Neil Young rocks the tar sands

[WWWTT]

Neil never went anywhere. I think he's been mentioned at least once in every single Rolling Stone ever.

But how come you never use religion and capitalism as arguments against religion and capitalism? They're only arguments against climate science.

Yes Neil Young is very popular.

I like several of his songs to!

As far as your other questions, I don't really talk much about traditional religion. So I don't think I contribute much to that topic on traditional religions such as Christianity, Islam, etc etc.

But maybe an argument can be used in the case of capitalism?

I have learned a lot about debating from just contributing to MLW so I'm going to keep an open mind!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

WWWTT, you voting CPC next election or just supporting their narrative in this thread and the other?

[WWWTT]

WWWTT, you voting CPC next election or just supporting their narrative in this thread and the other?

You got to be freeking kidding me cybercoma!

I'm a card carrying member of the NDP for crying out load!!! Not to mention a past executive member/president at the riding association level!

I'll never vote liberal/conservative!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Of course, rock stars don't need oil. I drove my electric car from California to the Tar sands and on to Washington DC without using any oil at all and I'm a rock star. My car's generator runs on biomass, one of several future fuels Canada should be developing for the Post Fossil Fuel Age. This age of renewable fuels could save our grandchildren from the ravages of Climate related disasters spawned by the Fossil Fuel Age; but we have to get started.

The above quote is what Neil Young said.

Now where does the rubber come from in those tires on that car?

Or how about all the plastic parts? And I'm sure there's all kinds of plastic parts in that car he drove!

And what about the lubricants for the bearings or any wearing metal parts? Better yet, how about the oil in the four stroke generator?

If you think that petroleum wasn't used for at least a few of those essential parts/material, then you're what's called a gullible person.

Oh and by the way Neil, the generator is still an internal combustion engine requiring O2/fuel/ignition source and emitting CO2!

WWWTT

[BC_chick]

Neil Young abandoned Canada a long time ago. Prefers California dont'cha know !

And that refutes his point because....?

[ReeferMadness]

And that refutes his point because....?

BC doesn't agree with it!

[bush_cheney2004]

And that refutes his point because....?

Because he has neither lived or seen such things for the "grandchildren" in many years. He co-opted and exploited native people and their causes for his own commercial gain, flitting off to America to exploit sexier social causes in a bigger market. "We made a deal with these people".....lovely.

Edited January 15, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

 

Of course, rock stars don't need oil. I drove my electric car from California to the Tar sands and on to Washington DC without using any oil at all and I'm a rock star. My car's generator runs on biomass, one of several future fuels Canada should be developing for the Post Fossil Fuel Age. This age of renewable fuels could save our grandchildren from the ravages of Climate related disasters spawned by the Fossil Fuel Age; but we have to get started.

The above quote is what Neil Young said.

Now where does the rubber come from in those tires on that car?

I think maybe you have missed the point here. First of all we can't simply snap our fingers and have all the "bad stuff" go away. Sure it takes oil to lube a crankcase or grease for wheel bearings. The point is, pretty much all of those lubes will still be in the car when it gets wherever. In Neil's case I wonder how much petrol he didn't burn and throw the remnants out the exhaust pipe.

Or how about all the plastic parts? And I'm sure there's all kinds of plastic parts in that car he drove!

And what about the lubricants for the bearings or any wearing metal parts? Better yet, how about the oil in the four stroke generator?

If you think that petroleum wasn't used for at least a few of those essential parts/material, then you're what's called a gullible person.

Oh and by the way Neil, the generator is still an internal combustion engine requiring O2/fuel/ignition source and emitting CO2!

WWWTT

 

[On Guard for Thee]

In point of fact nobody really "needs" oil. We found oil and we found it fulfills some of our needs. For instance we need to produce heat to protect us from the cold or we will die. (I'm speaking from Canada) We used to burn wood, then coal, now gas and oil. We find now that burning all those things is also not good for us. Perhaps we need to let evolution flip the page to where we find something else to meet those needs. Maybe something healthy(er) and sustainable.I realize my preamble is an over simplification of the issue, but after all didn't we go to school to learn how to solve problems? Let's not ledger books get in the way of intelligence.

