Pressured by profound influence from U.S. markets, corporations and politicians development of Canada’s Alberta Oil Sands project, an area estimated to be the size of Florida, is expanding at astonishing speed. The project produces over one million barrels of oil daily. This number is expected to double within ten years and it is estimated that by 2030 the Oil Sands project will be producing 5 million barrels a day. Alberta is second to Saudi Arabia in terms of meeting world oil reserve capacity. Not surprisingly, the alarming damage to the local environment is expanding in lock step. Are Canadian politicians and corporations making huge profits while simultaneously being strong armed into acquiescence by BushCo policy so as to spare Canadian cities the Middle Eastern reality of shoring up “the flow” for the great diesel driven beast? Of course Canadians are ultimately quite friendly with Americans. We eat the same food, watch the same movies, play the same sports, worship the same pop idols and most importantly go to the same churches. There is no evidence to say that Uncle Sam has yet found Canada’s W.M.D.s or has reason to start looking. Canadians assume they are in no danger. That being said, sneaky backroom political tactics (are there any other kind?) out of view of the public eye and the coerced handover of Canada’s limited natural resources to our much stronger southern neighbor comprise a far scarier reality than the alternative of U.S. tanks rolling into Ottawa, Edmonton, Montreal etc. Humour aside, what does this all mean for the average Canadian and their environment?
The Alberta Oil Sands project continues to grow at an exponential rate while our government’s refusal to commit to a logical policy aimed at curbing industry’s impact on the environment is, at best, able to stir only mild annoyance amid the Canadian public. Atlantic Canada’s fishing industry - the life force of much of Atlantic Canada’s economy - is bled dry by mismanagement while Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders, Prince Edward Islanders as well as others are forced to migrate from their traditional lands in droves to bleed dry yet another one of Canada’s natural resources and its local environment in Alberta. From the looks of the way Canada is headed once the Oil Sands are no longer lucrative for big oil and company we’ll get right on to the job of bottling up the natural resource sitting in the Great Lakes.
Greed and fear keep Canadian politicians from reaching a consensus on industrial and environmental solutions. Alberta’s prodigal son, Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephan Harper, walks hand and hand with BushCo and his myopic goals of Bigger, Better, Faster – Now! When individual Canadians wake up and decide they would rather their future generations live in a healthy and renewable world then live at the whim of the current political state of apathy they will elect strong and independent politicians to further this desire - no sooner.
The expanding northern town of Fort Chipewyan Alberta is literally down stream from the Oil Sands development site and its pollution. New studies show that the animals, humans and environment in this area are feeling the effects of the Oil Sand industry and its practice of dumping toxic and cancer causing arsenic in nearby water supplies. This small and remote community is fighting a loosing battle to gain government support to help maintain its traditionally healthy local environment. Every village, town and city in Canadian history at one time or another has faced the dilemma that Fort Chipewyan now faces – the choice to abandon logic and destroy the resource and health of the people, fauna and flora living in the local area in an attempt to get a quick fix or to expand in an environmentally conscience and responsible way taking care to protect what is most important to all life.
Will Canada sit by while yet another one of its pristine environments and communities take the path of unsustainable and unhealthy city development? Will we allow our greed and fear destroy another beautiful wilderness and community and ultimately ourselves? Or, given what we now know, will we save this refuge and help it expand in a responsible, logical and green way? If we do not, what does this say about our way of life and the unwritten future of so many other communities waiting to be developed or those cities and communities waiting to be turned around? Are any of us thinking about who lives down stream of Fort Chipewyan?
Fort Chipewyan is the litmus test for the future of every Canadian city.
———————
U.S. urges ‘fivefold expansion’
in Alberta oilsands production
Last Updated: Thursday, January 18, 2007 | 6:31 AM ET
CBC News
The U.S. wants Canada to dramatically expand its oil exports from the Alberta oilsands, a move that could have major implications on the environment.
U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a “fivefold expansion” in oilsands production in a relatively “short time span,” according to minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC’s French-language network, Radio-Canada.
