Ex-Nasa Scientist calls Canadian Conservatives 'Neanderthals.'

[waldo]

yes, as I said, another version of your junkyard dog act. Your question is as stooopid as your failing act... I could tell you anything. So what? Could you verify it? If you want to start counting, let's make this the third time now you've been asked for your scientific credentials. Tell me a story... I'll believe ya!

You could tell us that you do not, indeed, have the scientific background that would be required to have a detailed and meaningful discussion on the mathematical models or projections. I certainly don't, so asking us to have a debate on them (on an internet political forum no less) is another one of your typically moronic "citation please" sort of fall-backs. The models and predictions have needed constant updates since 1988 and the understanding of them is not nearly as good as you or Hansen like to pretend.

like I said, you're quite sensitive to anyone daring to ask you to substantiate your claims... as I also said, you have yet to offer any substantiation for anything you claim! Clearly, you're so afraid to identify your interpreted/parroted sources and/or you haven't the wherewithal to actually offer an interpretation of a linked reference you presume to parrot.

I had a look back in the thread and these are the following posts that include the word citation... one from you and two from me. One of my references to 'citation' was challenging MLW member 'Bryan' to substantiate his calling Hansen a "liar and a fraud". My other reference stated a fact; that you provide no references, no citation/substantiation, for any of your claims. I have no shortage of past MLW posts that speak to my interpretations on the reliability of models; along with showing the reliability aspects of models, I've also openly stated identified/known limitations and constraints... and as I typically do, I'm not hesitant to provide supporting reference detail. You should try it some time!

James Hansen and intelligence are not words that go in the same sentence together. The guy is a liar and a fraud. If our government is ticking him off, that all by itself means we're doing the right thing.

a liar... and a fraud? Citation request.

In terms of examples of exaggeration and alarmism, I'm not sure why you keep asking. People have brought them up over and over again and your canned 'citation please' response doesn't really count as an argument.

I'm quite familiar with your junkyard dog act having encountered it once before with your incessant ramblings over comprehension reading/writing! This version of your act is equally entertaining, particularly in that you've yet to ever substantiate anything you say... apparently, you're so scientifically qualified that you have no need to provide any form of citation/substantiation for anything you claim. By the by, what are your undeclared scientific chops, hey?

whatever understanding of models I have, I will note, again, that you refused to take-up the challenge to support your claim of "unreliable models"... quite telling, wouldn't you admit?

your clown act really is heeelarious. You make a claim and then go off-the-rails because you were asked to substantiate it. You now openly acknowledge you haven't the knowledge and understanding to support your claim... even if it's nothing more than providing a reference and an accompanying self-interpretation of that reference. You double-down with your junkyard dog act under some premise of questioning my background and whether it's adequate to have a, as you say, "a detailed and meaningful discussion"!!! With who? With you? Why, you've just openly acknowledged you don't have a required background! But don't let that ever stop you from continuing to offer your unsupported/unsubstantiated claims!

[waldo]

again, you're the only one drawing a 2050 timeline to that graph... the graph that is really intended to speak to the nonsense spewed by Harper Conservative Natural Resources minister, Joe Oliver. Perhaps you should invest some time in actually researching what Hansen has said... that would be a most refreshing change for you! Again, the crux of the concern over KXL is as much symbolic as truly enabling an increase in the reserve viability. And as I stated, twice now, Hansen hasn't put a timeframe around his estimate on the tarsands potential viability and development extension.

Well gee, another dodge. Quelle surprise! I've read plenty of Hansen's comments on the subject, including his 'end game for the climate' article in the NY times from last year, where he told us how dangerous it would be to 'fully exploit' the tar sands and release the extra 120 PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the amount equal to the total CO2 increase over the last 150 years). The graph you're presenting speaks more to the nonsense that you and Hansen are spewing than anything else. Again, I'm asking, what sort of timeline are we looking at for burning through the type of reserves that Hansen is theorizing, and what sort of expansion in development will it require from the 2020 levels of 1.8 billion barrels a day?

no dodge. Perhaps you should take the time to read what's actually written. Damn, I know Hansen's good... but do you really believe anyone could reasonably predict the rate of expansion of the tarsands, given the many local/regional/national/international influences that can affect viability. Gee, perhaps that's why Hansen hasn't put a date around it - go figure. The graph you're so upset with is quite straightforward - unless you've shifted into silly-buggar routine, I'm not sure why you have such difficulty with it. Here, let's try again:

170 billion is simply that 'smallish' viable piece today... of the total 1.8 trillion 'oil in place (OIP)'... where, as stated now several times over, viability obviously increases with infrastructure access to markets. As stated previously, Hansen has suggested a conservative estimate of 50% of the OIP (potentially) shifting into a viable categorization... without applying any date attachment to that potential. The graph itself simply includes a reference to the global CO₂ budget amount to keep within the target 2°C warming limit accepted by 167 countries via the Copenhagen Accord. You're the only one equating 2050 to tarsands usage/depletion rates... as I said, Hansen certainly hasn't attached a date to his conservative estimate of 50% OIP potentially becoming viable.

.

[waldo]

I do find it most self-serving and silly of you to presume a status-quo like production increase given there's at least a half-dozen pipelines being considered... and these are the one's we know about! You don't appear to care to read what's already been stated; however, I'll try again. Given the concern on emissions reflects upon accumulated use and (the long-tail CO2) retention is in the centuries timeframe, the crux of the problem rests in the cumulative effect of continuing to use conventional oil sources at the current rates, coupled with a massive tarsands expansion... neither of which gets the world any closer to reducing the reliance on fossil-fuels.