[TimG]

In point of fact nobody really "needs" oil.

That is not a fact - it is an opinion - an opinion based on an ignorance of what it required to keep 7 billion people fed and sheltered. You could argue that if we reduced the world population by 6 billion or so then the remainder would be able to survive on wood and other renewable biomass but that is not going to happen. Edited January 15, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

Is this thread not about an over the hill hippie rocker talking out of his ass about shit he knows nothing about?

no - this thread is not about you! Your sources are not legitimate and short of the only point of relative 'accuracy' (re: model impacts), there is nothing of substance/legitimacy in your linked articles.

as I said, the only accurate point within your earlier post was in regards to climate model revisions... the "obsolete" reference was clearly over the top. CERN/CLOUD experiments have been eagerly waited on by legitimate climate/atmospheric scientists. The present state of atmospheric aerosol modeling is known, recognized and acknowledged to be lacking/uncertain... hence, the long-standing desire for a vehicle, like CERN/CLOUD, to help bring forward new learnings/understandings relative to atmospheric aerosols... to, in turn, better aerosol modeling within existing models.

your linked reference to "scientists gagged" is equally over the top. The CERN director was quoted as saying he wanted his scientists to present the findings... and not to rise to the politicization level of interpretations. Of course, as is the way of the denialsphere, those findings were spun most improperly, most incorrectly and with such rigour they, as oft happens, punched up into the mainstream press. It's the Sun! It's Cosmic Rays! Ah yes, denialists had finally found that ever elusive "AGW killer silver bullet"! Uhhh, no, sorry denialists. In any case, in the interim 2.5 years since the initial experiments, related papers have been published and CERN scientists have been speaking openly... nothing has come forward to suggest any reason behind some presumed early "forced gagging of scientists". Nothing has come forward to support the denialist claims of a conspiracy.

perhaps you might answer a simple question. You speak of a "threat being contained"... you clearly infer there was something in the CERN/CLOUD findings that was a threat to the consensus scientific understanding. Care to step beyond your dubious "journalist" sources, state what findings you believe have been contained and provide legitimate source/citation for your interpretations. While you're doing that, perhaps you could advise on just how something so monumental (so contained)... could remain... contained. Given the ramifications of such (claimed) findings, why has nothing percolated beyond those initial experiments and the most egregious and false denier interpretations of those findings. After all, this is... this would be... huge! It would rock the very foundations of scientific understanding. And yet... 'crickets'! Why so quiet, hey?

as for the whole 'cosmic ray (GCR)->cloud seeding premise' as an alternate theory to attribute warming to, we've touched upon the fallacy of GCR impact many times over through an assortment of previous MLW threads. Again, if there was any legitimacy to a feedback impact of GCRs driving significant climate change, that feedback would be two-fold:

- either, greater solar activity -> stronger solar magnetic field -> fewer GCRs reaching Earth -> fewer clouds -> more warming;

- or, less solar activity -> weaker solar magnetic field -> more GCRs reaching Earth -> more clouds -> less warming.

observations show that GCRs can't explain the relatively recent warming... show that the level of solar activity and the amount of GCRs reaching the Earth's surface have remained flat, on average, over the past 60 years. Again, the sun/GCRs could only be causing global warming if there were a longer-term rising solar activity trend coupled with a decreasing trend in the number of GCRs reaching earth. In actuality... the number of GCRs reaching earth has increased since 1990, reaching record levels in 2009.

from a recent study: A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate

Abstract: The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ’sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there would be a small global cooling, not warming.

[Spiderfish]

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.