The meeting was organized by Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Canada is already the top exporter of oil to the American market, exporting the equivalent of one million barrels a day — the exact amount that the oilsands industry in Alberta currently produces.
A fivefold increase would mean the export of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports.
“We need to look at additional pipelines from Canada to the U.S. as a new source of supplier, a growing source of supply,” said Bob Greco of the American Petroleum Institute.
—————–
Alberta oilsands rush
threatening environment:
CBC News
The rate of oilsands development in Alberta needs to be slowed to protect forests and wildlife, environmental watchdogs said Tuesday.
If all of Alberta’s deep underground reserves were extracted, about 13.8 million hectares of land would be at risk, according to the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
The area amounts to 21 per cent of the province, an expanse the size of Florida.The report calls for a moratorium on new projects and lease sales until the province develops a plan to protect the boreal forest in northeastern Alberta.
“There comes a point where it becomes pure greed over and above what is necessary,” said Richard Schneider of CPAWS in Edmonton.
“This should actually be a place where we have options because we do have the resources in terms of money to do the best job that is possible.”
Jerry Bellikka, spokesperson for Alberta Energy, said Tuesday that environmental concerns are being properly evaluated.
“We also have pretty large parts of the Boreal Forest where Sustainable Resource Development and other departments look very closely at the natural environment of the animals and other parts of development,” said Bellikka. “I think there’s a very good process in place.”
Currently, deep oil extraction is approved on a project-by-project basis that fails to examine the overall environmental impact, the report said.
Faster pace of development
Schneider, a co-author of the report, called on Albertans to decide:
- What areas to protect?
- What limits are needed on development?
- How fast should development occur?
- Should an area be left alone to allow forest and wildlife to recover while other development continues?
The report’s authors also asked the province to create interconnected wildlife reserves to curb damage from further oilsands development.
“Evidence is steadily mounting that ecological tipping points for many species are already being exceeded at current levels of industrial development in northern Alberta,” said the report, which looked at the effects on caribou, lynx, martens and forest birds.
Oilsands production now amounts to about one million barrels a day, and is expected to more than double in 10 years.
“The regulation for environmental approval are not changing because of the pace,” said Greg Stringham, vice-president of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
“You still have to meet all of the stringent environmental regulations. None of that changes just because things are going faster now than they were over the last 20 years.”
—————————————————————-
Embassy, November 30th, 2005
FEATURE
By Sarah McGregor, MONTREAL
Alberta Oil Sands Growing
Source of Pollution: Report
Lucrative energy industry accounts for Canada’s failure to curb emissions, but environmental NGO hopes the sector can become carbon neutral by 2012.
Rapid production of the Alberta oilsands will account for nearly half of the projected rise in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada by 2010, making it the country’s fastest growing source of pollution, according to data released yesterday by the Pembina Institute.
“It’s striking that Canada is saying it’s committed to reducing emissions but in sharp [contrast] it is allowing this sector to become a bigger emitter,” says Matthew Bramley, Director of Climate Change at the Pembina Institute, a Canadian-based environmental NGO focused on the energy sector.
The Pembina Institute released the findings during a side event at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal, which runs until Dec. 9. In his role as chair of the conference, Canadian Environment Minister Stéphane Dion is marshalling international delegations towards cooperating on a pact to curb global warming when the Kyoto Protocol phases out in 2012.
However, Mr. Dion is also faced with an uphill domestic battle to follow through on commitments in Kyoto’s first phase.
The Pembina report follows on the heels of two other damaging studies that show Canada is lagging far behind in its commitment to reduce harmful emissions to 6 per cent below 1990s by 2012.
Last week, it was revealed that emissions in Canada had risen by 24 per cent as of 2003. The bad news was detailed in a report released ahead of the Conference by the secretariat responsible for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
In addition, Canada received low marks compared to other major polluters in a scientific study by the NGO GermanWatch. Experts made those conclusions after a two-year investigation, combining expert opinion on each nation’s reputation in international diplomacy, domestic environmental policies, and its emissions levels. Canada ranked among the lowest of the 59 nations that emit 90 per cent of the world’s pollution, ahead of only Australia, Russia and the United States.
