says that he must bear witness as he could not bear for his grandchildren to, in the future when they are adults and dealing with the significant impacts of climate change, to ask him why he had known what was coming but had done nothing.

    Almost exactly the argument Tony Blair advanced when convincing us that war against Iraq was necessary (Bush never sold me on the war, but Tony Blair did – much better public speaker). That we could know Saddam Hussein had WMDs but stand by and do nothing. Looks like history has proven that claim (and thus the justification for war) to have been wrong. I’m not buying the argument in this case either.

  124. Maria says:
    August 22, 2011 at 3:52 am
    1. A 3,000 mile long pipeline makes for a pretty sweet terrorist target.
    So do the several hundred thousand miles of pipeline already constructed and operating quietly for some time. Please don’t give Wiebo Ludwig any more ideas (google him). The thing about pipelines is that they are monitored constantly, and, if ruptured, generally shut themselvs down, minimizing the impact. Impact is what terrorists want, and if it amounts to a big ho-hum, they will look elesewhere. A crude pipeline is kinda ho-hum.
    2. Tar sands are, until dug out, mostly located under forests. They are not just gaping oil pits that we need to clean up.
    Stunted, taiga-like areas. No, we don’t need to clean them up, but we might as well make use of it. I do like your rhetoric, though: “gaping oil pits” sounds so awful by comparison to “naturally contaminated subsoil”. And there are numerous bogs and kettle lakes in the region that are basically “naturally polluted”. I won’t bore you with the origins of the Athabaska Oil Sands, but there is a huge amount of oil just lying around there, leaking into the environment. What a poster child for the environmental kaffe klatsch.

  125. Maria, I was trying to figure out when his first grandchild was born since you say it was a tipping point for him. I didn’t find that info, but since he is over 70, that could have been quite a while ago, or not. This photo makes it look more recent:
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/gfx/jeh4.jpg
    (assuming these are in fact his grandchildren)
    BTW, according to his CV, he has been a scientist for more like 40 years than 30.
    …unless of course you figure he stopped being a scientist ten years ago 😉
    I think Hansen is sincere in his concern but he ignores far bigger and more likely non-climate risks to the future of his grandchildren.

  126. Some European says:
    August 22, 2011 at 4:29 am
    “But how are we supposed to have a debate when you guys are like: “you’re wrong because you have dumbo ears.””
    ‘Some European’, you call yourself the most skeptical person; now, see, i’m European just like you and i would call you the most gullible person i read today. Why would a skeptical person believe ANYTHING Hansen says? First of all, the climate models have not demonstrated predictive skill; the IPCC knows this and that’s why they call everything “projection” and not “prediction”.
    Demonstrate predictive skill and somebody might actually believe you and your fellow warmists that you know something that we don’t know.
    If you can’t, stop bothering us with your collective attempts at lining your pockets with renewables subsidies and grants. Because that money is taken from us against our will. If you want solar cells, wind turbines and a free lunch for Hansen, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF, YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO.

  127. Sorry if this was covered already – I only read the first 1/2 of the comments. The protests in Nebraska are mainly about the location of the pipeline. It goes directly over the Ogallala Aquifer which is one of the largest fresh water stores in the United States. It provides ground water for multiple states extending down to Texas. The problem with the location is that it goes directly over areas where the ground water is closest to the surface. We have not had any independent studies done showing what would happen if a spill were to occur over these areas, but I don’t think it takes a climate scientist to be at least a little worried about it. One geologist from a local university did an estimate that was doom and gloom, but I would like a little more of a full scale study before I would say go for it. I am all for the pipeline, just build it in areas that would give the most protection from a spill. Sorry if I don’t care about TransCanada’s bottom line.

  128. Steve C Says:
    Nicely put Steve. I as well looked but haven’t found any evidence for the handwringing over CO2 and, to the contrary, have found that much energy has been wasted on the argument and diverted from some other very pressing problems.
    I’m no fan of imported oil and would be very happy not sending any of my energy dollars overseas. But this talk about solar and wind power and other “renewables” (don’t think people really no shat those are) as our answer to our energy problems drives me crazy. When I think of my Kids, I think of our economy getting wacked by high energy prices, not just direct costs to them such as fuel and electricity, but also business that will continue to flee in search of lower costs.
    One nuclear power plant, Palo Verde in Arizona, produced 30.6 billion kWh in 2009, has a generating capacity of 29.25 mWh at 1.33 cents per kWh, uses 4,000.00 acres of land.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=ELPJ:US&sid=ahhl._h9exBw
    Total installed wind capacity in the US is about 40.2 mWh so two Palo Verdes can easily exceed total wind generation and do it 24 hours a day. I also suspect, and maybe some one can help me, that 40.2 mWh is wind capacity, not what is produced. As you may know wind turbines operate at a much lower nameplate capacity than nuclear, which is 80 to 95%.
    Wind power and solar are important but they won’t power this country without dramatic rises in energy costs and without a large negative environmental impact due to the massive amounts of materials, land and energy used to create and maintain them.
    If you truly believe that carbon dioxide will lead to social and environmental disasters, then you must be pro-nuclear. Nothing we do in creating energy is free of cost or risk, so we have to look at the problem carefully and honestly if we are to salvage this country. I don’t think our budget problems are solvable without a long term plan for creating clean, affordable energy, for without it growth over the next several decades is going to be very difficult.