Good back-peddle. So I guess we can conclude that the chart is complete BS and that the tar sands are, as argued previously, a pretty small piece of the puzzle despite Hansen's scary numbers.

what I wrote certainly doesn't align with your self-serving interpretation. Again, the degree of tarsands viability is a compounding influence on the existing use of conventional sources. You either accept there's a legitimate concern over the accelerated rate of atmospheric CO₂ accumulation... or you don't. If you accept there's a concern than how does one rationalize a scenario where... even at Hansen's conservative estimate of 50% tarsands viability... tarsands expansion moves forward at unprecedented and unencumbered levels. Perhaps you'd like to address your own inconsistency - how do you reconcile your position on the tarsands with your earlier statements that raise your concern over COP agreements failing to result in needed emission reduction agreements?

[waldo]

the tarsands are, symbolically, an easy target simply based on GHG emission comparisons to conventional oil... the tarsands releases 3 times as much CO2 during the extraction process itself and GHG emissions from tarsands crude are, on average, ~25% higher than conventional oil. Hansen's emphasis, of course, is to reduce fossil-fuel usage/reliance... but to, at least for the immediacy, choose conventional over non-conventional sources of oil.

There we go. That's basically what we're looking at.

huh! Yes, it's an easy target... because it's "dirty"! Significantly dirtier than conventional sources... and it represents the 3rd largest reserve in the world. Why not just come out and state you'd like to exploit the tarsands for all its worth! Just say it!

[waldo]

I question how you balance your earlier championing the need to reduce emissions .............................with an almost unfettered zeal for the tarsands... surely you're not one of those concern-troll fake-skeptics, are you?

I question you on my "championing on the need to reduce emissions with almost unfettered zeal." You made that up!

comprehension much! I've added a visual tool for ya: ' ............................. '

[waldo]

I see you've been trying to have a rational discussion with our local zeolot Waldo who tends to huff and puff himself towards his usual narcissistic mania when rational discussion threatens to gain traction. He (or she) demonstrates the dark and destructive side of the Alarmist community - blinded to the reality that countries and governments need to work in incremental fashion to gain the momentum needed to make a difference. It's how the real world works. More and more, people are turning a deaf ear to the rantics and bluster of the Waldo-like fanatics. Adrian Dix paid the price for bowing to the radical side of the environment movement.

Simple, that's quite a personalized attack... I trust no one reports you, hey! By the by, given the untold waldo keyboard trouncings you've suffered, is attempted marginalization your latest ploy? Of course, even though you know my stated positions are exactly what you just describe... the incremental 40-50 year roadmap transitions to fossil-fuel alternatives that I've repeatedly put forward and advocated for strongly... you're so invested in your fossil-fuel protectionism, you'll now say anything!

Moving from coal to clean-coal to oil to gas to totally renewable is a sequence that will provide meaningful advances over the next 20-30 years. Look at the US - 50% of power coming from coal - not to mention China and India's dependence on the same dirty resource. Having Oil Sands oil play a role in replacing coal in the US is a step in the right direction......but politics get in the way of reducing coal usage because of jobs, jobs, jobs. But once the recession is in retreat, Obama (or whoever) should make that committment - start replacing coal with oil - or gas.

that's rich!!! "The tarsands are a bridge from coal" - oh my! Simple, here's a couple of quick factoids for ya:

- the U.S. doesn't need the tarsands... and KXL was never intended to bring the tarsands expansion to the U.S - see Asian markets!

- here's an update on China for you... please adjust your talking points accordingly!

.

[Moonbox]

like I said, you're quite sensitive to anyone daring to ask you to substantiate your claims... as I also said, you have yet to offer any substantiation for anything you claim! Clearly, you're so afraid to identify your interpreted/parroted sources and/or you haven't the wherewithal to actually offer an interpretation of a linked reference you presume to parrot.

So...again...you're not willing to qualify your brilliant and trained scientific perspective, right? Yeah. That's what I thought.

What you're asking for here, essentially, is for me to engage in a scientific debate with no qualifications of my own, against someone who has none himself, and pretend like it's going to be a productive discussion.

As I'm not an expert on climate change myself, I leave my criticism to the understanding that computer and mathematical models are only so good as their inputs, and gentleman like Hansen are working with limited (sometimes incorrect) numbers and often poorly understood variables. Add the fact that the globe hasn't warmed at all for 15 years (wasn't predicted as far as I know), and how is it surprising that anyone's skeptical about this? The fact that we have to look at longer term trends might be easier for people to swallow if guys like Hansen weren't out there saying idiotic things like the tar sands = end game, or coal trains are death trains and various other headline-worthy sensational statements.

your clown act really is heeelarious. You make a claim and then go off-the-rails because you were asked to substantiate it. You now openly acknowledge you haven't the knowledge and understanding to support your claim

The only thing that's hilarious here is how badly you wet your pants any time someone raises questions about the claims of an a-hole like Hansen. It's sad and a little pathetic how much time you're devoting to it, but it's pretty obvious that this is an overly emotional subject for you. I don't have the knowledge or understanding to have a meaningful debate on climate models, you're right, and that's precisely why I'm not prepared to do it. You, on the other hand, are more than excited to get into it, yet as far as you've been able to tell us you've zero qualifications yourself. Unfortunately, as I've mentioned before, having more time on your hands (than the rest of the board put together it seems) and obviously more emotional interest in the subject does not make you an expert on the matter! Exhausting your opponents into letting you have the last word also does not equal victory!