The Pembina Institute projections are based on existing operations in the Alberta oilsands, as well as 28 projects expected to be running in the next 10 years. The forecast shows that total annual emissions from the oilsands will rise from 25.2 megatonnes in 2003 to as much as 67.9 megatonnes in 2010. Under current conditions, the federal government estimates that total yearly emissions will rise more than 90 megatonnes over the same period. (All figures assume no major advances in alternative technologies.)
Canada currently emits about 750 megatonnes annually and is expected to surpass 830 megatonnes in 2010. Kyoto requires Canada to reduce emissions to 560 megatonnes as of 2012.
Mr. Dion partly attributes Canada’s increasing pollution intensity to a booming economy and growing population.
Mr. Bramley is calling on the federal government to develop strict emission targets for energy-intensive industries, which would require producers to buy carbon credits to offset their harmful activity. Otherwise, he says the government will be forced to buy the additional credits, which is a “transfer of liability from the private sector to the taxpayer.”
Mr. Dion maintains that the oil and gas sector will be accountable for a big share of its environmental impact, under what is known as the Large Final Emitter Program. The government is finalizing the guidelines of the program.
Mr. Bramley is also asking that the oilsands industry become “carbon neutral” by 2012, and that the federal government eliminates tax breaks for the profitable energy industry. Finally, he is pushing for an overhaul of Alberta’s royalty regime.
The oil reserves of northeastern Alberta, which cover an area about the size of the state of Florida, are second only to Saudi Arabia’s.
“I want these industries to stay in Canada,” Mr. Dion, told reporters this week, saying there is no guarantee of improved scrutiny if operations move outside of Canada.
Mr. Dion vowed to make Canada a leader in innovative technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which traps harmful gases below the earth’s surface or along the ocean floor.
28 responses so far ↓
Jose // March 6, 2007 at 9:37 am |
It is not only a Canadian problem. In fact what affects Canada also affects the rest of the world. Scientists have been unanimous in saying that the problem with pollution is more serious than was estimated, but it seems our leaders do not think it to be so.
“They” say “we” are ruining the world. We can show “them” that “we” can act positively. Abandon cars, reduce energy consumption, change our consumer habits, and perhaps the Canadian Oil Sands will not even start being exploited.
little indian // March 6, 2007 at 5:56 pm |
I didn’t know about ‘oil sands’
till I read this post of yours, 1loneranger.
For me drilling for oil has always seemed like draining the earth’s blood.
But this seems like picking at the flesh.
That is what we are doing, isn’t it? Scavenging.
Scavenging on our own dying Mother Earth.
1loneranger // March 6, 2007 at 6:05 pm |
Little Indian-
Hi, I couldn’t agree with you more. The idea of sucking the liquid remains of extinct species from the earth in order to run our ‘engines’ is a hideous idea to me.
if you can stomach it…..give this a watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXgAbrhAI7I
Jose-
Of course every one of us, here in Nova Scotia, the Canary Islands, England, Delhi, etc. are all “down stream” of the Oil Sands. The un-regulated speed in which projects like this are allowed to develop in today’s world is beyond belief.
Terry M // March 12, 2007 at 4:18 am |
Little Indian, Jose,
If you actually visited Northern Alberta, you would see its one of the most beautiful and pristine areas in the world. There is more pollution in Toronto than in the Alberta Oil sands.
It really doesn’t matter what Dion, Mark Holland, the Liberals, central and eastern Canada, and yes the Americans think. The oil and natural resources are owned by the people of Alberta and they will protect it.
The environmentalists wrongly claim global warming is being caused by Alberta energy production. They say this to make money, do not believe it. Alberta has the best environmental pollution reduction records in Canada with intensity rates going down by substantial percentage points. Ontario and Quebec do not even come close.
Even if the Liberals win the next election there is nothing they can do to stop the massive expansion in the Alberta energy sector. Albertans can and will decide for itself what their fate will be.
But thanks for being so interested.
1loneranger // March 12, 2007 at 5:01 am |
Terry-
Most people are quite aware of Northern Canada’s pristine beauty. And I think I’ve done a fairly decent job implying that in my original post. What most people are not aware of is that a land mass the size of FLORIDA in Northern Alberta is being ripped to shreds over the next 40 years by a Co2 producing process that creates a substance that will produce more Co2 and assist in the causes and effects of Global Warming as well as produce other chemical wastes such as arsenic and sulphur ,among others, as a by-product who’s disposal in turn harms the natural environment around the general area of the Oil Sands. An area the size of FLORIDA.
If that’s what Albertans call “the best environmental pollution reduction record”…..God help us all. What does it matter how you compare with Ontario and Quebec? We are talking about you and your project here! They’ll get theirs too, no need to worry. We are all part of the problem, not just your precious Oil Sands.
You said: “The environmentalists wrongly claim global warming is being caused by Alberta energy production. They say this to make money, do not believe it.”
Is someone holding out on me here? Where’s my money!? Who’s got my Benjamins?
You’re actually trying to convince us that the waste and pollution coming out of Oil Sands Project isn’t contributing to the problem of Global Warming? I’m afraid you are simply delusional and are attempting to ignore the bigger picture sir. Just because you’re producing ‘less‘ doesn’t mean you’re not a problem. My God!
Your fate will be yours and ours too I’m afraid.
Can someone please wake Terry up? His bus is here.
Terry M // March 12, 2007 at 8:44 am |
1loneranger,
Surly you jest,
It is now proven that man made CO2 and fossil fuel burning is not creating global warming. The recent unequivocal report by the IPCC has now been proved to be fixed or false (read the latest news). But to be fair, it does cause pollution.
Search the internet for the topic “The Great Global Warming Swindle” to find out.
Alberta has finally taken the first step this week with cooperation from the federal government to fund and create a CO2 pipeline from the oil sands to central Alberta. This first step is the beginning of many advanced projects. CO2 sequestration then clean coal “Coal Gasification” to hydrogen production and finally, fuel cell electricity generation.
This is where Alberta is going, so hang on its going to be a wild ride. When done, Alberta will be the most environmentally friendly, clean energy producer in the world.
And yes the oil sands operations are the size of Florida (which means its really big) and your media announced production figures are correct, but research a little deeper and talk to people in the industry and you will find out that Alberta’s oil sands not only have more recoverable oil than Saudi Arabia but they have more oil than the middle east. How are you going to mud sling that one?
Oh by the way, Alberta also has vast natural gas, coal bed methane and high quality coal supplies, all are going to be massively produced.
Bush has nothing to do with controlling the Alberta oil sands; he just wants to buy the oil and currently is buying it for 61 dollars a barrel and contributing to a 7 billion Alberta surplus this year. Not bad for a bunch of hillbillies.
Oil companies (all companies) need to make huge profits to expand or they would go out of business causing; let’s call it “global-unemployment warming”.
Canada if smart would sell its bulk excess water to the United States.
Please don’t confuse pollution with greenhouse gas – two very different things.
But you missed the whole point of my comment. It’s not up to the environmentalists or you or anybody else outside of Alberta to decide. The energy reserves of Alberta belong to Albertans any they will control and decide their fate in a responsible and profitable fashion.
Don’t be a GoreZuki
1loneranger // March 12, 2007 at 1:00 pm |
Terry-
I jest not, and please, don’t call me Surely.
You said: “And yes the oil sands operations are the size of Florida (which means its really big) and your media announced production figures are correct, but research a little deeper and talk to people in the industry and you will find out that Alberta’s oil sands not only have more recoverable oil than Saudi Arabia but they have more oil than the middle east. How are you going to mud sling that one?”
I rest my case.
Terry M // March 23, 2007 at 1:19 am |
Global warming happens every year, right around summertime.
little indian // March 23, 2007 at 1:28 am |
@ Terry M
Global warming happens every year, right around summertime.
Funny but not entirely accurate.
Seasonal warming is hemisphere specific, not global.
Terry M // March 23, 2007 at 1:32 am |
I was just joking about summertime, But I am curious to find out if you guys still think global warming is really happening, especially now that is proven to be untrue.