  129. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm
    Young lady, (obviously you are too caring to be very young, but to me almost everybody is young), I regret to say that you have been ‘brainwashed’ by the propagandists. If you start to think for yourself and read this blog, among others, on a regular basis, I think that you will quickly have your worries soothed.
    “at the moment, the majority of the developed world lives an oil-dependent lifestyle;”
    Not the majority, but every last one of us. Durban will be in the climate news later this year. It has a guessed at one million people within twenty kilometres of the city centre living in tin and card board shacks. Even those poor souls depend upon fossil fuels, one way or another, to survive.
    ‘my own lifestyle is completely dependent on oil/other fossil fuels;’
    The only way out of that, for you and the rest of us, is for the discovery to be made of a means of capturing energy from some new source requiring a very low energy input. It will come but it might be a long wait. Windmills and solar panels won’t do – the input is too great and the product is lamentable.
    ‘- it’s scary to imagine that how we live now is not something that can be sustained in perpetuity;’
    Perpetuity is a very long time indeed. The resources are extremely large, particularly as regards coal deposits that have not yet been exploited. When my great grandchildren have great grandchildren of their own, the latter will not need to worry too much about the resources, and by that time we may have our new energy source.
    ‘it’s hard to make the connection between how one lives and the consequences of our lifestyle.’
    It pains me that those who complain the loudest don’t see any need to lead by example. That is particularly true of the politicians of all ilks.
    ‘However, I can only look at what the global political and business community have now agreed are the facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord:’
    Facts are facts, not what some large group of people agree between themselves to be so. If it is facts that you are after then in my experience Wikipedia is not a great place to go. Copenhagen was a disaster- for those who promote the manmade global warming fallacy.
    the climate change we are seeing right now is faster than any in the known history of Earth – in terms of speed of change over a period of time – that this is anthropogenic is clear from the scientific consensus that has been reached;
    – if the climate continues to warm we are now sure that we will see: significant sea level rise; species loss; increasingly violent storms and of increasing number; drought in some areas (we are already seeing climate effects in a number of countries) and floods in others – as a result food and water scarcity; increased risks from consolidating diseases such as malaria; and other impacts to varied to list;
    – that the physical impacts of climate change wil have serious social impacts and that these may be far-reaching and frightening; and,
    – we do not have enough resources of any kind to support the human population (~7bn) that we now have or the anticipated 9bn by 2050.’
    We are seeing no abnormal climate change. Those who cannot correctly interpret what is going on right now should not be believed when they talk of “the history of the earth”. We are not seeing consequential sea level rise; we are not seeing increasingly violent storms, nor an increase in their number; there have always been droughts in some areas; floods have happened since Noah, and the victims are predominantly those who have built on ground where a sane man would not put up a garden shed; in Africa at least, from the Limpopo northwards for a couple of thousand miles, malaria is mainly spread by vehicle – residents of low lying rural areas travelling to town by bus and taking mosquitoes with them – and the problem is greater than it would be if the U.S. had not banned DDT back in the ‘sixties and many well meaning countries in Africa followed suit; resources are ample to feed a much larger population provided that they don’t all insist in living in a metropolis.
    From thinking and reading about what’s going on, and also by feeling some responsibility to the children growing up today and those that are not yet born, I can only conclude that we need to radically rethink our lives and how our world works. I would rather not see mass war, death, and horror. I would rather we try to find a new way forward that doesn’t involve causing more destruction of our own habitat than what has already taken place.’
    Do some regular reading on this website and I think that you will soon gain the re-assurance that you seek.
    ‘It seems strange to me that one would not want to think these things through and instead just say ‘I’m happy with my status quo – to hell with my children and grandchildren and the world they will live in.’
    I have never heard anyone say that.
    ‘The NASA scientist, James Hansen, is resolutely non-partisan – so I don’t think you can attribute his thoughts to Obama who, to my knowledge, is a lawyer by training rather than a climate scientist.’
    James Hansen is a fraud. Period.
    ‘The US military have declared climate change to be a ‘serious national security threat’
    With the greatest of respect to the U.S. Army, they have been deluged with the same propaganda that you have been subject to.
    ‘http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/FlipBooks/Climate%20Change%20web/flipviewerxpress.htmland companies such as GM, GE, Alcan, Alcoa and BP have established the US Climate Action Partnership calling for ‘strong’ federal action to combat climate change http://www.us-cap.org/.’
    They are in it for the money – pure and simple. Wherever there is a subsidy the vultures gather.
    ‘What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it and use your minds to help come up with a solution?’
    The sole problem is the propaganda which results in tens of thousands of people making a handsome living out of a fallacy arising from a scam. The junk science on which the scam depends is falling apart and before too long the perpetrators will have to dream up a new Ponzi scheme. Until then you and I should rest easy

