Is the Green race a race from energy dependence.

Alarmists have no meat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Why not pipe it to Vancouver and ship it from there? The Worlds your market then. No need to be reliant on Uncle Sam. 

Exactly!

If the world markets are so hot for diluted bitumen from Alberta, why is Canada selling any crude oil to the refineries in NW Washington State?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Wells said:

The fact that the IPCC call climate science settled is also very telling.  They don't want to discuss it. 

The problem you have is that you continue to make nonsensical claims.

The 5 IPCC Reports to date link to many thousands of papers underpinning climate science findings.  Climate science does not stop between their Reports, and more and more peer reviewed climate science papers are available each day.

Aside from those papers, the many areas of science that reflect aspects which have a climate footprint are in conference at national and international levels.  To be unaware is to be hiding under a rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

Exactly!

If the world markets are so hot for diluted bitumen from Alberta, why is Canada selling any crude oil to the refineries in NW Washington State?

The pipeline expansion has been has been delayed for years by paid eco-warriors paid by the Tides foundation.  Tides is funded by the Rockefeller brothers among others.  The US has a vested interest in keeping Alberta oil landlocked as the USA is the only customer (except for the 300,000 barrels per day going through the current pipeline to Vancouver).   Keeping the oil landlocked serves two purposes:  USA get alberta oil at a steep discount and alberta oil doesn't affect world price, at least not directly.  The USA exports as much oil as it imports from Canada.  In affect buying our oil cheap, then reselling it.  Selling oil to the Washington state refineries is at world prices because there is competition for it on the coast.  The pipeline just doesn't have the capacity.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Red said:

Yes, too many.  I tried hard to find a single point he made which was close to reality, so preferred not deal with such ignorance. 

Some posters here are so clueless about climate they would be better employed in a circus where there clownishness has real value.

 

Yes. A learning lesson here is about the perils of feeding the Trolls. 

 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

Again, all emotion, no facts.  Attack the person, no discussion on the flawed science.  Please add meat to your argument.  The fact that the IPCC call climate science settled is also very telling.  They don't want to discuss it.  They always refuse public debate.  What are they hiding from.  Use facts, not slander.  I've been looking at both sides and the alarmist side is never equal.

Please explain the radiative forcing affect of this  12.86 year cycle? You appeared earlier to be purporting this as a major factor in climate change but after asking you several times you sill haven't put any 'meat' on your claim. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

With rising CO2 in the atmosphere plants grow faster  and are healthier.   Our food also grows faster.  Just saying.  I think there is a multitude of solutions to solve our dependency on fossil fuels.  Choosing just one would be like putting all your eggs in the same basket.  Diversity is good.  

 

Can you please explain how rising CO2 levels address other factors critical to  plant growth notably micronutrient depletion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

With rising CO2 in the atmosphere plants grow faster  and are healthier.   Our food also grows faster.  Just saying.  I think there is a multitude of solutions to solve our dependency on fossil fuels.  Choosing just one would be like putting all your eggs in the same basket.  Diversity is good.  

 

This University article (along with many other studies) would suggest otherwise

https://science.gu.se/english/News/News_detail/increased-carbon-dioxide-levels-in-air-restrict-plants-ability-to-absorb-nutrients.cid1309352

Even if plants grow faster they have lower levels of Protein. 

 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 192 U.N. ambassadors need to get thrown out of the United States, but take them to the NYC DVM to pay their parking tickets first and then drive them to JFK to catch a plane out of here.  What gave these elitist parasites a right to tell any country what to do on climate change or otherwise.  China and India?  The biggest polluters on the planet.  All of the 192 countries that are members of the UN need to worry about their own countries.  But, unfortunately, they don't really seem to give a rats about that.  Just another money grabber with their eyes on the U.S. Treasury.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites