This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Startling The Global Community, Canada Withdraws From The Kyoto Convention

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by John C.K. Daly of

Startling the Global Community, Canada Withdraws from the Kyoto Convention

Canada has announced its intention to withdraw from the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions (GGE), sandbagging the other signatories to the convention. The Kyoto protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, was designed to combat global warming with the agreement allowing countries like China and India take voluntary, but non-binding steps to reduce their greenhouse gas carbon emissions.

International condemnation was swift.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said at a news briefing, "It is regrettable and flies in the face of the efforts of the international community for Canada to leave the Kyoto Protocol at a time when the Durban meeting, as everyone knows, made important progress by securing a second phase of commitment to the Protocol. We also hope that Canada will face up to its due responsibilities and duties, and continue abiding by its commitments, and take a positive, constructive attitude towards participating in international cooperation to respond to climate change."

Xinhua, China's state news agency, labeled Ottawa's decision "preposterous, an excuse to shirk responsibility" and implored the Canadian government to reverse its decision so it could help reduce global emissions of GGEs.

Beijing’s comments are significant, not least because the PRC is currently the world's biggest producer of GGEs after the U.S., but China has stalwartly insisted that the Kyoto Protocol remain the foundation of the world’s efforts to curb GGE emissions, which scientists maintain are a significant contributor to global warming. Pleading its special status as a developing nation China at the recently concluded climate change negotiations in Durban was granted an extension of the terms of implementing the Kyoto protocol until 2017 even as it bowed to pressure to launch later talks for a new pact to succeed the Kyoto protocol that would legally oblige all the big GGE producers to act.

Japan also expressed displeasure at the Canadian decision, but in a more nuanced approach, Japanese Environment Minister Goshi Hosono urged Canada to continue to support the Kyoto agreement, which included "important elements" that could help fight climate change. 

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres opined in a statement released to the press, “I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing. Whether or not Canada is a party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort.”

A spokesman for France's Foreign Ministry called Canada’s decision “bad news for the fight against climate change.”

Even plucky Southern Pacific island nation Tuvalu weighed in with its lead negotiator Ian Fry bluntly stating in an e-mail to Reuters, "For a vulnerable country like Tuvalu, it’s an act of sabotage on our future. Withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol is a reckless and totally irresponsible act."

The silence from Washington on the issue was significant, as the United States Bush administration refused to sign the protocol, arguing instead that China and other big emerging emitters should come under a legally binding framework that does away with the either-or distinction between advanced and developing countries.

Toughing it out, Canadian Minister of the Environment Peter Kent stated that the protocol "does not represent a way forward," adding that meeting Canada's obligations under the Kyoto convention would cost $13.6 billion, asserting, "That's $1,546 from every Canadian family - that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government."

Canada’s decision nevertheless has garnered a few supporters. Australian Minister of Climate Change Greg Combet has defended Canada's decision, remarking, "The Canadian decision to withdraw from the protocol should not be used to suggest Canada does not intend to play its part in global efforts to tackle climate change." One might note here that coal is Australia’s third largest export.

So, why the abrupt Canadian volte-face? Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels and is the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to the U.S.

The answer may lie in Canada’s far north, in Alberta’s massive bitumen tar sands deposits, a resource that Ottawa has been desperate to develop. Since 1997 some of the world’s biggest energy producers have spent $120 billion in developing Canada’s oil tar sands, which would be at risk if Ottawa went green in sporting the Kyoto accords.

According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, more than 170 billion barrels of oil sands reserves now are considered economically viable for recovery using current technology. Current Canadian daily oil sands production is 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd), but Canadian boosters are optimistic that production can be ramped up to 3.7 million bpd by 2025.

So, what’s the problem?

Extracting oil from tar sands is an environmentally dirty process and the resultant fuel has a larger carbon footprint than petroleum derived from traditional fossil fuels, producing from 8 to 14 percent more CO2 emissions, depending on which scientific study you read.

So, Canada acceding to the Kyoto Treaty terms would effectively kill the burgeoning Canadian tar sands extraction industry. The Canadian tar sands already suffered a massive setback earlier this year when the Obama administration effectively sidelined the Keystone XL pipeline, which was due to transports tar oil production across the U.S. to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

So, Ottawa on the Kyoto convention has effectively drawn its line in the sand(s.)
Where things go from here is anyone’s guess.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:52 | 1987887 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Bully, Canada, Bully!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:08 | 1987963 RMolineaux
RMolineaux's picture

Canadians didn't know what they were letting themselves in for when they elected the Harper government.  It is beginning to resemble Newt Gringich's idea of heaven.  Pretty soon the Canadian north will resemble the Sahara desert.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:33 | 1988002 strannick
strannick's picture

But the only other choices were the institutional corruption of the Liberal Party, and the Socialist idiocy of the NDP. So it was quite a quandry. And actually, much of the north is already a desert in regards to percipitation, just a lot colder than most others.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:43 | 1988086 taketheredpill
taketheredpill's picture

The Conservatives, Liberals, and the NDP are all out of touch.  They appear to have different mandates (who can't have abortions, who can have rifles without registration, tough on crime, easy on immigration etc. etc.) but where it counts they are basically the same.  All 3 parties have economists who talk about 3% real gdp being "normal".  Where the economists differ is on which slice of society gets which slice of the growth pie.