.
Lysyszkot // March 27, 2007 at 2:43 am |
I agree there is no global warming any more than there is trolling on blogs.
1loneranger // March 27, 2007 at 4:02 pm |
Howdy WickedScot-
I hate trolls, Scottish trolls excluded of course!
Anybody disclaiming global warming and its man made effects needs to have their head examined.
I have no time for idiots like Terry. “We” are way past denying this concept and scientifically proven phenomenon.
Ranger
Delusional Calgaria « 1LONERANGER // March 29, 2007 at 6:12 am |
[...] 29th, 2007 · No Comments Do you show symptoms? Don’t forget to check for bumps. It’s the gold rush incarnate. Delusional [...]
Terry M // April 1, 2007 at 2:50 am |
1loneranger
I am not a blog troll; I research both sides of the issue.
I realize this is your site and I respect you for that, however I was attracted to you site because you focus on the greenhouse gases produced from the Alberta oil sands. Most current biased news and global warming scaremongers are focusing on the oil sands as the cause of global warming in Canada, this is untrue when the oil sands only account for 3 percent of Canadian CO2 emissions.
I just thought your readers should know and be exposed to the other side of the story. The reason Alberta is being attacked by the environmentalists is because of the money generated and the environmental lobby want some of the profits. This issue is about money, not the environment.
Most hard core environmentalists only see one side of the picture and are closed minded to the truth.
1loneranger wrote:
“I have no time for idiots like Terry. “We” are way past denying this concept and scientifically proven phenomenon.”
I have an issue with your statement, other than calling me a denier (that’s a dirty word), the science HAS NOT been scientifically proven. Please research other information pertaining to the issue; do not read only one side of the propaganda that suits your beliefs.
It has been proven that Global Warming is not caused by man and people like Gore and Suzuki have been profiting by convincing people like you and your readers that this is Armageddon.
The United Nations IPCC report that states “Global Warming is unequivocally cased by man” has now been proven to be corrupt information and many top scientists are now speaking out, even after being told their scientific funding will be cut by the UN.
Iloneranger, I sincerely believe you are not profiting from the global warming scaremongers, please don’t support the groups that are.
1loneranger // April 1, 2007 at 4:07 pm |
Terry-
I retrieved this from your Project Alberta board.
You said:
“To the readers of Project Alberta,
In an attempt to see the other side of the Global Warming story, I visited some left wing blogs originating from Eastern Canada. I was surprised to find out many “easterners actually believe Alberta and the oil sands are the cause of global warming in Canada. They also state:
We are deniers
They called me a blog troll and I am close to being banned from their site.
They also promote the Calgaria – Diarrhea theory
And are Western Canada hate mongers
Post – Greed and fear in the Alberta oil sands
I encourage you to look at the following link and post some common sense into these people, if not for the entertainment value. ”
And your friends said:
“Terry::: So you found some eastern ‘rednecks’ didja??? Oh ,wait a minute,, that’s misnomer they would be called ‘intelectuals’.
So you think a fella like me could provide a little balance in their forums??? Or would I just be wasting my time??”
Please wise up Terry.
No one here is a red-neck, far from it.
I will not debate these issues any further with you as I don’t think there is any point arguing with someone who has taken such a defensive posture to my original sensitive post. No where in my post did I say that the Tar/Oil sands alone were causing Canada’s global warming. It is only a part of it, a potentially major part I must add. A part that need not continue expanding when there is plenty of alternative power technologies ready to be utilized.
I am basing my information of global warming stats and predictions on the advice and findings of the world’s leading scientists. Not Gore and Suzuki. I don’t pick and choose as you seem to be doing.
I can fully appreciate why you’re so defensive of you precious Tar Sands. However your reasoning is not justification for more rape of the world’s ecosystem and I will add no further to this thread.
And by the way, no where did I ever propose censoring your opinion here. You may find that a comfortable tactic with your friends and their message boards and blogs, but nothing is expunged on my site and never will be. So fire away your Neo-con message/agenda.