If you accept there's a concern than how does one rationalize a scenario where... even at Hansen's conservative estimate of 50% tarsands viability... tarsands expansion moves forward at unprecedented and unencumbered levels. Perhaps you'd like to address your own inconsistency - how do you reconcile your position on the tarsands with your earlier statements that raise your concern over COP agreements failing to result in needed emission reduction agreements?

You keep refusing to go over these numbers with me. Neither of us need to be scientists to follow them. For Canada to burn through even 50% of the tar sands over the next 50 years, we'd have to expand production by 1000% and supply half the world's current oil consumption. At present, best estimates are that we'll be able to increase Alberta production by another ~2.5 to 3 million barrels per day by 2020 (seven years from now), which will still leave us about 43 million barrels short of the daily production required to burn through those (not conservative at all) reserve estimates by 2063. Not only are these goof projections you and Hansen are hypothesizing logistically unfeasible, they completely ignore the fact that there's not going to be a market for that much Canadian oil anytime in the foreseeable future! Hansen's not going to tell anyone that, however. It's not a good headline!

Edited May 21, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

yes, as I said, another version of your junkyard dog act. Your question is as stooopid as your failing act... I could tell you anything. So what? Could you verify it? If you want to start counting, let's make this the third time now you've been asked for your scientific credentials. Tell me a story... I'll believe ya!

like I said, you're quite sensitive to anyone daring to ask you to substantiate your claims... as I also said, you have yet to offer any substantiation for anything you claim! Clearly, you're so afraid to identify your interpreted/parroted sources and/or you haven't the wherewithal to actually offer an interpretation of a linked reference you presume to parrot.

So...again...you're not willing to qualify your brilliant and trained scientific perspective, right? Yeah. That's what I thought.

What you're asking for here, essentially, is for me to engage in a scientific debate with no qualifications of my own, against someone who has none himself, and pretend like it's going to be a productive discussion.

that's what you thought? Bully! Your juvenile junkyard dog act has been exposed... several times now. Clearly you'll resort to any deflection attempt to avoid answering why you refuse to provide reference support for any of your claims.

no - I'm not asking you to debate... clearly you haven't a clue around much/most of what you claim. I'm asking you to provide reference support for your claims - something you've never done. Is there a problem? Inquiring minds simply want to recognize which denier blogs you hang out at!

Add the fact that the globe hasn't warmed at all for 15 years (wasn't predicted as far as I know), and how is it surprising that anyone's skeptical about this?

citation request

[waldo]

your clown act really is heeelarious. You make a claim and then go off-the-rails because you were asked to substantiate it. You now openly acknowledge you haven't the knowledge and understanding to support your claim... even if it's nothing more than providing a reference and an accompanying self-interpretation of that reference. You double-down with your junkyard dog act under some premise of questioning my background and whether it's adequate to have a, as you say, "a detailed and meaningful discussion"!!! With who? With you? Why, you've just openly acknowledged you don't have a required background! But don't let that ever stop you from continuing to offer your unsupported/unsubstantiated claims!

The only thing that's hilarious here is how badly you wet your pants any time someone raises questions about the claims of an a-hole like Hansen. It's sad and a little pathetic how much time you're devoting to it, but it's pretty obvious that this is an overly emotional subject for you.

pardon me for asking someone to substantiate their claim that Hansen is a 'liar and a fraud'... or asking you to support your unsubstantiated claims. Nice touch with your calling Hansen an 'a-hole'! Hey, when you've got nothing else, go with your strengths. Clearly the real pants-wetter has been revealed with your assorted emotional meltdowns when simply challenged to substantiate something... anything... you claim! Given this discussion is simply a one-for-one exchange, it's quite humourous for you to label another's time devotion as, "sad and pathetic"!

Unfortunately, as I've mentioned before, having more time on your hands (than the rest of the board put together it seems) and obviously more emotional interest in the subject does not make you an expert on the matter! Exhausting your opponents into letting you have the last word also does not equal victory!

ah yes, you trot out the standard ploy once again. Like I said before, if you can't take a basic challenge asking you to substantiate something... anything... perhaps a discussion board intended for engagement/'debate', is not the best place for you to spend any of your time. If you have to resort to complaining about the time someone spends on MLW, or the degree of interest someone has in a particular subject, perhaps a discussion board is not your friend! Please, please... if you feel exhausted, don't "give in" - take a break, refresh yourself and come back stronger... just make sure to bring your support references with you!

.

[waldo]

again, the degree of tarsands viability is a compounding influence on the existing use of conventional sources. You either accept there's a legitimate concern over the accelerated rate of atmospheric CO₂ accumulation... or you don't. If you accept there's a concern than how does one rationalize a scenario where... even at Hansen's conservative estimate of 50% tarsands viability... tarsands expansion moves forward at unprecedented and unencumbered levels. Perhaps you'd like to address your own inconsistency - how do you reconcile your position on the tarsands with your earlier statements that raise your concern over COP agreements failing to result in needed emission reduction agreements?

