Spiderfish

Bingo! It may not insulate him enough however. I have a suspicion this is not going to end with senate expenses, I think the main course is ultimately going to be an audit of all MP expenses. As we discovered last week, JT himself was found to have made some "honest mistakes" with his personal expense claims while he was on his public speaking gig.

I know of a few Senators who got canned for pulling this crap. I think there should be a full public audit of all MP and Senate expenses. These "honest mistakes" have got to stop and the MP's and Senators who can't figure out personal expenses from business expenses educated. Perhaps having to defend their actions in front of an audit committee may help them figure it out.

I was responding to what you asked, not what you meant to ask. But no worries, figures were provided on certified reclaimed, permanent reclaimed, and even temporary reclaimed for your reference. Got you covered, buddy.

I didn't label it as either. You asked the question "what has been reclaimed". You didn't ask what has been certified reclaimed, or what has been permanent reclaimed, or what has been temporarily reclaimed, just "what has been reclaimed", and you requested reference. I provided the requested reference. Then you went on this tangent about emphasis on "certified" and "permanent reclaimed", and if it isn't certified, it isn't reclaimed. You have land which has met the definition of permanent reclamation as per approved plans and is in a state of maturation. Soils are tested and tree and shrub growth is monitored for 15+ years, then application for certification is submitted. I am not refuting your argument that this land is not certified or that the process is complete. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at arguing semantics. Land that has been determined by Alberta Environment as "permanent reclaimed" has not been certified, I am not suggesting that it has been.

I don't believe I'm playing word games. It's pretty self evident, you asked how much land has been reclaimed, comprehensive data showing land defined as "reclaimed" as well as land defined as "certified" was provided, as well as an explanation of definitions and certification criteria and the expected time required to achieve the criteria set out. Your inability to accept the numbers is not my problem.

Correct, it won't be certified until it is, however reclamation work has been completed. A little further perspective from your post above:

From your post above: Permanent Reclaimed - 5,042 hectares Landform design, soil placement, and revegetation are complete (for both land and aquatic ecosystems). Companies must use local plant species to target the return of local boreal forest ecosystems. Soils are tested and tree and shrub growth is monitored for 15+ years. When ecological trends are achieved, the company can apply for reclamation certification.

I'm not negating anything, the land has been reclaimed and is maturing...It has not been certified. We can't "will" the plants and trees to grow faster.

I found it interesting looking at the breakdown by year of reclaimed land in the Sustainable Resources data set that 1580 hectares of the total 5042 hectares (or almost a third of the total land reclaimed to date) was completed between 2009 and 2012. Its unfortunate that some people don't realize that the application for certification of this reclaimed land won't even be submitted until at least 2023, and hence will refuse to accept the notion that any reclamation work of this land is complete and in a state of maturation.

The figures were provided by Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development data, if you reject the source or contents of the data that you requested, that's a problem you have with your own lack of acceptance of the data. It's interesting to note that you requested "full and complete reference detail to what has been reclaimed" which was provided, them promptly turned this request into what has been certified. You asked for complete referenced detail, it was provided. Which takes 15+ years after completion of the Landform design, soil placement, and re-vegetation. Just because certification hasn't been achieved yet, doesn't mean the area is not in state of reclamation. It just means that it hasn't met the maturity level to be certified.

What emphasis on certified? You never asked what has been certified, you asked what has been reclaimed, what has "actually been reclaimed". Certification will come on all reclaimed land, however the numbers referenced is the total amount that has been reclaimed to date according to the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development data set. The attached bar graphs are presumably meant to indicate the disparity between land which has been disturbed or cleared, and the amount which has been reclaimed. They are not likely to start reclaiming land that is currently being mined or cleared. All land that is affected by oil sands development is required to be reclaimed and will be once development is complete.

According to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development figures, its around 5,041 hectares as of Dec. 31st, 2012. An additional 1,227 hectares have been temporarily reclaimed. This represents about 8% of the total area that has been disturbed from oil sands mining to date. http://environment.alberta.ca/apps/OSIPDL/Dataset/Details/28 This information can also be found in the link posted in the op.