Cheers
albertafirst // April 1, 2007 at 10:42 pm |
1loneranger,
Oops, you caught me.
I was responding on this thread because you were posting articles that were bashing Alberta and Western Canada. Albertans don’t take that type of hype lightly.
Sorry, I will no longer invade your site.
I am removing you from my favorites list.
.
Jumping Pound // April 2, 2007 at 12:03 am |
I would encourage anyone who buys into the scaremongering in regards to global warming to actually do their own research on the matter.
Whenever I hear a “leading scientist” speak about the global warming phenomenon on the news, I am consistently appalled by their apparent lack of basic scientific knowledge. They are literally talking out of their asses. Why just today, some professor from the U of T came on (I believe it was CTV) and was talking about how sea levels are expected to rise due to the melting of ice caps. Well, as anyone who has taken junior high science should know, water does NOT expand when it melts. Therefore, if ice caps are going to indeed melt, we should actually see a decrease in sea levels.
And if CO2 is such a leading cause of global warming, we should really be targeting the leading cause of CO2 emissions… volcanoes. I mean, those damn volcanoes account for the biggest contribution of CO2 spewed into our atmosphere, and have done so since the beginning of time. We should also start draining the oceans, as they’re also a major contributor of CO2.
But don’t listen to me, because I’m obviously being paid by the US government and the “corporations” to indoctrinate you. The only threat here is a basic lack of knowledge, and weak-minded people who are easily riled up by fast-talking dimwits.
loneranger // April 2, 2007 at 12:19 am |
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/03/15/the-great-global-warming-swindle-swindle/
anonymous // April 2, 2007 at 12:24 am |
Don’t let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy
George Monbiot
Tuesday March 13, 2007
The Guardian
Were it not for dissent, science, like politics, would have stayed in the dark ages. All the great heroes of the discipline – Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein – took tremendous risks in confronting mainstream opinion. Today’s crank has often proved to be tomorrow’s visionary.
But the syllogism does not apply. Being a crank does not automatically make you a visionary. There is little prospect, for example, that Dr Mantombazana Tshabalala-Msimang, the South African health minister who has claimed Aids can be treated with garlic, lemon and beetroot, will be hailed as a genius. But the point is often confused. Professor David Bellamy, for example, while making the incorrect claim that wind farms do not have “any measurable effect” on total emissions of carbon dioxide, has compared himself to Galileo.
The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands have been misled into believing there is no problem to address.
The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on Earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”. The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes – in this case in their arithmetic.
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared there was a correlation – not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”. This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa has shown on http://www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. “We’ve often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work,” Schmidt says, “but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation beyond reasonableness that we have seen.” None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.
The film also maintains that manmade global warming is disproved by conflicting temperature data. Professor John Christy speaks about the discrepancy he discovered between temperatures at the Earth’s surface and temperatures in the troposphere (or lower atmosphere). But the programme fails to mention that in 2005 his data were proved wrong, by three papers in Science magazine.
Christy himself admitted last year that he was mistaken. He was one of the authors of a paper which states the opposite of what he says in the film. “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected.”
Until recently, when found to be wrong, scientists went back to their labs to start again. Now, emboldened by the denial industry, some of them, like the film-makers, shriek “censorship!”. This is the best example of manufactured victimhood I have come across. If you demonstrate someone is wrong, you are now deemed to be silencing him.
But there is one scientist in the film whose work has not been debunked: the oceanographer Carl Wunsch. He appears to support the idea that increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for rising global temperatures. Wunsch says he was “completely misrepresented” by the programme, and “totally misled” by the people who made it.
This is a familiar story to those who have followed the career of the director Martin Durkin. In 1998, the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had “misled” his interviewees about “the content and purpose of the programmes”. Their views had been “distorted through selective editing”. Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology.
Cherry-pick your results, choose work which is already discredited, and anything and everything becomes true. The twin towers were brought down by controlled explosions; MMR injections cause autism; homeopathy works; black people are less intelligent than white people; species came about through intelligent design. You can find lines of evidence which appear to support all these contentions, and, in most cases, professors who will speak up in their favour. But this does not mean that any of them are correct. You can sustain a belief in these propositions only by ignoring the overwhelming body of contradictory data. To form a balanced, scientific view, you have to consider all the evidence, on both sides of the question.