You keep refusing to go over these numbers with me.

you simply choose to ignore what's already been stated. Again, and quite obviously, a massive expansion of the tarsands is predicated upon infrastructure supplying markets. Do you see any balance coming forward... the so-called nonsensical "sustainable development"? Do you actually believe oil companies won't exploit the tarsands to the nth degree? Enabling infrastructure enables massive expansion - your attempt to plant a date around reserve depletion (2020, 2050, 2063...), completely discounts any question/possibility of shifting away from fossil-fuel use/reliance - ya think! I've now asked you several times; let's try once more: in earlier discussion you were quite forceful in recognizing the need for emission reduction agreements... how do you rationalize that earlier position of yours with your (now) apparent zeal to exploit the tarsands, unencumbered and unfettered exploitation?

it is about a balance, regardless of how you choose to demonize Hansen. Yes, he's not in favour of KXL; yes, he's not in favour of developing unconventional sources - neither of which, obviously, will "shut the tarsands down" - duh! But there is no balance now or even one being considered... a tarsands development expansion that balances the long-term environmental risks, inclusive of climate change, against benefits to Canadians. The type of balance this letter from 12 Canadian climate scientists/academics speaks to:

The Honourable Joe Oliver - Minister of Natural Resources

Dear Minister Oliver,

As climate scientists, economists and policy experts who have devoted our careers to understanding the climate and energy systems, we share your view that “climate change is a very serious issue.”

But some of your recent comments give us significant cause for concern. In short, we are not convinced that your advocacy in support of new pipelines and expanded fossil fuel production takes climate change into account in a meaningful way.

Avoiding dangerous climate change will require significantly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and making a transition to cleaner energy.

The infrastructure we build today will shape future choices about energy. If we invest in expanding fossil fuel production, we risk locking ourselves in to a high carbon pathway that increases greenhouse gas emissions for years and decades to come.

The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) “450 scenario” looks at the implications of policy choices designed to give the world a fair chance of avoiding 2˚C of global warming. In that scenario, world oil demand is projected to peak this decade and fall to 10 per cent below current levels over the coming decades. The IEA concludes that, absent significant deployment of carbon capture and storage, over two-thirds of the world’s current fossil fuel reserves cannot be commercialized. Other experts have reached similar conclusions.

We are at a critical moment. In the words of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “each additional ton of greenhouse gases emitted commits us to further change and greater risks.” The longer we delay the transition to low-carbon economy, the more drastic, disruptive and costly that transition will be. The implication is clear: the responsibility for preventing dangerous climate change rests with today’s policymakers.

The IEA also warns of the consequences of our current path. If governments do little to address emissions, energy demand will continue to grow rapidly and will continue to be met mostly with fossil fuels — a scenario that the Agency estimates could likely lead to 3.6˚C of global warming.

Yet it is this very dangerous pathway — not the “450 scenario” linked to avoiding 2˚C of global warming — that you seem to be advocating when promoting Canadian fossil fuel development at home and abroad.

If we truly wish to have a “serious debate” about climate change and energy in this country, as you have rightly called for, we must start by acknowledging that our choices about fossil fuel infrastructure carry significant consequences for today’s and future generations.

We urge you to make the greenhouse gas impacts of new fossil fuel infrastructure a central consideration in your government’s decision-making and advocacy activities concerning Canada’s natural resources.

We would be very happy to provide you with a full briefing on recent scientific findings on climate change and energy development.

Thank you for your consideration of these important matters.

Sincerely,

J.P. Bruce, OC, FRSC

James Byrne

Professor, Geography

University of Lethbridge

Simon Donner

Assistant Professor, Geography

University of British Columbia

J.R. Drummond, FRSC

Professor, Physics and Atmospheric Science

Dalhousie University

Mark Jaccard, FRSC

Professor, Resource and Environmental Management

Simon Fraser University

David Keith

Professor, Applied Physics, Public Policy

Harvard University

Damon Matthews

Associate Professor, Geography, Planning and Environment

Concordia University

Gordon McBean, CM, FRSC

Professor, Centre for Environment and Sustainability

Western University

David Sauchyn

Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative

University of Regina

John Smol, FRSC

Professor, Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change

Queen’s University

John M.R. Stone

Adjunct Research Professor, Geography and Environment

Carleton University

Kirsten Zickfeld

Assistant Professor, Geography

Simon Fraser University

(bold emphasis added by the waldo).

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would twelve Canadian so called climate scientists quote the "U.S. National Academy of Sciences" in this domestic context ?

[Moonbox]

waldo, on 21 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Your juvenile junkyard dog act has been exposed... several times now. Clearly you'll resort to any deflection attempt to avoid answering why you refuse to provide reference support for any of your claims.

Pot, meet kettle. Let's go over Hansen's tar sands timeline again. Oh wait, you keep dodging that one.

waldo, on 21 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Nice touch with your calling Hansen an 'a-hole'! Hey, when you've got nothing else, go with your strengths.

I'm not sure what else to call him. Let's see how many more times he gets arrested....hey? lol

waldo, on 21 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Clearly the real pants-wetter has been revealed with your assorted emotional meltdowns when simply challenged to substantiate something... anything... you claim! Given this discussion is simply a one-for-one exchange, it's quite humourous for you to label another's time devotion as, "sad and pathetic"!