  130. Maria says:
    August 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm
    Young lady, (obviously you are too caring to be very young, but to me almost everybody is young), I regret to say that you have been ‘brainwashed’ by the propagandists. If you start to think for yourself and read this blog, among others, on a regular basis, I think that you will quickly have your worries soothed.
    ‘ at the moment, the majority of the developed world lives an oil-dependent lifestyle;’
    Not the majority, but every last one of us. Durban will be in the climate news later this year. It has a guessed at one million people within twenty kilometres of the city centre living in tin and card board shacks. Even those poor souls depend upon fossil fuels, one way or another, to survive.
    ‘my own lifestyle is completely dependent on oil/other fossil fuels;’
    The only way out of that, for you and the rest of us, is for the discovery to be made of a means of capturing energy from some new source requiring a very low energy input. It will come but it might be a long wait. Windmills and solar panels won’t do – the input is too great and the product is lamentable.
    ‘- it’s scary to imagine that how we live now is not something that can be sustained in perpetuity;’
    Perpetuity is a very long time indeed. The resources are extremely large, particularly as regards coal deposits that have not yet been exploited. When my great grandchildren have great grandchildren of their own, the latter will not need to worry too much about the resources, and by that time we may have our new energy source.
    ‘it’s hard to make the connection between how one lives and the consequences of our lifestyle.’
    It pains me that those who complain the loudest don’t see any need to lead by example. That is particularly true of the politicians of all ilks.
    ‘However, I can only look at what the global political and business community have now agreed are the facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord:’
    Facts are facts, not what some large group of people agree between themselves to be so. If it is facts that you are after then in my experience Wikipedia is not a great place to go. Copenhagen was a disaster- for those who promote the manmade global warming fallacy.
    ‘the climate change we are seeing right now is faster than any in the known history of Earth – in terms of speed of change over a period of time – that this is anthropogenic is clear from the scientific consensus that has been reached;
    – if the climate continues to warm we are now sure that we will see: significant sea level rise; species loss; increasingly violent storms and of increasing number; drought in some areas (we are already seeing climate effects in a number of countries) and floods in others – as a result food and water scarcity; increased risks from consolidating diseases such as malaria; and other impacts to varied to list;
    – that the physical impacts of climate change wil have serious social impacts and that these may be far-reaching and frightening; and,
    – we do not have enough resources of any kind to support the human population (~7bn) that we now have or the anticipated 9bn by 2050.’
    We are seeing no abnormal climate change. Those who cannot correctly interpret what is going on right now should not be believed when they talk of “the history of the earth”. We are not seeing consequential sea level rise; we are not seeing increasingly violent storms, nor an increase in their number; there have always been droughts in some areas; floods have happened since Noah, and the victims are predominantly those who have built on ground where a sane man would not put up a garden shed; in Africa at least, from the Limpopo northwards for a couple of thousand miles, malaria is mainly spread by vehicle – residents of low lying rural areas travelling to town by bus and taking mosquitoes with them – and the problem is greater than it would be if the U.S. had not banned DDT back in the ‘sixties and many well meaning countries in Africa followed suit; resources are ample to feed a much larger population provided that they don’t all insist on living in a metropolis.
    ‘From thinking and reading about what’s going on, and also by feeling some responsibility to the children growing up today and those that are not yet born, I can only conclude that we need to radically rethink our lives and how our world works. I would rather not see mass war, death, and horror. I would rather we try to find a new way forward that doesn’t involve causing more destruction of our own habitat than what has already taken place.’
    Do some regular reading on this website and I think that you will soon gain the re-assurance that you seek.
    ‘It seems strange to me that one would not want to think these things through and instead just say ‘I’m happy with my status quo – to hell with my children and grandchildren and the world they will live in.’
    I have never heard anyone say that.
    “The NASA scientist, James Hansen, is resolutely non-partisan – so I don’t think you can attribute his thoughts to Obama who, to my knowledge, is a lawyer by training rather than a climate scientist.’
    James Hansen is a fraud. Period.
    ‘The US military have declared climate change to be a ‘serious national security threat’
    With the greatest of respect to the U.S. Army, they have been deluged with the same propaganda that you have been subject to.
    ‘http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/FlipBooks/Climate%20Change%20web/flipviewerxpress.htmland companies such as GM, GE, Alcan, Alcoa and BP have established the US Climate Action Partnership calling for ‘strong’ federal action to combat climate change http://www.us-cap.org/.’
    They are in it for the money – pure and simple. Wherever there is a subsidy the vultures gather.
    ‘What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it and use your minds to help come up with a solution?’
    The sole problem is the propaganda which results in tens of thousands of people making a handsome living out of a fallacy arising from a scam. The junk science on which the scam depends is falling apart and before too long the perpetrators will have to dream up a new Ponzi scheme. Until then you and I should rest easy

