Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (9859)	2/20/2012 6:53:14 PM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

Hansen is like the 7th Day Adventists. They keep predicting the end it never comes but still predict and their religious fanatics still believe, just like the climate change alarmists. lj

To: Brumar89 who wrote (9859)	2/20/2012 11:33:45 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 85487

ugh, Weaver concluded just the opposite. Confusing Climate Study Actually Makes Strong Case Against Tar Sands — If We Want To Avoid Catastrophic Global Warming By Joe Romm on Feb 20, 2012 at 7:34 pm In the world we must strive to achieve, however difficult or implausible it may seem today, there is no place for a major expansion of the tar sands Climatologist Andrew Weaver asks me to direct folks to this website and this video, ”in case the tar sands piece that Neil [Swart] and I published yesterday gets spun as a ‘tars sands is good’ story”: I do think Weaver’s study — “The Alberta oil sands and climate” in Nature Climate Change (subs. req’d) – is a tad confusing. For instance, it doesn’t even include the extra emissions from tar sands extraction in its calculations!! So people who don’t actually read it carefully are likely to misreport its findings. According to Time magazine, “Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands ‘Game Over’ for the Climate? One Study Says No”: The good news from the Nature Climate Change paper is that, should environmentalists lose their battle, the consequences might not be quite as bad as they’ve made it out to be. Except that isn’t what the study finds. Indeed, the final paragraph states If North American and international policymakers wish to limit global warming to less than 2 °C they will clearly need to put in place measures that ensure a rapid transition of global energy systems to non-greenhouse-gas-emitting sources, while avoiding commitments to new infrastructure supporting dependence on fossil fuels. more thinkprogress.org