Earlier this year in an interview with the Globe and Mail you described Canada’s development of the oil sands as the equivalent of treating the atmosphere like an “open sewer.” What do you have to say about the findings of Canadian climate scientist and lead UN IPCC author Andrew Weaver, and his colleague Neal Swart, published in the journal Nature, that even if Canada developed all the commercially viable oil in the oilsands, global temperatures would rise by an insignificant 0.03 degrees?
It’s frightening how close this pompous hypocritical math-challenged fool came to being president.
Weaver subsequently published an op-ed summarizing his paper thus:
That doesn’t seem out of step with Gore’s message.
And it’s as scientifically and mathematically ignorant as Gore’s message. As is, apparently, you.
Calling someone ignorant for citing your very source?
If you want to cite swart, don’t be surprised if people cite his full body of work.
http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_Oil_Sands_climate.html
Calling Jim ignorant for citing your own source?
Do you happen to have any sources that show Swart is mathematically and scientifically ignorant?
Are you going to quote something intelligent from Swart to indicate his brilliance, Douchenozzle?
I realize progressives have no problems doing uneconomical things such as Obamacare. But scientifically and mathematically knowledgeable people don’t continue to recover tar sands when the cost becomes uneconomical.
As for Gore, the bastard flies his jet around all over the place polluting our air. He’s is in the 1% of air polluters and he is telling people that merely drive their car to and from work that they need to change their habits. Gore’s actions speak louder than his message.
scientifically and mathematically knowledgeable people don’t continue to recover tar sands when the cost becomes uneconomical
Right. And policy makers have some influence on just when that happens.
“We’ll run out of our ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.”
Oh no it looks like we are all going to die in an apocalypse. I guess some people need something to latch onto now that 2012 and the Mayan end times turned out to be just like all the other end of world scares. This time it will be different…
Weaver’s numbers are junk science. If you burned all the known coal in the world at once you’d release about 5.8e18 grams of CO2, raising atmospheric levels briefly to 1,128 ppm. He claims this would cause a 14.8C temperature rise, but in the past the planet’s temperature was only a maximum of 11C warmer when CO2 levels were 7,000 ppm, and the planet was only 2C warmer when CO2 levels were above 2,000 ppm.
The Earth’s history invalidates his model. Maybe he’s stupidly assuming a linear CO2/temperature effect, when actually the effect is a decreasing exponential curve with diminishing returns on added CO2.
“It’s frightening how close this pompous hypocritical math-challenged fool came to being president.”
Or, John Kerry. Or, for that matter, Barack Obama. Thank the Maker those two never rose to prominent positions with massive responsibilities. Oh, wait…
Another quote from Weaver’s op-ed:
The atmosphere has traditionally been viewed as an unregulated dumping ground. There is no cost associated with emitting greenhouse gases.
Which is virtually identical to Gore’s comment on the atmosphere being treated as an open sewer.
Why, again, is Gore supposed to have a problem with Weaver’s work?
There is no cost associated with emitting greenhouse gases.
the atmosphere being treated as an open sewer.
The main “greenhouse gas” is water vapor. What, pray tell Jim, would you propose as the appropriate charge to be levied on water vapor emitters to compensate for the costs of maintaining the public sewer?
And what, again, caused your retardation?