So like uh, an oil pipeline has something to do with climate change? New one on me for sure.
He’s too busy making beastiality legal and celebrating Castro as a hero , to do other things right now. What a wingnut we have leading this country. He actually helped passed a law saying it wasn’t illegal to have relations with certain animals, using certain acts. You can’t make this stuff up, check it out.
The Chinese nick-named him Little Potatoes…Should have been Cornholius
This is our Trudeau gov’t at work
Would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that court room watching them try to hash out the logistics of “penetration”. Add this to the liberal melt down list of 2016..
Actually you can make this stuff up and you just did. I suggest you read up on how our justice system works, the role of various courts, who actually makes judgements in cases and the role of parliament in creating and passing legislation.
Once you do that, revisit the case you are talking about and try and understand what is actually going on.
Co2 followed warming and cooling by 500-800 years, no they have it reversed around and it is the driver
these pipelines will get the go ahead.
No one says no to big oil business..
Justin can justify it by saying that they have a clean up program in place now, even though they will never be able to clean up a large spill….
the Exxon Valdez spilled its load march 24,1989 and it still isn’t totally cleaned up and a burst pipeline will create a much bigger mess.
Does this “yes man” Justin care, we shall see….
WARNING: The following comment contains scientific facts which are presented in the form of a University study on the climate impacts a Northern Gateway Pipeline would have on our environment, and global atmosphere!
“The Northern Gateway Pipeline Project alone would export 525,000 barrels per day of diluted bitumen or synthetic crude oil. Over the life of the project, which is expected to be 40 years.”
“Using life-cycle analysis estimates of GHG emissions from oil-sands derived fuels (5, 6), we calculate that the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project would facilitate “well-to-wheels” GHG emissions of 100 MtCO2eq/yr (best estimate), with a range of 84 to 102 MtCO2eq/yr (see Appendix for details on the calculations). Emissions of 100 MtCO2eq/yr are equivalent to 150% of British Columbia’s 2009 GHG emissions of 67 MtCO2eq (7). They also correspond to 14% of Canada’s 2008 emissions, and are almost equivalent to Canada’s entire 2008 electricity sector (120 MtCO2eq) (3).”
With the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project’s total well-to-wheel carbon emission impact of 150% of BC’s entire 2009 Green House Gas emissions, and 14% of Canada’s entire 2008 Green House Gas emissions, it is obvious Canada will not be meeting our Green House Gas emission reduction targets as we promised the world at the Paris Climate Accord Summit.
So can you show where there are any scientific facts, provable, verifiable facts that mans minuscule c02 contribution affects climate? No no not what some rent seeking greedy scientist says, but the proof, show the proof.
With Trump in hopefully the warmers gravy train will come to an end.
Of coarse they are going to be okayed . By the time they are built or shortly after they will be as valuable as horses and oxen were when the horseless carriage was ten years in the making . Isn’t it ironic that at a time like now that producing countries are desperate to slow down production canada wants to ramp it up . Some how adding more product is going to be good for prices as demand falls .
Line 3: Approved.
Trans Mountain: Approved.
Northern Gateway: Not approved. Besides I think the writing is on the wall for this project..They essentially buried it in red tape with the environmental conditions as well the based on the court decision it poses a huge risk to First Nations consultation.
carbon and CO2… 14 trillion in hidden tax havens and lord knows how much money is being generated from it. Until it is illegal to make money off of it no truths will come out.
Have you ever heard the term revenue neutral ? Do you know how that works and where the money goes ? Instead of making things up , look the things that excite you up and read . Follow the money yes . Fantasize about the money no .
Essentially that is my message. When I spoke at COP21 (the United Nations climate change conference in Paris in 2015) that was my message. It was not necessarily well received (laughs) because a lot of government officials think that this whole thing is happening because of them. But some governments did get it, especially in Northern Europe, some governments have already unbundled utilities—historically Australia and New Zealand. Chile does not subsidize anything directly or indirectly. So you are starting to see really high growth in solar in Chile. Yes, they have great sunshine but also the government does not subsidize anybody and therefore the least cost option gets to win. And right now solar is the least cost option.
It is cheaper than anything—cheaper than gas, cheaper than oil, cheaper than coal, cheaper than anything. I mean it is still going down. In Abu Dhabi 2.4 cents. That’s half of the cost of coal. This is from an interview of Tony Seba’s by foundingfuel.com I say pipe lines yes . Subsities for energy companies no .
You have to remember that the numbers you quote previously are selling price, not the price to produce or even the price to the end user. Chile and Dubai do not own the solar installations but rather own the utility and distribution or parts of it. The utility sells to the consumer, the installation sells to the utility much like our BC Hydro IPP program. Sometimes the installation firm or coalition is looking to increased power costs as a long term strategy to make the project viable, maybe lose money hand over fist for the first term and then start to make some money down the road when prices go up.
