Retired NASA GISS chief James Hansen is Slagging Canada’s Oil Sands Again
Canada’s Environment *Resources Minister Joe Oliver is calling out Jim Hansen for exaggerating claims that the oil sands and Keystone XL pipeline is “game over for the environment.”
“A retired NASA scientist is exaggerating when he claims Canada’s oil sands development is an environmental scourge, federal environment minister Joe Oliver said on Wednesday.
“It does not advance the debate when people make exaggerated comments that are not rooted in the facts. And [scientist James Hansen] should know that,” Oliver told reporters in Washington, D.C., CBC reported.”
Read more:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/25/natural-resources-minister/
Story submitted by WUWT reader John Marincic
* John Marincic adds at 2013/04/25 at 12:51 pm in comments
Anthony, when I posted this NP had him as the Environment Minister. He is the Natural Resources Minister and NP changed the title on me. If you want to correct the post please be my guest.
Thx, John
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I had forgotten to mention: there’s a good book by the name of “Ethical Oil: The Case For Canada’s Oil Sands” which makes the moral case for the development of Canada’s Oil sands using the human rights records of producing countries as a criteria for comparison. A highly recommended read. Author Ezra Levant is usually controversial (and quite conservative, his taping of a “human rights commission” interrogation about publishing the Mohammed cartoons is the strongest defense of free speech I’ve ever seen in a Canadian context) and tends to enrage those who disagree with him.
Thanks for the book recommendation, Mike D in Alberta.
I say, if Ezra Levant wrote it, it will be accurate and powerful.
What a hero Mr. Levant is for FREEDOM and (genuine) human rights!
“Ezra Levant [is highly persuasive and resoundingly refutes lies which] tends to enrage those who disagree with him.” {#:)]
Speaking of books… Mr. Jimbo! You need to write a book. You write with consistently exceptionally keen wit and share so MANY devastatingly incisive and often brilliantly humorous insights — you could compile it all into a great HUMOR WITH AN EDGE book. Others at WUGT are like you and should also consider this! Say… someone could COMPILE a list of the humorous and or witty posts and write a book THAT way (even a non-science major could to that…). A book that communicates the truth about science and, especially the ABSURDITY of the AGW gang, would be: 1) a morale booster and just plain entertaining to truth in science people; and 2) a way to teach truth when defenses are down.
“Pleasant words promote instruction.” Go for it! You could do a great book lecture tour — comedy is ALWAYS welcome. Like Dennis Miller on liberty and freedom; like Mark Steyn on many current issues. Yes, Jimbo, I think you are THAT good. GO FOR IT!
Rather than trying to do a comparative mass-and-energy balance, consider this question: Which product requires the government to provide massive subsidies for it to remain competive in the market place? I think we all know the answer is a little “corny”.
His Pension … current Taxpayers
His Social Security … future Taxpayers
Speeches, Books and Incidentals … various left-wing groups and audiences
The inevitable result of FDR and the Welfare State
Like Mann , Hansen does much good work for the very ideas and people they hate .
Keep them in the public spot light , keep them under pressure . Personal arrogance and massive ego’s will do the rest .
Simply the Alinsky-ite tactic of smear and attack.
You are too kind. Do you really want a laugh? Click here and here. ;O)
I just wrote a post criticizing warm-mongers for using the term ‘calling out’ to stifle debate, then found this article on a skeptical site using it. http://www.rodmclaughlin.com/-calling-out—-obama-supporters-use-maoist-techniques-to-stifle-debate
Hansen is a liar.
I am not obligated to listen to liars.
“It does not advance the debate when people make exaggerated comments that are not rooted in the facts. And [scientist James Hansen] should know that,” Oliver told reporters in Washington, D.C.”
Since when have the facts mattered to the likes of Hansen?
Jimbo says:
April 25, 2013 at 4:08 pm
On Hansen and runaway warming Venus style:
“Some thresholds that all would consider dangerous……………..