But for the film’s commissioners, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited – such as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.
http://www.monbiot.com
1loneranger // April 2, 2007 at 1:47 am |
Terry posted to a friend over at the Project Apathy, oops I meant, Alberta:
“Sazook,
I actually had you in mind when I wrote the request.
However, you will be banned immediately; they do not like debate or reason. It’s their way or the highway. They are doing their part to support the scam. Closed minded people are fun to ridicule.
If your interested give it you best shot.”
And Terry goes on in another post on the board:
“To the readers of project Alberta:
Do not follow the link that I had previously posted.
They are not open to debate.
They are only interested in seeing one side of the issue.” http://www.projectalberta.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=3929&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90&sid=5471426b7c1fd237a0d616894544776c
Terry, please, I have not banned, or threatened to ban anyone here. Why do continue to take such a defensive posture and bristle at the mention that there might be something wrong with the oil sands? Why do you tell people to stay away from my site? Are you just showing off for your friends over at the “Project”? And just for your reference, there are really no Atlantic Canadians that contribute on my site. Me, I’m from Virginia originally, the rest, well… Canary Islands, Britain, Poland etc, etc….
This is a global issue, not just Canada and not just Alberta.
I encourage everyone here to debate to the best of our abilities. The corporate media, for both “sides”, is shit as far as most of us here are concerned. Why do you preach Britain’s Channel 4 special on the “Swindle” as gospel. Don’t you see that that is just as much propaganda for one side as the CBC is prop. for the other.
What does your gut tell ya? I saw you live in Texas, Assuming your Texan, …. it should tell you a lot. Go suck on an exhaust pipe for a minute and tell me how you feel. Go spend a year drinking the water in Ft. Chip or eating the local fauna ’round those parts and tell me how you feel.
Fuck Co2. I’m not a scientist anymore than you are. I’m going with the majority of scientists who are not controlled by and do not have vested interest in the oil industry or to the “climate forecast industry”. And I’m going with what I see and breath in urban areas, not just Co2.
Most of my original post was about pollutants and destruction of ecosystems any way, not Co2. Why are people like you so bent on defending those who destroy the environment. Stupid question, it’s profit I know. I wouldn’t care if the refining and burning of fossil fuels was good for you. I oppose it because it is not renewable, it is increasingly expensive, the need for it perpetuates wars, and in the long run it is not a profitable venture for most. But it is not good for us of course. Besides all this, you get right down to it and the whole deal is bad for our grand kids. It cannot come close to becoming 100% clean and the demand grows as the supplies decline. People such as yourself endorsed prohibition in the early 20th century, which got North America off ethanol and into this whole fucking oil mess in the first place.
Tell me, how many shares in ExxonMobil, Shell, BP etc. do you own? I’m kidding, I don’t give a shit. It doesn’t really matter. Folks like you aren’t really worried about how people like me are being manipulated by the left-wing propaganda, you’re worried about your shares and continuing this backward and illogical agenda of non-renewables. And by the way, please don’t refer to me as part of the ‘left-wing’. You don’t know my politics.
Let ‘er rip.
1loneranger // April 2, 2007 at 9:56 pm |
Supreme Court Justices Rule Against Bush Administration on Co2 Emissions
see here:
http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/supreme-court-justices-rule-against-bush-ad0ministration-on-emissions/
kremb // June 7, 2007 at 9:25 pm |
Kind of ironic that the first use of the moniker ‘Project Alberta’ was as a division of the Manhattan Project which developed the means of delivering the first atomic bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alberta
My father is a denier like these guys too. Thats how I ended up here today. Researching the latest anti AGW clipping he sent me from the financial post.
