How about that..... Topic

We're saving energy this summer. It's so damned cold. 
6/16/2013 1:57 PM

If you believe Keystone’s terminally-hyperbolic opponents, you would think that Keystone will alternately a) destroy the massive Ogalala aquifer, b) cause spills of oil more massive than anything the world has ever known, or c) cause the end of civilization as we know it.  Further, they want you to believe that Keystone is the only way for bitumen extracted from Canada’s oil sands to be transported to market, and that without Keystone’s northern leg, carbon emissions from refining and burning that bitumen will not happen anywhere else.

Here’s the truth:  Canada’s bitumen has been produced and transported to market for years already, some of it via pipelines that already exist, much of it via rail.  Canada’s government has made it quite clear that this bitumen will continue to be produced and transported to refineries and markets in increasing quantities regardless of what happens with the Keystone XL pipeline.  If it doesn’t go into the US via Keystone, much of it will in all likelihood be transported via an east/west pipeline to the West Coast and shipped to China.

Thus, the clear environmental consequences of refusing to allow the northern leg of Keystone to be built will be that much of this bitumen will be refined in Chinese refineries and burned in Chinese cars and factories, all of which have far lower environmental protection standards than U.S. refineries, cars and factories.  In other words, carbon emissions globally would go up, thanks to the anti-Keystone lobby.

On top of that, you have the unarguable fact that the safest, cleanest, lowest-emission way to transport oil is via underground pipelines, not trains.  Much of Canada’s bitumen currently comes into the U.S. via rail, and that will continue if Keystone is not allowed to go forward.  The environmental consequences would be a higher rate of oil spillage, higher greenhouse gas emissions, and more people injured or killed as a result of accidents.  Thank you, anti-Keystone lobby.

www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/06/20/shale-oil-gas-keystone-xl-and-climate-change-policy/

ETC:

www.cnbc.com/id/100828218

6/20/2013 2:47 PM
You are inarguably stupid and naive.
6/20/2013 5:55 PM
You must have been debate champ in middle school.
6/21/2013 12:47 PM
It's over. I've switched to the global warming side. It has to do with what the global warming scientists are saying. I don't pretend to be a global warming scientist, but I simply took their argument to it's conclusion.Forget about fracking and drilling and combustion. IT'S OVER! Life on planet earth is over because of something a few very smart global warming scientists said. It doesn't matter what we do. We're headed for extinction. And there's nothing we can do. I'll tell you all about it in my new thread. Look for COW FARTS later this evening.
6/21/2013 3:19 PM
Hey wait, who keeps on saying it doens't matter what we do, because the developing world is not going to stop spewing emissions?  Oh, that's right, this guy said it:

"Last year, the U.S. reduced its emissions by 3.9 percent. That reduction was larger than that of any other major industrialized country. In contrast, China’s carbon-dioxide output soared by 6 percent and India’s by 6.9 percent, while Brazil’s rose by 2.5 percent and Mexico’s by 4.3 percent."

www.nationalreview.com/article/351669/coal-train-chugs-along-robert-bryce
6/24/2013 9:39 AM
LMAO
6/24/2013 9:40 AM
JCockbaker logic, because everyone else is diving head first into a wood chipper, we should too. 


6/24/2013 9:45 AM
Oh no!

Alarmists Alarmed That Their Alarmist Models Might Be Wrong

Meteorologist Hans von Storch was interviewed by Der Spiegel where he acknowledges the obvious: the computer models that predict global warming might be wrong. Some excerpts:

SPIEGEL: Will the greenhouse effect be an issue in the upcoming German parliamentary elections? Singer Marius Müller-Westernhagen is leading a celebrity initiative calling for the addition of climate protection as a national policy objective in the German constitution.

Storch: It’s a strange idea. What state of the Earth’s atmosphere do we want to protect, and in what way? And what might happen as a result? Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2 into the air and thereby violates our constitution?

SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.

Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I’m driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can’t simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I’ll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.

Some act like “preachers?” I wonder what the high-priest himself — Al Gore — has to say about that one.

And on the 15-year pause in global warming:

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we’re observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

“Not pleasant for us?” Yes, but not bad for us earthlings. But it gets better. . .

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That’s how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It’s never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

No. No. No. We’ve been told, ad nauseam, that the science is settled. And politicians are asking taxpayers to fund billions of dollars of projects based on that science. No way the entire alarmist community can get away with an “Oops, our bad.”



6/24/2013 11:25 AM
Posted by occsid on 6/24/2013 9:45:00 AM (view original):
JCockbaker logic, because everyone else is diving head first into a wood chipper, we should too. 


HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THEM TO STOP?  WHEN YOU HAVE AN ANSWER, YOU IGNORANT *****, GET BACK TO ME.
6/24/2013 11:26 AM
COW FARTS!
6/24/2013 7:13 PM
Posted by bagchucker on 1/18/2013 8:51:00 PM (view original):
you been outside lately?
bump
6/25/2013 10:00 PM
6/26/2013 9:12 AM
Way to evolved to be Jclark
6/26/2013 11:27 AM
◂ Prev 1...22|23|24|25|26...28 Next ▸
How about that..... Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.