  131. @ Mike Bromley the Kurd says: August 21, 2011 at 10:30 pm
    @ Alcheson says: August 21, 2011 at 11:05 pm
    &@ Canadians who’ve said they’d prefer the refinery be in your nation, I hear you, but as I’m in the USA, gotta wish for one here instead! :0) It IS a very interesting thought, however & I wonder if your folks have considered it and why they haven’t proceeded that way?
    Thanks for the replies, hope to hear more.
    Mike, off the cuff I have to agree with Alcheson – once refined, the products have to be shipped or piped ostensibly just as far anyhow since the points of final use don’t vary. So it seems that siting a refinery up north would eliminate 1000+ miles of extra new piping along with all the costs, red tape, etc. involved. Tho I’ve no idea how much of that is already done… I would think, however, that in terms of environmental studies & NIMBY, the pipeline may actually be the more difficult…
    Building refinery up north would also help even up end product cost across the nation – right now, fuel is significantly cheaper in Texas because those products don’t have to be piped or shipped very far. Other issues are involved also – and it would be another interesting study to see just how much the various factors contribute to end use costs, for example, lower taxes in Texas (probably many nearby states also), fewer botique mixes, etc., but that’s off on a tangent. The point is that if there were a refinery up north, I would suspect it would lower costs for those in the north including a few major metro areas like Chicago & Seattle. Depending on location maybe California too?
    As a nation, e.g., broad national interests and security, it seems to me that just having the backup that’s out of the line of hurricanes, AND that’s newer and so hopefully less prone to outages, would be a massive factor in favor of northern siting… but the ins and outs of the number of refineries and exact locations and aging risks aren’t something I’m knowledgable about – or even how much end product is shipped vs. piped. Impression I have on refineries anyhow is that there are a handful or less, roughly speaking all pretty close to each other.
    But these sorts of things are the very issues I’d sure love to see a summary or relatively short report on – caveot, unbiased one(s) based on some solid background research into both pros and cons of each involved issue!
    1. Cost of building refinery vs. pipeline, & associated costs of land purchases/right of ways, etc.
    2. How difficult or easy & costs aspects associated with distribution from a new northern refinery vs. adding significant quantities to existing southern system.
    3. Is aging an issue with existing refineries?
    4. Would a new refinery be significantly more efficient either in terms of output, waste products, or operating costs, etc., or is the technology/state of knowledge for refining about the same as that used in existing refineries?
    5. How much eminent domain would have to be used to pipe across the nation?
    And so on. :0)

  132. @ Nuke says: August 22, 2011 at 6:22 am

    Here you go again, trying to inject “sense” into the energy debate.
    Actually, it’s not a bad idea, if you can get around all the regulatory burdens. But even if you do build a refinery in say, Montana, you still need pipelines to get the refined product distributed.

    Thanks! :0)
    Both of your points are good ones of course. Aspects that I’d love to see compared… I wonder if the regulatory burdens are actually worse for a refinery vs. piping across the nation & x number of states… and how easy or difficult it would be to site one up north relatively close to source, and tag into existing distribution lines. Or if a boatload of new lines would still need to be built just as you suggest.
    That’s the thing, I’ve seen a number of articles about the pipeline (actually probably more about protesters, really), and they’ve mentioned some of the problems with building it – but I haven’t seen articles that have even mentioned the possibility of building a refinery up there. Admission: I haven’t gone looking either, just pondered the idea a bit. It just seems from the mainstream media that the idea hasn’t even been considered & things just defaulted to a pipeline… You’d think if there had been any real suggestion of building a refinery near the source, or cost benefit analyses of issues involved for a pipeline vs. refinery that someone in the MSM would have picked up on it, even if just to utterly bash the obviously insane idea of building a new wicked refinery to create all that eeee-vil gasoline!! /lame attempt at humor

  133. @ Jay Neumark says: August 22, 2011 at 5:42 am

    PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING ON MARIA…
    It is very apparent to me that Maria is a BOT.

    Interesting thought. There must be some way to determine one way or the other. Anyone know how? I’ve no idea how sophisticated bots can be made these days… but if there is a good detection method, it’d sure be good to use and I’m pretty sure Anthony would ban ’em asap if the detection method was fairly sound.
    Frankly, using them without up front clear identification is about as immoral, unethical, and dirty as you can get as far as I’m concerned.

  134. Maria –
    may return after some sleep, so:
    Yes, a 3000 mile pipeline could be of interest to terrorists. So, one would assume, are the existing natural gas, gasoline, and oil pipelines that are in total many times that in lenght. You would then have to include the transmission grid EHV circuits which easily exceed that in total lenght, the rail network, microwave repeating stations, natural gas compression stations, etc. Are you arguing that no new infrastructure of similiar function should be built because such might be tempting to terrorist?
    Is your concern that of recovering the oil from the sands, the proposed pipeline, or that the recovered oil will be used?
    If it is the recovery, I would postulate that had Alberta begun a project of removing the oil sands and reforesting the areas affected, no one outside the immediate area would have even heard of the work.
    If it is the pipeline, what is the proplem? There are thousands of similiar pipelines all over much of North America. Are they a proplem sufficent enough to be abandoned?
    If it is that the oil recovered is to be used, rest assured that if the XL is blocked, the oil will be transported to the West coast and then to Asian markets. Which is more efficient?
    I’ll leave any comments as to the mining and reclamation effects of oil sands to those who are closer to the areas and have first-hand information.