[waldo]

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.

pick another thread... or start one. You clearly felt you had something significant with your linked articles. Don't weasel out, hey!

on edit: I'll do it for you... I'll move both our posts, as they stand, to an existing thread. Moved here:

Edited January 15, 2014 by waldo

[Michael Hardner]

By way of explanation, it's incorrect to assume that the mods read every single post. If I see a thread going off topic, I will ask people to post in the correct thread.

[cybercoma]

I'm a card carrying member of the NDP for crying out load!!! Not to mention a past executive member/president at the riding association level!

Could have fooled me.

[Accountability Now]

Could have fooled me.

Hey Cyber...aren't you NDP too? Got some good company there, hey?

[Argus]

By way of explanation, it's incorrect to assume that the mods read every single post. If I see a thread going off topic, I will ask people to post in the correct thread.

And just what do you imagine the topic is? It seems to me it's about ignorant people believing we should stop exploiting oil and gas and JUST GO GREEN!

[Michael Hardner]

And just what do you imagine the topic is?

'Neil Young Rocks the Tar Sands'

[carepov]

I don't get my environmental information or take political advice from drugged up Hollywood celebrities, but thanks anyway.

I see your point and somewhat agree, but Young has a right to express his opinions and sometimes he is right, like the criticism of GW Bush and the Iraq War.

A better source of information is independent research like:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16178

led by:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Renowned+researcher+Schindler+retires+from+University+Alberta/9104250/story.html

I can't say too many nice things about the CPC government but, I am glad that they listened to this guy and took action to measure, control and stop dangerous pollutants.

[WWWTT]

Could have fooled me.

Then I guess NDP policy has fooled you?

The federal NDP are all for extracting/exploiting fossil fuels!

But lets be more considerate for the environment, lets make sure the tax payer isn't paying for the clean-up bill! Lets get that fuel to the Eastern part of Canada so we're not importing so much and better help Canadian industry in Eastern Canada. Lets get rid of the grants that these oil companies receive, but do not need to continue extracting!

Also there are some things that the NDP would support in Neil's tour. And that's respecting the Native treaties!

But an all out ban/departure from fossil fuels is way out there and will only hurt Canada! And this is where I disagree with Neil Young's message.

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

And just what do you imagine the topic is? It seems to me it's about ignorant people believing we should stop exploiting oil and gas and JUST GO GREEN!

I think there's a position between full exploitation with no environment protection, oversight, or regulations and a complete halt to oil and gas production, don't you?

[cybercoma]

But an all out ban/departure from fossil fuels is way out there and will only hurt Canada! And this is where I disagree with Neil Young's message.

WWWTT

I'm not sure anyone would argue that we should write social policy based on the political opinions of an elderly rocker.

[Accountability Now]

Here is what Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall had to say on this.

REGINA — Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says musician Neil Young’s comparison of the oilsands to Hiroshima is insensitive and ignorant of the facts.

Wall says he believes Young lost a lot of credibility by making the comments before a concert in Toronto on Sunday.

Young held a news conference during which he compared the landscape at a Fort McMurray industrial site to the devastation caused by the atomic bomb in Japan.

Wall says he disagrees with how Young is characterizing the industry, but adds it’s a free country and Young is welcome to speak his mind.

The premier acknowledges more needs to be done for the environment, but he also suggests that Canada’s record is better than any other oil-exporting country in the world.

Young is doing a four-city concert tour to raise money for an Alberta First Nation living downstream of the oilsands and is to perform Friday in Regina.

http://www.leaderpost.com/Rocker+Neil+Young+oilsands+comments+missing+facts+Saskatchewan+premier+Brad+Wall/9390775/story.html

Edited January 15, 2014 by Accountability Now

[Argus]

'Neil Young Rocks the Tar Sands'

You're going to stick with that? You think this was a concert review? Why is in politics?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I think there's a position between full exploitation with no environment protection, oversight, or regulations and a complete halt to oil and gas production, don't you?

Which is pretty much what we have.