My emotional meltdowns? Lol...sure...As for your devotion to the topic, I don't think we'd have to look far to see how prolific you are on other threads devoted to the subject. What did Simple call you? Yeah...I'll state again that exhaustive walls of texts and quotation/citation battles don't actually win you the argument, although you seem to think they do.

waldo, on 21 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Again, and quite obviously, a massive expansion of the tarsands is predicated upon infrastructure supplying markets. Do you see any balance coming forward... the so-called nonsensical "sustainable development"? Do you actually believe oil companies won't exploit the tarsands to the nth degree? Enabling infrastructure enables massive expansion - your attempt to plant a date around reserve depletion (2020, 2050, 2063...), completely discounts any question/possibility of shifting away from fossil-fuel use/reliance

and again, quite obviously, you're dodging and refusing to actually go over simple numbers with me. You're more than happy to say massive expansion, but you're completely unwilling to go over the numbers that would quantify such a statement. You're happy to initially present scenarios where the tar sands would add 120 ppm of carbon to the atmosphere and tell us how scary that is, and show us frightening charts, but when asked what sort of massive (and unfeasible) expansion it would take to get there, and what timeline we're looking at, you petulantly throw it back at us saying that's not the point. Hansen presented those numbers, and so did you, not me. It's a perfect example of the type of scary rhetoric you excitedly and smugly show us, and then have to back-peddle on when you're called out for your BS.

waldo, on 21 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

in earlier discussion you were quite forceful in recognizing the need for emission reduction agreements... how do you rationalize that earlier position of yours with your (now) apparent zeal to exploit the tarsands, unencumbered and unfettered exploitation?

First of all, I've never been 'forceful' in recognizing the need for emissions reductions. Despite my misreading your earlier statement (touché), you're still making that up in another one of your smug 'got ya' attempts. I've never accepted the doom-mongering conclusions of Hansen or yourself, and my support for emission reduction agreements that move jobs out of the country and to BRIC instead (thus just outsourcing the emissions) is virtually nil. Similarly, I'll not support suspending tar sands development or expansion either when it simply means other dirty sources outside of Canada will be become viable (ie Venezuala, Russia etc). For various political and economic reasons, I'm much happier when some of the money stays here rather than go to Comrade Chavez.

The idea that suspending tar sands development in Canada will make any meaningful impact to emissions targets is just flat out wrong when there are so many easy alternatives outside of Canada.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

that's what you thought? Bully! Your juvenile junkyard dog act has been exposed... several times now. Clearly you'll resort to any deflection attempt to avoid answering why you refuse to provide reference support for any of your claims.

no - I'm not asking you to debate... clearly you haven't a clue around much/most of what you claim. I'm asking you to provide reference support for your claims - something you've never done. Is there a problem? Inquiring minds simply want to recognize which denier blogs you hang out at!

Pot, meet kettle. Let's go over Hansen's tar sands timeline again. Oh wait, you keep dodging that one.

I haven't dodged anything... you need to stop your most selective reading and your self-serving interpretations of what's been written. How many times does one need to say Hansen didn't apply a timeline! I guess this now makes the fourth time it's been stated: no timeline.

And as I stated, twice now, Hansen hasn't put a timeframe around his estimate on the tarsands potential viability and development extension.

no dodge. Perhaps you should take the time to read what's actually written. Damn, I know Hansen's good... but do you really believe anyone could reasonably predict the rate of expansion of the tarsands, given the many local/regional/national/international influences that can affect viability. Gee, perhaps that's why Hansen hasn't put a date around it - go figure.

I note your expertise and psychic powers has allowed you to determine an expansion timeline! Of course, you conveniently ignore any suggestion a definitive timeline isn't the salient point... that concerns over unfettered market enabling infrastructure is the point... that a need for 'sustainable balanced development' is the point, etc., etc., etc. Take your blinders off once in a while, hey?

[waldo]

pardon me for asking someone to substantiate their claim that Hansen is a 'liar and a fraud'... or asking you to support your unsubstantiated claims. Nice touch with your calling Hansen an 'a-hole'! Hey, when you've got nothing else, go with your strengths.

I'm not sure what else to call him. Let's see how many more times he gets arrested....hey? lol

noted: having the courage of one's convictions and getting arrested for partaking in public demonstrations makes one a Moonbox a-hole!

[waldo]

The only thing that's hilarious here is how badly you wet your pants any time someone raises questions about the claims of an a-hole like Hansen. It's sad and a little pathetic how much time you're devoting to it, but it's pretty obvious that this is an overly emotional subject for you.

Clearly the real pants-wetter has been revealed with your assorted emotional meltdowns when simply challenged to substantiate something... anything... you claim! Given this discussion is simply a one-for-one exchange, it's quite humourous for you to label another's time devotion as, "sad and pathetic"!

Yeah...I'll state again that exhaustive walls of texts and quotation/citation battles don't actually win you the argument, although you seem to think they do.

apparently, what you think wins arguments is for you to make unsubstantiated claims and then go into your deflecting junkyard dog/emotional meltdown acts, when you're asked to support your claims!

.