They (Dubai) are hoping to achieve 8 cents per kWh to the utility (US of course) in their new 40 square kilometer CSP and solar park (4,000 hectares). This is the sale price to the utility not the final sale price to the end user. Conversion rates are 0.08 USD equivalent to 29 fils – the price in 2016 was between 16 and 30 fils per kWh to users in Abu Dhabi whereas the price in 2017 is expected to be 27 to 36 fils with the added tariff (depending on peak or non-peak usage times) so solar becomes more attractive as the price nears the 8-10 cent US per kWh mark to the end user.
Essentially that is my message. When I spoke at COP21 (the United Nations climate change conference in Paris in 2015) that was my message
So you spoke at the Paris conference. Are you sure it wasn’t held on Fantasy Island? If in fact you were there, you better have paid your own way. Being there on some one else,s dime would only underscore the low caliber nutbars that attended.
It has been well established that solar and wind are not the cheapest large scale power sources. They exist because of massive subsidies paid for by consumers. Your repeated denial of that fact reinforces your lack of economic reality. One more time, what are the specific subsidies for energy producers?
By the way, care to comment on your arbitrage spread profits? Do you even know what arbitrage is? You couldn’t spell it on your previous self righteous post.
Here is your list of COP21 speakers
Dow , you have to read all the way to the end of a post to understand it . There are drugs avalible for ADD if you need that . Spell this, Higher moving dollar American dollar combined with a falling Canadian dollar rewards those with American assets . It’s simpler than it sounds . Balanced diversified portfolio wins every day .
Honeymoon is over, time to actually start governing
13:53. Kinder Morgan Approved.. Check..
13:58 Line 3 Approved..Check..
14:01: Northern Gateway..Rejected.. Check.. Lets put this one to bed now.!
Japan Leading an Unprecedented Oil and Gas Asset Buying Spree
This from NASA
Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’
The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century.
C02 increasing and temperature falling, say what. That can’t be.
That is not from NASA. That is from an article written by David Rose. Here is an article written by Caitlyn Kennedy.
“The most likely explanation for the explanation for the lack of significant warming at the earths surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles – a series of La Nina events and a negative phase of the lesser known Pacific Decadal Oscillation – caused shifts in the ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.
Who to believe, who to believe ?
Strong la Nino over the last couple of years along with positive PDO. Again I ask show me the verifiable science that man’s tiny contribution of c02 affects climate ignoring all other inputs. Oh by the way the global temperature drop is measure by satellites.
On record you say, how long is that record compared to earth or even mans history. Any thoughts on the 1930s, how about Holocene maximum, don’t forget the medieval warm period, Roman warm period all warmer than today. How did the earth warm and cool, then warm and cool again. What about human habitat being uncovered by retreating glaciers along with evidence of ancient forests being uncovered by glaciers. In mans history the oceans where 7 feet higher.
Climate changes, always changes and there is no science again no science proving mans involvement, only computer models which greatly overstate real world data.
Sorry its all about politics, money and world order.
Slow down, take a breath, where in my post did I mention cO2 levels ? I just like to contradict you and your basement blog wattsupwiththat. Have you actually looked at the average earths surface temperature graphs yourself or do you just believe everything that basement blog puts out there ? This does seem to be like a religion to you.
Digitus did you even read my post. Nothing happening now that has not happened before.
Basement blog well its the most read and cleans up with the rewards and I noticed you did not refute anything I wrote.
Oh yes temperatures has been increasing since the LIA but nothing close to the models falsely predicting.
With the suns activity decreasing, PDO over to its cool cycle, La Nino over to La Nina well new long underwear in the coming years might be a good idea.
Yes I did. I “refuted” that the article your quoting came from NASA. I also “refuted” your claim that warming has stopped. What I have not “refuted” is co2 levels or that the orangutan president elect is a douche bag.
Oh, and you didn’t write that stuff either. If you had wrote it, it would be chock full of spelling and grammatical errors.
The rise and exponential growth of renewables has nothing to do with climate change . That’s the straw man that the fossils are holding onto so hard . It’s about cheap , clean , abundant to the point of limitless energy delivered for free across the globe every day till the sun goes out . The fossils know this and they can’t compete on a level playing field .
how are renewable s free, did they manufacture themselves?
You where a presenter at the orgy in Paris???????????????????????????
So Trudeau with his carbon tax well that is just a Liberal tax. Seeing Canada only contributes 1.6% of the worlds anthropogenic c02 whats the point. Oh right the dictator admirer trying to score points with the UN while destroying our economy.
Anyhow no science showing mans c02 affecting climate.
The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A to Z — the promoters of manmade climate fears are falling short or going in the opposite direction.
Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming. The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War. Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s. Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising. Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration. Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather. So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration. A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’ 2016 Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade’ Deaths due to extreme weather have declined dramatically. Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.
Have climate change skeptics lost the climate debate?
No! Climate skepticism enjoys huge popularity in polling data, and every time a climate bill has come before the U.S. Congress it has failed to pass. There never was any real climate debate! One of the key reasons climate fear proponents don’t want to debate is what happened during a pivotal highprofile debate in 2007 in New York City, where skeptics were voted the clear winners against global warming proponents.
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized at losing that debate that he announced debates equally split between believers in a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again. And climate change promoters listened, with debates becoming rarer and rarer.
Comments for this article are closed.