Dr. James Hansen has Venus on the brain. I’m sure he suffers from nightmares about it.
________________________________
Perhaps, merely, Venus envy?
If Hansen was told once, he was told a million times to stop exagerating………
“…want a laugh? Click here and here. ;O)” [Jimbo]
Wow, GREAT RESEARCH! What a treasure trove of “this is your mind on climatology.” Thanks for sharing.
Say, (ahem, clear throat and yell so my tiny science-midget voice can be heard) ANTHONY! WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT A “HUMOR” TAG? I looked and couldn’t find one — it would come in your alphabetical list right after HANSEN. Haw, haw, haaaaa!
Janice it’s below but not a tag but a category.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/humor/
The novelty of Hansen’s bizarre pronouncements will wear off soon, especially now that he is no longer with NASA. I predict that Hansen will be ignored within another year or two.
Hansen who?
Because a politician< a resources minister, opened his yap? Hardly.
If politicians exist to do one thing, it's collect taxes. Anything that threatens to reduce existing tax revenue miffs them.
Hansen and AGW may both be a joke, but this is very yawn-inspiring.
Christoph Dollis:
I am surprised that you fail to see the yawning chasm in the logic of your post at April 27, 2013 at 12:54 am.
It says
If the objective of the politician is to “collect taxes”
so a rebuttal of a justification for taxation “miffs” him,
and AGW is one such justification
then the politician would not make such a rebuttal.
But he did.
Clearly, according to your argument, the politician having “opened his yap” indicates that either AGW is no longer a justification for taxation or AGW has been supplanted by a greater political priority.
I would find that gob-smacking and not “yawn-inspiring”.
Richard
As long as the ‘clean up’ of the natural environment will include massive tailings pools i am sure there is nothing to worry about. Why be cautious with irreversible actions? Consider all the primal cultures that reverie the natural world and develop spirituality to co-exist; what suckers they were, now with science we can rationalize consumptions without conscience and the “sky is the limit”. I am glad we have progressed to be ruled by that which is most important…
It never occurred to me that the deposit has affected the flora and fauna for eons, wow, how can there be a downside to ripping it out of the land and tying up one of the biggest water-sheds on the planet with new ‘lakes’. Seems like humans are just helping out mother nature again (still) to develop and evolve.
I am just glad that corporations are in charge. What could go wrong?
@Kajajuk, by your own logic “It never occurred to me that the deposit…..”
There can be no ill effects down stream of the oil sands, obviously all eco systems north of the deposit must be evolved to need these natural toxins, so any accidental spills would be beneficial.
Every spring, before the Bennett Dam was built, the spring floods ripped great chunks of these deposits out of the Peace River banks, contaminating the entire watershed out to the Beaufort Sea.
So obviously all indigenous peoples health problems are the opposite of your conjecture, therefore bathing in the bituminous wastes is the wonder cure.
PS I hope you comprehend sarcasm.
The natural (i.e. slow and driven by erosion and other SLOW geologic processes) pollution is a boundary stress on habitats. Evolution has been to exclude and minimize exposer…a noteworthy strategy.
Thanks for the humor link, Jimbo. And thanks for not making a joke about my slovenly research into its whereabouts.
I still think you should write that book!
Kajajuk says: “erosion and other SLOW geologic processes”
Yeah, the following is pretty slow (NOT!).
“Every spring, … floods ripped great chunks of these deposits out of the Peace River banks… .” [John Robertson, 4/27/13, 0937]
Relative:
fast is to the sheeple and slow is to the mountains ebb
Relative II:
At an average of 1.25 million barrels a day of extracted crude requires 2.50 million tones of oil sands (that is metric tons) per day.
How many million years of floods is that?
“These industry-made impoundments now contain 187 billion gallons of sludge that includes phenols, arsenic, mercury, cancer-makers such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fish-killing naphthenic acids.”
So big you can see it from space…one of the biggest man-made structures on Earth…a modern marvel…