[waldo]

you simply choose to ignore what's already been stated. Again, and quite obviously, a massive expansion of the tarsands is predicated upon infrastructure supplying markets. Do you see any balance coming forward... the so-called nonsensical "sustainable development"? Do you actually believe oil companies won't exploit the tarsands to the nth degree? Enabling infrastructure enables massive expansion - your attempt to plant a date around reserve depletion (2020, 2050, 2063...), completely discounts any question/possibility of shifting away from fossil-fuel use/reliance - ya think!

and again, quite obviously, you're dodging and refusing to actually go over simple numbers with me.

noted: your "simple numbers" psychic powers run strong, run deep! You seem to think speculative musings on a 3-to-6 fold times level expansion... or a half-dozen new pipelines... means nothing to establishing and opening up a greater and greater number of world markets... which brings more and more continued expansion and depletion, and so on, and so on. All of which you revel in; clearly, you don't recognize any concerns for the degree of accumulated atmospheric CO₂... you accept no need for pursuing alternate energy paths, for diminishing a reliance on oil. I earlier suggested you just admit you want the tarsands fully exploited to the max... the faster, the better!

[waldo]

I've now asked you several times; let's try once more: in earlier discussion you were quite forceful in recognizing the need for emission reduction agreements... how do you rationalize that earlier position of yours with your (now) apparent zeal to exploit the tarsands, unencumbered and unfettered exploitation?

it is about a balance, regardless of how you choose to demonize Hansen. Yes, he's not in favour of KXL; yes, he's not in favour of developing unconventional sources - neither of which, obviously, will "shut the tarsands down" - duh! But there is no balance now or even one being considered... a tarsands development expansion that balances the long-term environmental risks, inclusive of climate change, against benefits to Canadians. The type of balance this letter from 12 Canadian climate scientists/academics speaks to:

First of all, I've never been 'forceful' in recognizing the need for emissions reductions. Despite my misreading your earlier statement (touché), you're still making that up in another one of your smug 'got ya' attempts.

no - you've been most forceful; it's just been wholly disingenuous on your part! It took a while but we finally now have you openly admitting your past statements on COP treaties was just another of your charades. Clearly, it was simply a means for you to play the concern-troll over missing mitigation agreements while you completely trashed any initiatives toward adaptation (in particular your ongoing 'wealth transfer' beak-off concerning the Climate Green Fund).

.

I'll not support suspending tar sands development or expansion either when it simply means other dirty sources outside of Canada will be become viable (ie Venezuala, Russia etc). For various political and economic reasons, I'm much happier when some of the money stays here rather than go to Comrade Chavez.

like I said, you could care less about accumulated atmospheric emissions, about strengthening a world reliance on oil... for decades and decades to come!

[Moonbox]

How many times does one need to say Hansen didn't apply a timeline! I guess this now makes the fourth time it's been stated: no timeline.

I didn't say he proposed a timeline. I asked you about that. I said he proposed that tapping the tar sands would spell 'game over' for the climate. He goes on to explain that the tar sands contain enough fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2 by 120 ppm and that there's 2x the carbon in the oil sands as all of the oil ever burned in human history. In as provocative terms as possible, he's trying to get people scared about Alberta oil and telling everyone that Keystone approval will herald the apocalypse and ruin our children's future. It's a statement directly meant to scare and misinform the stupid. The fact that he brought these numbers up at all is irrefutable proof that he's not trying to engage people honestly. The type of numbers he's proposed here are almost literally impossible, near term or long term.

Of course, you conveniently ignore any suggestion a definitive timeline isn't the salient point... that concerns over unfettered market enabling infrastructure is the point...

Again, I urge you to avoid any discussion on the economics of the issue. You have, literally, no clue. 'Unfettered market enabling infrastructure,' might seem like a really impressive talking point you dug up from whatever website you read it on, but simple Econ 101 concepts come in to play here. 'Unfettered market enabling infrastructure' doesn't take Alberta oil production from the current 1.8 billion barrels produced per year to the colossal increases that would be required to make even a noticeable dent in the oil sands reserves. There's neither the demand for that much oil, nor the capacity for Alberta to increase production that much, now or anytime soon. I am more than happy to go over those numbers with you, but I my intuition tells me we'll see another dodge.

no - you've been most forceful; it's just been wholly disingenuous on your part! It took a while but we finally now have you openly admitting your past statements on COP treaties was just another of your charades.

No, I was never forceful and I've literally always been on the opposite side of the debate from you on this. Your frustration and desperation are really starting to show! I can't think of any other reason you'd start making up positions for me!

Clearly, it was simply a means for you to play the concern-troll over missing mitigation agreements while you completely trashed any initiatives toward adaptation (in particular your ongoing 'wealth transfer' beak-off concerning the Climate Green Fund).

My position on this was made clear many times before. The current treaties (excluding BRIC) will not serve to reduce emissions and will fail. Emissions will continue to rise rapidly regardless of whether the G8 and pals honour the treaties (I still contend they'll balk), because countries like China and India are increasing their emissions by margins FAR FAR beyond whatever reductions the USA or G8/EU can manage. You know all of this already, however, because we've beaten the topic to death. You're attempts to suggest otherwise are, once again, a sad attempt to misrepresent what I say.

It's kind of funny actually. For all the criticism you're throwing around about me not being willing to substantiate my opinions (I've already told you I'm not going to get into a detailed argument about climate models because I don't understand them well enough to do so), you're not only doing the exact same thing by dodging my simple questions about realistic numbers regarding tar sands exploitation, you're also blatantly and knowingly misrepresenting my positions and lying about what I've said in the past. What pathetic new low will you next turn to...."hey"???