Nice site, enjoyed the subject matter. Take care.
raylene . gibot // March 13, 2008 at 1:19 am |
FUCK WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE MAKING US HAVE CANCER I AM SICK OF MY FAMILY DIEING LIKE THIS SHIT . SORRY FOR SWEARING BUT MY FAMILY IS DIEING FROM YOU PUTTING YOUR DIRTY POLLUTION IN OUR WATER OUR GOOD FISH ARE DIEING AND WE CANT HUNT FOR OUR MOOSE CAUSE THEY ARE GETTING SICK FROM YOU TO AND I CANT EVEN GO SWIMMING YOUR COMPANY SHOULD SHUT DOWN OR STOP USING OUR WATER TO POLLUTE IT . WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF OUR FAMILIES DIENG . AND YEARS AGO WE WOULD JUST GET UP AND GO SWIMMING AND HUNING AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND NOW WE CANT BECAUSE OF YOU ANIMALS BOY WE ARE GUNNA DO SOMTHING ABOUT THIS VERY SOON . SO QUIT POLUTING OUR TOWN ITS VERY NICE AND WE DONT NEED ANY ANIMALS OR OUR ELDERS OR ANYONE TO DIE . SO WHEN YOU READ THIS E-MAIL ME
raylenegibot@hotmail.com
raylene . gibot // March 13, 2008 at 1:20 am |
Sorry for swearing
raylene . gibot // March 13, 2008 at 1:32 am |
AND THIS IS IN FORT CHIPEWYAN
Anonymous // March 13, 2008 at 1:33 am |
okay first of all !
Stop polluting our water !!
Cause we cant est our fish because your polluting it !!
And we cant drink the water, or we’ll get cancer !
So please , Just stop Your pollution in our water ! our Town was Beautiful .. but now that people are dying .. its not the same ! its because most of them got Cancer ! .. Just STOP polluting in our water !!
Signed ;;
Someone who actully CARES .. about Fort Chipewyan .
Rlynn McLellan // July 13, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
Stephen Harper looks like the kind of Canadian who wants to contribute to the earth’s destruction, so does every oilman and coal man in Canada. They do not care about their children or their grand children or what kind of world they leave them. They only care about staying in office or making money. And it should go without saying that also describes anyone who is skeptical about man made global warming. Does that sound right. HMMM well that is what Green Peace and other Green types want you to believe. This is the biggest Bonanza the greenies ever hit on.
Maybe the leaders of countries that are slow to accept Kyoto and other such measures have figured out it is a bunch of cattle dung but to placate the rising hysteria they need to do something since the truth doesn’t work. But they do not want to bring about devastation to emerging nations that go without running water and electricity. Greenies and their sheep would have us believe these people are better off living in poverty and filth. They would have us believe clean running water and electricity and fuel is not going to improve their lives. In fact that could be viewed as a threat if they emerged on a more equal footing. Lets keep em down on the farm.
It is political suicide if you are skeptical. It is political suicide if you point out weather and climate anomalies have always existed some years worse than others for example.
Worst Tornado in Canada – 1912 Regina SK – 28 dead 2500 homeless.
Worst Drought – Canadian Prairies – Dust Bowl -10 year drought -1930’s – Dirty 30s
Worst Tsunami March 27, 1964, first Tsunami in 35 years Port Alberni Vancouver Island. Sparked by North America’s largest earthquake in a century far north in Alaska.
Worst Flood 1996- Quebec’s Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region
Worst Hurricane – October 15, 1954, Hurricane Hazel – Southern Ontario – 81 dead
Some of Canada’s other Weather Records
The hottest day on record was on July 5, 1937, in Midale and Yellowgrass, Sask., when temperatures peaked at 45C.
1936, the deadliest heat wave in Canadian history hit Manitoba and Ontario. For almost two weeks in July, temperatures more than 44C left 1,180 Canadians dead, mostly infants and the elderly. Four hundred of those drowned seeking refuge from the heat.
Longest cold spell – March 10 – 14, 1912; record set each day. Eleven records were set that month.
I know that a few years of weather does not make a climate, but do the Greenies know that?
silviapur // April 12, 2009 at 10:17 am |
Think about it… Are you kidding me about my cogent god Sorry, for off top, i wanna tell one joke) What did the fish say when he hit a concrete wall? “Dam.”