  135. “the climate change we are seeing right now is faster than any in the known history of Earth
    Bzzzzt! (a) Records go back only 100 years or so for most places (more for a very few). (b) The vast majority of places on this earth have no climate/temperature records for any length of time before satellite records. (c) Satellite records go back what – 20 or 30 years? (Others more knowledgable than I am please jump in with better numbers.)
    Bottom line is we have only anecdotal evidence for climate history for most of the time humans have lived on this earth (sorry, I don’t believe you can extrapolate the climate history of an entire region from the rings of one old tree).
    What we DO have now is better and more records from more places. To our detriment, something that was a local event 50 years ago is now considered international news in the quest to fill the 24-hour “news” maw on a bazillion channels.
    But thanks for playing, Maria.

  136. Keith, I gather that protests aren’t legal in the park (next to? surrounding?) the White House because of the security risks. Regardless, there is no question that these protestors knew before they began that the spot they chose was illegal – that’s why they selected it, so they would get arrested and get the publicity. The organizers had been in contact with the police before the protest began, and were told that it was illegal and they would be arrested if they protested in the park.

  137. “That is the natural state of the area. It’s not a beautiful natural environment to start with.”
    Hmm, not beautiful. Needs to be “cleaned up”. “Naturally contaminated” (oxymoronic). Why is the human sense of “beautiful” at all appropriate? They sound like weasel words to justify an otherwise act of desparation as the cheap sources of oil disappear. If there is no “peak oil”, why are these costly sources being exploited now? What flora and fauna are unique to these places, that may be lost forever as humans continue to “beautify” the “naturally contaminated”? (But isn’t the beautification just an unneccesary extra cost of extraction, if it was that ugly, why not leave it ugly?)

  138. What to say? It seems mentioning Hansen (who you seem to be convinced is a political activist, despite his repeated statements that he has voted at various points in his life for Democrat, Republican and independent candidates) was red rag to a bull for this forum. You believe me to be ‘brainwashed,’ a ‘bot,’ a ‘troll bot,’ preaching’ and lacking in evidence. The majority of you (some exceptions), in turn, have been patronising, ‘funny,’ lacking in evidence and convinced of the righteousness of your point of view. Some of the ‘facts’ that have been quoted for my benefit are seriously questionable. I will continue to look at my world and search for truths and realities. To the commentor that quoted Socrates famous quote – it’s funny as I was thinking that last night as I fell asleep. You have given me things to think about, and I hope you may also re-examine your own thinking and knowledge for gaps and other possibilities. Good luck. Maria.

  139. Maria,
    Unfortunately, you suffer from cognitive dissonance. No matter how many contrary facts are produced, you remain a Hansen sycophant [servile flatterer].
    James Hansen has been so totally wrong in his crazy predictions that he cannot be taken seriously by reasonable people. Every one of his predictions has been proven to be wrong. The question is: why do you still worship Hansen’s deluded prognostications? Are you so much in need of a daddy figure?

  140. Disappointing to see the overt political tone here on an issue that should be apolitical, and no less disappointing to read the personal attacks and snark in the comment section.
    With that being said, don’t jump into the lion’s den and cry when bitten. A compelling argument will find ears; but talking points and a cheap martyrdom benefits nobody.

  141. @ Costard says: August 22, 2011 at 8:30 pm
    ?? A article about activist protesters chosing to stage their protest where it is illegal in order to get arrested for the subsequent publicity…. is supposed to have apolitical comments? Oooo-kaaaayyyy, I’m afraid I don’t quite get that one.
    Then someone shows up after a whopping handful of posts from others, and launches in with a rant calling everyone who happens to hold a different opinion than theirs, insane madmen who’s discussions are nothing but rubbish and who must either have no children of our own or apparently be so callous as to take/allow actions that do our own and everyone else’s children implied severe harm…. all without any effort at discussion or supporting facts or anything along those lines.
    Those sorts of posts aren’t a little understandably snark or shame worthy?
    The subject of the article itself – activists who think it’s great to break laws, disrupt other folks lives a bit, cost tax payers money, tie up the police and judicial system, and cause a national security risk just so they can get some national news coverage rather than going about debating and making their points legally like the rest of us – and suddenly they’re upset that they’ll be held safely and reasonably comfortably (food, shelter) over the weekend instead of for a few hours….
    That’s not a bit understandably snark or shame worthy?
    Gotta say, I’m just not following you there.
    This WUWT den of lions are generally pussy cats, happy to play and even gently roughhouse a little with all who appear no matter their point of view — and we lap up good debate, facts, science… but I’d say you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said:

    With that being said, don’t jump into the lion’s den [smack us around, and then] cry when bitten. A compelling argument will find ears; but talking points [and unfounded accusations] and a cheap martyrdom benefits nobody.