Edited May 22, 2013 by Moonbox

[Keepitsimple]

Moonbox - your exchange with our resident narcissist has once again painted old Waldo into his irrational corner. He simply will not deal with Climate issues on any practical, pragmatic or realistic level. He continues to spew the worst of alarmism - as exemplified by this exchange relating to Hansen's bizarre Oil Sands extrapollations.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Simple, is there a pattern here? In your own words, as quoted, you've offered prior accompanying definitions of your usage; intended as a "pejorative to imply a mental disorder".

Moonbox - your exchange with our resident narcissist has once again painted old Waldo into his irrational corner. He simply will not deal with Climate issues on any practical, pragmatic or realistic level. He continues to spew the worst of alarmism - as exemplified by this exchange relating to Hansen's bizarre Oil Sands extrapollations.

I see you've been trying to have a rational discussion with our local zeolot Waldo who tends to huff and puff himself towards his usual narcissistic mania when rational discussion threatens to gain traction. He (or she) demonstrates the dark and destructive side of the Alarmist community - blinded to the reality that countries and governments need to work in incremental fashion to gain the momentum needed to make a difference. It's how the real world works. More and more, people are turning a deaf ear to the rantics and bluster of the Waldo-like fanatics.

Simple, that's quite a personalized attack... I trust no one reports you

Geez, I took you off IGNORE for 24 hours and I just HAVE to put you back on - just can't STAND listening to that condescending, narcissistic blabbering.......did you get beat up a lot in high school?

I still have Waldo on IGNORE but I can see the poor fellow is still suffering from a severe bout of hubris and narcissistic grandiosity. Zealots like Waldo...

Waldo .....his only contribution is his criticism of other peoples' posts. It makes sense though - behind every narcissist is a deep-rooted sense of insecurity.

Waldo..... That's why I've always said you're the poster-child for narcissism.

Waldo.....you have no opinions and you refuse to take a personal stand on anything. As a result, you have no credibility. Waldo, you're my pretty little flower.

The term narcissism refers to the personality trait of egotism, which includes the set of character traits concerned with self-image ego. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness.

......but you Waldo, refuse to believe that there is ANY valid scepticism within the scientific community... when all your attitude does is present you as the narcissistic poster-boy for all that is wrong with the Alarmist community - reeking of self-righteousness and self-importance.

It's OK Waldo. Calm down. Like I said previously, when a narcissist finally recognizes that they have been duped, it's not a pretty sight.

Narcissism: Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

It's unfortunate that Waldo has been so utterly duped by the CC establishment. Shame really....putting aside his (or her) narcissistic attitude.....when a narcissist who has been duped finds out that indeed they HAVE been duped, the results are not pretty.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stop making personal attacks in the discussions.

Just post about the topic and ignore the characters.

Ch. A.

[Keepitsimple]

Everybody,

Stop making personal attacks in the discussions.

Just post about the topic and ignore the characters.

Ch. A.

Noted. I believe I am the main culprit.....although the acidic accumulation of condescension that drips from Waldo's postings towards rational people like Moonbox deserves honorable mention.

[waldo]

Everybody,

Stop making personal attacks in the discussions.

Just post about the topic and ignore the characters.

Noted. I believe I am the main culprit.....

I agree with you... the pattern I showed is quite telling!

although the acidic accumulation of condescension that drips from Waldo's postings towards rational people like Moonbox deserves honorable mention.

even if the stated condescension were true... is exhibiting superior knowledge or attitude... an attack?

[waldo]

it's just been wholly disingenuous on your part! It took a while but we finally now have you openly admitting your past statements on COP treaties was just another of your charades. Clearly, it was simply a means for you to play the concern-troll over missing mitigation agreements while you completely trashed any initiatives toward adaptation (in particular your ongoing 'wealth transfer' beak-off concerning the Climate Green Fund).

I've literally always been on the opposite side of the debate from you on this. Your frustration and desperation are really starting to show! I can't think of any other reason you'd start making up positions for me!… you're also blatantly and knowingly misrepresenting my positions and lying about what I've said in the past. What pathetic new low will you next turn to???

no - I'm not making up or misrepresenting your past statements. Like I said, your unbridled zeal to develop the tarsands runs counter to your many past raised concerns over reducing emissions. It's either that Moonbox, or you accept you've been concern-trolling! Which is it? Here Moonbox, a short sampling of your raised concern!!!

With the industrialization of the developing world, emissions are going to accelerate. That's why it's so critically important to be researching an alternative to fossil fuels.

Kyoto was a toothless and therefore useless agreement, as was Copenhagen. If people are serious about actually doing something about it, the agreements have to be binding and they have to include all of the major players.

Western countries are outsourcing their manufacturing to places where labour is cheaper and environmental laws lax/non-existant. Slapping new and expensive climate regulation on western industry while not doing the same for China only accelerates this trend. We end up with little/no net emissions reductions and weaker domestic economy.

The same way there are negotiations involved to address per country emission reduction target levels, there are negotiations involved to address per country monetary transfer payments to assist developing countries with adaptation/mitigation needs - and a part of those negotiations requires a historical perspective on just how contributing respective developed countries have been to the overall historical cumulative emission total. The latter seems to be where your confusion/comprehension difficulty stems.

One side of that distinction, and related negotiations concerning transfer payments, reflects directly upon historical cumulative emissions - you know, those I highlighted previously - again, this graphic. Now, as for negotiations toward per country, emission reduction targets, given that 'historical cumulative' emissions are the sum total of all countries contributing emissions and that CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, some of today's current warming reflects upon those historical emissions.