I have included a link to a source which you yourself have used previous since all of my links to this point have not met your threshold of acceptability/credibility . http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models No problem...I work. Your source is incredible, and seems to dwell in the interpretation of data, to which there is no link. However you yourself said earlier that: We can certainly both agree that more understanding of the implications of these studies can only be positive to our knowledge and the accuracy/revisions that may be required to the models.

My intention of including the graph was to illustrate the sketchy reliability of climate models and risk associated with depending on the results to show definitive proof. Climate models are not static and can be considered obsolete by their very nature, as any new or more detailed information requires revision of the model. This concept is considered "over the top" for some, especially those who believe the debate is over. However when stakes are so high, it seems to only make practical sense to treat any prediction with a degree of skepticism and welcome new information instead of trying to make new data fit within existing models. Thanks for providing the additional information.

Climate models are dubious by their very nature. They are an important tool, yes, but cannot be relied upon as static. As I know your fondness for colourful graphs, here’s one of the IPCC’s own predictions and comparative real world observations. The above graphic is Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The initials at the top represent the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the Second (SAR) in 1995. Shaded banks show range of predictions from each of the four climate models used for all four reports since 1990. That last report, AR4, was issued in 2007. Model runs after 1992 were tuned to track temporary cooling due to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in The Philippines. The black squares, show with uncertainty bars, measure the observed average surface temperatures over the same interval. The range of model runs is syndicated by the vertical bars. The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range. The final version of the new IPCC report, AR5, will be issued later this month. The IPCC graph shows that climate models over estimated temperature change by between 100 and 900% compared actual observed temperatures. It is refreshing, however is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination. The media tends to pay much more attention to interpretation of data than the data itself and this has been a very useful tool for those on the side of HIGW. That said, interpretation of data is important and I fail to see why it should be discouraged on either side of the debate simply because it may not fit within a particular consensus. As I stated above, Dr. Kirby’s interpretation of the data was clearly not appreciated or requested, motivating the CERN director to offer his advice to "refrain from interpretation." One has to wonder what his reaction would have been if the interpretation had supported the consensus. Many scientific organizations (possibly all of them) including the IPCC itself is not opposed to offering their interpretation of data and political ramifications that result. What’s different here that would motivate such a request by the CERN director?

I apolgize, I have been asked by the moderators not to discuss this here. There have been 161 contributions to this thread, likely a third of them have been slightly to completely off topic (including yours), however my contribution appears to have gotten the mods attention for some reason.

Are you referring to my post above? Is this thread not about an over the hill hippie rocker talking out of his ass about shit he knows nothing about, other than we have another Hiroshima on our hands? Do we not have an obligation to the op to discuss the variances between evidence and data available about GW versus the "emotional" aspect of the subject? Or are we to just give our opinion on whether or not Neil's cheese has slipped off his cracker?

Ah yes, contradictory data. It has been attempted: Global Warming Models Obsolete However, it appears the threat was quickly contained: Scientists Gagged From Interpreting Study Linking Climate Change To Cosmic Rays Lorne Gunter seems to have hit the nail on the head: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/01/lorne-gunter-the-sun-shines-some-light-on-global-warming-orthodoxy/

I believe that was Depeche Mode. Tears for Fears said that "everybody wants to rule the world".

Hypocrisy aside, comparing development in Fort McMurray to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima is just goofy and disrespectful and eliminates any credibility he may earn if he actually practiced what he preached and voluntarily reduced his disproportionally large carbon footprint.

I've already been given a warning for contributing to it. This whole thread is off-topic as it mainly revolves around a stupid American and "right wing yokel" bashing video and subsequent responses unrelated to the op but apparently certain off topic contributions are okay and some are not.

Agreed. I was referring to the goofy "stupid Americans" video unrelated to the topic.

Dangerous and improper use of firearms by inexperienced and intoxicated people just doesn't seem that amusing to me...

Who's playing the victim card? Phil isn't claiming to be a victim of anything as far as I am aware. Or is this just a general slag against 'the right'? Or maybe we can draw implication from this that 'the right' endorses the beating of homosexuals to death.

Don't kid yourself, A&E is not concerned. In fact, Phil played right into their hand. Reed Robertson alluded to this in the "I am Second" interview the family recently did: A&E was looking for fireworks and contraversy for ratings...mission accomplished. Their fake outrage is only playing it up to try and squeeze some mileage out of it, sad really. http://www.iamsecond.com/seconds/the-robertsons