    Ok, so I couldn’t resist a little addition that seemed entirely appropriate along with a bit of emphasis. :0)

  142. Maria says:
    I will continue to look at my world and search for truths and realities.
    That right there is your problem, though. You need to broaden your horizons but you won’t, being comfortable with your cherished Warmist Beliefs. Oh, and BTW, skeptics/climate realists come from many and varied political backgrounds, and many, if not most used to at least assume that CAGW was true before actually delving into it, and discovering that there were indeed holes in it big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

  143. Sometimes I wish I wasn’t a skeptic. It seems that some skeptics are quite nasty people. Some of you guys need to go and tuck your ugly in because it is hanging out all over these comments. Warmists may be deluded and wrong, but at least they are NICE. Sometimes I really wish I could turn my brain off and join them. It must be wonderful to be a committed believer devoted to the cause fighting for the future of the planet along with all the other dewey eyed idealists. Instead I find myself stuck here rubbing shoulders with a bunch of people some of whom seem to be borderline fascist nutjobs to judge from some of the comments.

  144. Ian H says:
    Warmists may be deluded and wrong, but at least they are NICE.
    Huh? Oh, that was just sarcasm. Never mind. Ha-ha, good one.

  145. Ian H says:
    Warmists may be deluded and wrong, but at least they are NICE.
    ==============
    Nice like Ben Santer wanting to beat up Pat Michaels?
    Nice like Romm, Suzuki and Gore?
    Nice like the video producers who want to blow up sceptics?
    Nice like ‘voodoo science’ Pachauri?
    And what can one say of the warmist bloggers that inhabit the Romm, RC and Gaurdian pages? Nothing but a contiunuous stream of excoriation comes out of their mouths. I suppose, compared to them, Romm and Suzuki are quite nice.

  146. To the ‘lions’ out there… I’m thinking you’re a little more like the moose that chased me when I was canoeing the Allagash a few years ago… not so scary because of moose issues with swimming. So no crying on my part as yet. And martyrdom?! Come on. You can do better than harping on as if I’ve set myself up as a martyr. I haven’t. This is just boring, failsafe (for this community) rhetoric. From this thread, it’s pretty clear that it’s not me that has ‘cherished beliefs’ that I’ll stick too regardless. Up your game!

  147. [We recommend you address the (polite) and scientifically-backed answers to your assumptions and hyped-up charges of a false CAGW premise, rather than a screaming rant at other readers.]
    Having said that, are you sure you know how many people are injured by large herbivores each year? Or, in your wilderness fantasy, do you think you were actually safe from injury or death because the moose can’t swim “well” ?

  148. Now I’m laughing! ‘Polite’?! I’m quite polite mostly and this has been far from that! You know, I was tired out yesterday but today I am super alive and I can honestly say that – apart from my very first post written quickly after reading the first comments on this thread – I haven’t been the one doing the ‘screaming rant’ing. There hasn’t been too much scientific evidence on this thread – I should be able to go back through and address the specific points that were raised this weekend. It seems that many here expect to bully me into assuming a cloak (manufactured by them) of lunatic, quasi-religious, global warming activism so they can stand back and feel assured that they are reasonable, pragmatic and intelligent in their assumed positions. Moose can run at a frightening speed but can’t swim too fast. So, in deep enough water – the Allagash is a real river not a ‘wilderness fantasy’ (who has those?!) – I felt pretty safe at a paddle. Different situation entirely at another part of the river where the water was far more shallow and we came across a moose stood in the middle of the channel.

  149. Having spent eons in the wilderness, I am confused by “environmentalists” who believe the earth is frail. The reality is that civilization is what is frail. The earth seems capable of recovering quite rapidly from any scarring we could do ( where did all that Gulf oil go?). Man could be mowed down by any number of naturally occurring events, and the earth would carry on business as usually. I have been in my tent many nights facing the realization that I may not be on top of the food chain at that particular location. I am afraid that people like Maria have it backwards. Enjoy the comforts your parents and grandparents worked so hard for, as it could vanish in a flash.