- another stat: between 1900-to-2008, China emitted ~ 117 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere..... and in that same period, the United States emitted ~ 337 Gt. Do you see any disparity here, Moonbox?... notwithstanding, again, the actual outsourcing of emissions from developed countries to developing countries.

The historical cumulative emissions approach is where this whole thing falls apart though. It's not hard to understand why people think this is a good idea, but it's similarly easy to see why it's not going to be accepted at anything but a token level. This is what's going to completely derail any realistic emissions reduction negotiations. Emissions reduction is the overall goal right?

Because the Climate Fund is a backwards-looking, misguided waste of funds directed more towards 'feel good' outcomes instead of actual results. Spending billions in countries that, relatively speaking, aren't even part of the problem doesn't reduce our overall emissions.

$100B/year could be better spent on clean and renewable energy research. These are things that could actually REDUCE emissions moving forward.

Wind/Solar isn't an option yet. I sincerely believe it will/could be one in the next 15-20 years, but right now the tech just isn't there. That leaves us with nuclear or coal, so pick your poision (literally). Given the impact of carbon in our atmosphere and the apparent impending climate disaster, the choice should be simple, but a lot of people insist on the one option that doesn't exist.

This is infantile, school yard logic and it doesn't help get emissions reduced. Nobody outside of China gives a shit about China's prosperity, nor about the fairness of them not being able to pollute like we did. If we're interested in meaningful emissions reductions, all of the big players need to be included.

The only way we're going to reduce emissions is to tax emissions themselves to the point where industry/consumers start to alter their behaviour.

.

[waldo]

you simply choose to ignore what's already been stated. Again, and quite obviously, a massive expansion of the tarsands is predicated upon infrastructure supplying markets. Do you see any balance coming forward... the so-called nonsensical "sustainable development"? Do you actually believe oil companies won't exploit the tarsands to the nth degree? Enabling infrastructure enables massive expansion - your attempt to plant a date around reserve depletion (2020, 2050, 2063...), completely discounts any question/possibility of shifting away from fossil-fuel use/reliance - ya think! I've now asked you several times; let's try once more: in earlier discussion you were quite forceful in recognizing the need for emission reduction agreements... how do you rationalize that earlier position of yours with your (now) apparent zeal to exploit the tarsands, unencumbered and unfettered exploitation?

it is about a balance, regardless of how you choose to demonize Hansen. Yes, he's not in favour of KXL; yes, he's not in favour of developing unconventional sources - neither of which, obviously, will "shut the tarsands down" - duh! But there is no balance now or even one being considered... a tarsands development expansion that balances the long-term environmental risks, inclusive of climate change, against benefits to Canadians.

Of course, you conveniently ignore any suggestion a definitive timeline isn't the salient point... that concerns over unfettered market enabling infrastructure is the point... that a need for 'sustainable balanced development' is the point, etc., etc., etc. Take your blinders off once in a while, hey?

I said he proposed that tapping the tar sands would spell 'game over' for the climate.

apparently, as I've shown in the preceding post, you have an expressed concern over the current level of emissions... of the need to reduce emissions. And opening up the tarsands to massive expansion, to significantly new/increased markets... for decades and decades to come... will do what to help reduce emissions? This continued and increased reliance on fossil-fuels was the context of Hansen's "game over" for the climate statement. You've referenced Hansen's NYT opinion article, several times now... all the while emphasizing Hansen's targeting the tarsands, all the while emphasizing his "scare tactics... his "misinformation"... etc. Of course, what you conveniently fail to mention is that he's not singularly targeting the tarsands; he's equally targeting the U.S. tar shale which has even greater carbon content and emissions increasing potential. More pointedly, Hansen is targeting all manner of continued fossil-fuel reliance, while advocating for a price on carbon... you know, like you did earlier in the quote I posted!

But instead of placing a rising fee on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels pay their true costs, leveling the energy playing field, the world’s governments are forcing the public to subsidize fossil fuels with hundreds of billions of dollars per year. This encourages a frantic stampede to extract every fossil fuel through mountaintop removal, longwall mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands and tar shale extraction, and deep ocean and Arctic drilling.

your continued junkyard dog act on the depletion timeline, again, misses the point! You know it, yet you keep up your act. Because emissions are cumulative in the atmosphere, over a centuries time frame, the important timeline is the emissions growth timeline that reflects upon cumulative emissions from continued... and increased...fossil fuel use, cement production and land-use changes. Depending on how you settle in at where "anticipated" rising temperatures will peak, the degree of climate change severity you attach to that temperature peak, and the amount of temperature rise per carbon tonnage amount released into the atmosphere... there is a cumulative emissions level that correlates to the "anticipated" peak temperature rise. Based on past emission trends... just the past, not increased trend rates... scientists have estimated the real salient timelines: dates to which respective carbon tonne emissions will enter the atmosphere and what accompanying emissions reduction rate would be required to avoid releasing that amount of emissions. Scientists have also played these trend rate and emission release estimates against an assortment of optimistic-to-cautious-to-pessimistic temperature peak, climate change severity and temperature rise per carbon tonnage amount released scenarios..... the scenario timelines all end within this century... assuming actual required emissions reductions occur!!! And your junkyard dog advocacy for the dirtiest unconventional source, the tarsands, one that reflects upon a continuing and enhanced multi-decades reliance on fossil-fuels, one with an accompanying increase in emissions level/rate... this helps your earlier established concern for reducing emissions... how?