How about laying off the stupidity of claiming man controls climate long enough to assess the damage done to the aquifer in a ruinous escapade that makes no economic sense and is likely to put us in the poorhouse while ruining our land.What ? You have a scientific consensus ? Give it up. Appeal to Authority is politics. Science demands proof and contention. Anything else might as well be flogging 'green' religion.
Opit, I don't think I understand your balderdash or did I misunderstood you. Dirty oil traveling from Alberta to Saint John does pose serious pollution problems especially in case of leak which are frequent in recent years. Also keystone pipeline. Obama has said no so far and told Harper to go screw yourself. I hope Obama remains steadfast in his resolve. Yes I have worked in the field of environment including gas pipelines and oil pipelines. What is your educational background and experience? The flow of sewer and how it can pollute the drinking water and you enjoy drinking it.
That dirty oil has to be mixed with an emulsifier to flow. The effect is much greater than ordinary corrosion...and old pipe is proposed as the conduit !Don't get started on sewer unless you are familiar with the effluent of factory farming ( sewerage sludge ) and its load of exotic chemicals and diseases...spread on crops. Or perhaps the good fun of dispersant destabilizing and amplifying the toxicity of crude as per Exxon Valdez off Alaska, Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico at Macondo Prospect, and now off Australia.My balderdash as you put it is in good measure exactly what I make of the proposition that man can foretell and affect future climate conditions. We cannot even measure the average heat on this sphere with a nuclear furnace at its heart and loss of heat to space via water expulsion. I much more believe in the idea of a regulated planetary temperature with cyclical swings and changes than the dominant action of some marginal effect which should be overwhelmed by the usual conveyor of heat because radiation hits it first : water.But if you want to put all your stock in climate scientists, try this on for size : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-response-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/Does a global temperature existhttp://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect http://archive.org/details/RadiationPhysicsConstraintsOnGlobalWarmingCo2IncreaseHasLittleEffectNone of this need be viewed as definitive. I have many more links to explore. I have, however, been chasing the climate chimera for almost 4 years now. I hear a lot of drivel about 'deniers' from people who themselves deny the operation of discussion with a fabricated allegation that the case is made. Fine. Where and what is it, then ?
Opit, I don't have time to deal with your drivel. First in my post I was talking about pollution from leaks oil/gas pipes and they do happen on land and in the ocean. There are plenty of natural resources for energy. You have just to look at recent erratic weather around the globe. Colorado and New Jersey floods are one example. If it does not tell you something then I don't know what will.The deniers are corporations or so-called 'scientists' paid heavily by corporations. You're from Alberta and I can understand why you will go along with plenty of pipelines and refineries.We had an idiot like that at University de-Moncton who gave 'go ahead' for many projects including fracking in NB. Turns out the guy was a fraud and had Ph.D in social sciences and not in science. He got away for 31 years with that fraud. If you want to follow such 'scientists' then good for you.