  150. @ Maria says: August 23, 2011 at 6:59 pm & August 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm
    Moose issues with swimming? Apparently moose are quite good swimmers – can swim over 6 mph for 2 hours straight, hold their breath for over a minute, have been filmed swimming under canoes, etc. Sure, that’s nothing compared to the 35+ mph they can run on land, but it’s sure not too shabby for swimming – world record human swimmers for distances like 50 meters & 100 meters are a fraction of 5 mph.
    As to how ‘polite’ you are and how little ‘ranting’ you’ve been doing compared to others… let’s say we do give you your first outrageous screaming post as a mulligan. In your second we are treated to your opinion that in effect we’re all cowards unwilling to face the ‘fact’ that our lifestyles are unsustainable forever ad too stupid to see the consequences. Unlike us, you in your infinate wisdom accept the clear facts and scientific concensus. You then proceed to list all the utterly dire catastrophic consequences that will certainly occur, and inform us that Gaia is unable to support even the current population (there is NO food shortage on the Earth, by the way, only problems of distribution, and no natural resource that has been depleted). You go on to tell us that you, apparently also unlike us, read, think and feel, and that we apparently feel zero responsibility towards our own children born or unborn. From that foundation you say “I can only conclude that we need to radically rethink our lives and how our world works. I would rather not see mass war, death, and horror. I would rather we try to find a new way forward that doesn’t involve causing more destruction” You then tell us yet again how unthinking and unfeeling we are, how we are just selfish slugs dead set (no pun intended) on maintaining the status quo above all other considerations including the lives and well being of our offspring and decendants. You inform us that the blatantly activist Hansen is “resolutely non-partisan” (I think we were all a bit gobsmacked by that one!). Upon which you inveigh all us lowly lazy blind people to come to Jesus and start searching for the solution.
    I see less than zero need to continue deconstructing your other posts.
    So, aa, other than your first post, you are oh so polite & you don’t do screaming rants (much?) – not even in your last post August 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm, where of course, the very phrase: ‘screaming rant’ing. [sic] was introduced to this thread.
    I suggest you take a read thru your own posts once again, so you can disabuse yourself of the notion that it was only your first post that has been a bit, shall we say, ‘extreme.’
    I will leave you with one final thought – when your posts generate such similar responses from so many different people, you might try coming down off your high horse and considering that rather than all of us from all over the world being single minded ‘believers,’ and you the only reasonable person, there is one factor in common – YOUR ATTITUDE AS DISPLAYED IN ALL OF YOUR POSTS.

  151. Maria, when you said “It seems mentioning Hansen […] was red rag to a bull for this forum”, you should have said “red flag”, that would have been a nice touch. However, it wasn’t the mention of Hansen, it was your praise of him that made many of us seriously worry about you being taken in by that cult. Some think you have already had the botomy performed, but there might still be hope for you, since you do want to think for yourself.
    First you have to know who you can trust. Climategate has shown that there is a hard core of alarmists who don’t play by the rules and don’t play nice. There are a number of luke-warmers who can be respected because they do. You don’t have to take the skeptics word for anything, but they will point out where you should be looking.
    The role of propaganda is to tell you a story and get you believing it. Hollywood calls this “suspension of disbelief”. That’s fine for novels and movies, but it gets you accepting the shaky bits without questioning. The role of the skeptic/scientist is to point out the bits that do not fit reality and the mistakes.
    Anybody working on climate related policy is going to have to work extra hard to avoid having to say sometime in the future: “it seemed like a good idea at the time”.

  152. if they built a pipeline to the west coast then the tankers that haul oil from the alaskan pipeline could stop at vancouver and pick up a load to take it to southern california thus short hauling the alaskan pipeline.
    C

  153. about the 48-96 hours in jail. quite a few years ago one of the los angeles judges was awarding a young fellow 90 days in the sherman bloch house of many doors and he said that he could do that standing on his head.
    so the judge gave him another 90 to get back on his feet.
    :-)))
    C

  154. by the way maria:
    it apears as though you don’t know much about moose either. if one is chasing you you have to really irritate it so that it runs not trots. moose can trot about twice as fast as they can run as anyone that lives in moose country can tell you so getting one to run gives you a better chance of escape.
    C

  155. Oh ‘Rational Debate,’ too easy – you got your facts wrong again…
    RACookPE1978 says:
    August 23, 2011 at 7:25 pm
    [We recommend you address the (polite) and scientifically-backed answers to your assumptions and hyped-up charges of a false CAGW premise, rather than a screaming rant at other readers.]
    Maria says:
    August 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm
    Now I’m laughing! ‘Polite’?! I’m quite polite mostly and this has been far from that! You know, I was tired out yesterday but today I am super alive and I can honestly say that – apart from my very first post written quickly after reading the first comments on this thread – I haven’t been the one doing the ‘screaming rant’ing.
    Rational Debate says:
    August 23, 2011 at 10:17 pm
    So, aa, other than your first post, you are oh so polite & you don’t do screaming rants (much?) – not even in your last post August 23, 2011 at 8:25 pm, where of course, the very phrase: ‘screaming rant’ing. [sic] was introduced to this thread.

  156. Bruce Cobb says: They are breaking the law, and they know it.
    What law have they broken?
    Bruce Cobb says: That way lies the road to fascism.
    My grandparents have seen what fascism is and you know nothing about it. Enjoy your right ot be a moron.

  157. Nice post Toto.
    Pk, I suspect it wouldn’t be feasible to shift to tanker for the volumes they’d be dealing with, that a pipeline to the refinery would make more sense… and I’d wonder if they’ve got the ability to even pipe sufficient crude from S. Cal. to Tx refineries… if not, it’d just be trading a cross country pipeline running N/S from Canada to Tx for one that runs W/E from Cal. to Tx (believe me, having driven it before, that’s a VERY VERY long way – and you have to cross the Rocky Mountains, which would take a lot of pumping power to hike it up the mountains, and then probably mechanisms to actually slow it down and control it on the other side).

  158. @ Maria says: August 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm
    Aw, gee, my bad, I was off about who said screaming rant first, abject apologies.
    I note you failed to address the far more pertinent aspects of my post – any of them.

  159. Tony Mach says:
    August 24, 2011 at 2:58 pm
    What law have they broken?
    Do you know what civil disobedience means? Look it up.
    My grandparents have seen what fascism is and you know nothing about it
    Do you know what a road is? In this sense, it is a metaphor (big word, I know) for a way towards something. Stay in school.

  160. rd:
    who said anything about pumping it to texas, we’d burn it in southern california. thats where almost all of the alaskan oil goes anyway.
    we have one, out of several, tanker berths in the long beach harbor that the Exxon Valdez (under another name) calls at to discharge about every 16 days, that particular berth off loads that vessel in about 18 hours. within two hours they have another tanker of like size in and pumping. whoever does the scheduling is really good at it as the tanker people figure that a lost hour is worth about $10,000 these days.
    C

  161. @Pk, I’d think (hope) that we’d import more than could be burned just in SoCal…. any idea how much you folks import from other than Alaska, vs. send out to the rest of the USA? I think S. Nv has single pipeline incoming from SoCal that provides pretty much everything, but beyond that have no idea…. Also I’m sure you’re spot on about how efficient and fast tankers can be offloaded – but would still think that it would be cheaper and able to transfer more using continuous flow thru pipe rather than ocean going tanker transefer – but I’m just assuming, haven’t got any facts to back that up.

  162. we only import about 15 %. the rest is home grown. around bakersfield, seal beach, huntington beach, and santa barbara.
    go to the oil drum.com for good stuff.
    c

  163. Ken Harvey says:
    August 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    I am in awe of your patience. Replying rationally to such hand-wringing nonsense is beyond almost all of us. Thx!

  164. Sad part is that I’m agreeing with Grampa Simpson (Soylent Green remake) and enjoying protesters getting arrested by the cops. I wish that gas retailers would refuse to dispense gas to some folks, so that they would appreciate what fossil fuels have done for civilization.

  165. rd:
    the august national geographic has a few pages and graphics on the already existing lng pipeline that extends from an already existing port on the west coast to the great plains where the tar sands are.
    the controversy about the proposed pipeline is because the great distribution system to the east coast (initially buiilt in WWII to avoid german uboats sinking tankers on the coast route) starts in texas/louisana and then extends northeast serving a great share of the united states east of the misssisssisssissippi and some of it west of that river also.
    C

  166. rd:
    you are a bit off when you speak of continous flow.
    fluid flowing through a pipe or reasonable facsimile looses velocity because of friction against the pipe walls. this is expressed in total loss of flow in GPM for a given distance. (usually per foot) when it goes through a fittiing (like a valve, close 90 degree elbow…) it also looses flow. this is expressed as the equivilent loss in straight pipe. ( a 90 degree globe valve has a value of about ~2.5) ……..
    the upshot of this is that they have to have pumping stations every so often (maybe 150 mile intervals) depending on a lot of things like viscosity, temperature, change in elevation, sediment in the line…..
    yes if you pump fluid up a mountain 5000 feet and let it come back down on the other side you will get a return, but about 80% is considered to be really good.
    by the way most of the pumping stations (especially for natural gas) burn the product they pump through the line in their prime movers.
    C

  167. Sorry, pk, you’re crazy! The only time a pipeline “looses” flow is when it bursts or springs a big leak.
    But friction can cause it to lose flow.
    ;P

  168. ok i have an old keyboard that loses g every once in a while so maybe it picks up and o occasionaly.
    maybe i should have said that flow slows down.
    what happens is that the more friction that occours the higher the load on the pump (in the case of a centrifical pump) until flow stops. if the resistance becomes so great that the flow stalls then the pump unloads and actually runs at about 105% rpm and about 110% pressure with a lower amount of power drawn.
    c

  169. Yeah, someone who develops frictionless pipe liners will save the world a bundle!
    In the meantime, we just need to make sure that all pipes run downhill. >:-)

  170. @ Rocky Road
    “Because when I “take a close, objective look at the science of climate change” as you suggest, I see a bunch of people like Hansen and Gore and Mann and Jones… all psuedo scientists, ideologues, or grant chasers than don’t dare debate or show their data. When their papers are challenged, they want to sue or obfuscate or throw temper tantrums or go picket some power plant that provides them electricity.”
    For one.
    When you take a close objective look at science, you should see science, not people.
    This seems like the very definition of an argumentum ad hominem.
    Other than that, you seem unable to distinguish between a politician (Gore) and actual scientists.
    If you think the scientists in this list don’t show their data or refuse debate, you’re unaware of the scientific method. These people have spent their whole career sharing data and engaging in debate – with other experts.
    And about scientists picketing power plants, of course you mean Hansen. Name one other climate scientists who has ever done such a thing. I think that tells you a lot about their desire to stick to the science and not take any public position about policy.
    It’s unfortunate that you associate science with ideology, fraud and harassment. Maybe, what you see depends on the glasses you’re wearing…

Comments are closed.