Since 3% real gdp means over the next 20 years we use as much in resources as we used in the previous 200, and last I checked Canada's resources haven't increased (which necessarily includes clean air and water), I think ignoring the eventual crunch is a better measure of lunacy.

Which means the Greens, who we are all taught to believe are idiots, actually make sense.  And the others are the idiots.

I think the Greens will win a majority within my lifetime.  Unfortunately I think that will only happen when it won't make any difference.

Used to vote Conservative (once shook hands with Ralph Klein at a rally...pisstank), then Liberal, then NDP, now Green.

Good Luck!





Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:18 | 1988221 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

And you plan to get around, plow your fields, and heat your habitation with...WHAT exactly?
Something far more expensive, whilst you still have a century or two of much less expensive means available.

The far higher prosperity resulting from ditching Kyoto and the greens hair-shirt policies will result in lots of extra resources available to advance technology, which will then outpace the energy needs problem indefinitely. The other way to go is misery, decline, then war.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:36 | 1988597 trav7777
trav7777's picture

there's NO OPTION if you want that oil.

Actually, Alberta needs a nuke plant to generate steam for this...but of course the NIMBYs would rather burn NG, which is where the GGEs are coming from

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 05:59 | 1989595 prains
prains's picture

Correct trAv and the uranium is insitu one province away

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 14:13 | 1989994 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Australian Minister of Climate Change"


Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:56 | 1988831 omniversling
omniversling's picture


But ice snow and water don't absolutely and permanently TRASH the streams, rivers, lakes, wildlife and foodweb that are contaminated by oil sands production. Nor does H20 turn wilderness into moonscape.

Tar sands EROI is around 1.5:1 making it the most filthy large scale production yet, at a time when CO2 emmisions rose 5.9% in the past year, and 1000km2 fields of methane geysers (20-72 time more potent GHG than CO2 depending on where it is in it's lifecycle) have just been discovered in the arctic.

Time's up. We either go renewable right fkkn now, or we ARE in the doomsday closed feedback loop. We will spend what's left of our fossil fuels putting out fires and mopping up after big weather events.

We are in the 6th extinction. Whatever else contributes to climate change, we are adding to it, and stressing EVERY other aspect of our ecosystem. If we dont acknowledge this and get our shit together very very pronto, our species is doomed; just one more on the extinction list. And it's own our stupid fault, cos it's all there in front of us to see. Right now. The cumulative effects. The endgame.

I'm Australian, and I'm ashamed to be Australian at the moment. Our countries have been hijacked by the Energy Corps. We are getting trashed for gas, and selling uranium to non NPT countries. All remnant principles that our 'Labour Party' had have been utterly sold out for $. It's disgusting, and I know that Canada now has had it's 'clean international reputation' smashed too. Canada's dirty little nuclear secrets aren't secret anymore.

There's a total disconnect here between the blah blah blah of the redhead's 'carbon tax', and AusGov's intention to double our coal exports by 2020. Stated aim: " to make Australia an oil and gas superpower'. FFS, they're all totally deluded, and really don't give a fck about how this will impact the planet and coming generations. I just don't understand...they all have families with descendants.

Please do yourself (and the planet) a favour, and google some aerial shots of the tar sands wasteland before you expose yourself as such an extraordinarily brutal, ecocidal ignoramus in public again.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 01:38 | 1989489 francis_the_won...
francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

Amazing how some still believe that the "science is settled"....Read "The Delinquent Teenager" and get back to me.


Sat, 12/17/2011 - 20:08 | 1990497 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Yeah Francis, the science is so settled that they changed from AGW to ACC, rebranding their in the hopes no one would notice.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 03:09 | 1989557 darkpool2
darkpool2's picture

Extreme . Nonsense.
Sure there are issues to be worked through, but hyperventilating is not a helpful path. I believe technology , and an educated, connected planet, can get us through. Your extreme paranoia can only lead down the road of " engineered " global population reduction. You first mate!

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:17 | 1989664 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Doomed we are, doomed, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, unless we pay carbon taxes to the UN, who will save us from ourselves.    But don't worry, 2012 and the aliens will get us long before the climate does.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 11:14 | 1989754 NumNutt
NumNutt's picture

Sorry did I miss something? When did China become concerned with the environment? Was it when they realized they have dumped to much industrial chemicals in the Yangtze river, or is it when they realized they could no longer breath the air in BeiJing? The truth is China could give a rats ass about the environment, but they do care about China becoming the next leader of the world.  The Kyoto accord restricts the developed nations carbon emissions but gives waivers to "developing nations". In other words, countries like the US, Canada, everyone in Europe, Russia, and anyone else that has a modern advanced economic, industrial, political, and military would suddenly have to completely change and restrict their energy consumption to meet these new standards. Developing nations would be allowed to continue to pollute. Guess witch camp China falls into? Yep Developing Nations. So for China this agreement is a win win. They get to sell crappy green technology to the rest of the world, while increasing their military power and economic position, while the current leading countries are force into poverty. Fuck China, and this stupid ass green movement, it is nothing more then a power grab and Canada called them on it. Good job Canada!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:28 | 1988033 sondog
sondog's picture

Sorry bud, this is a very smart move. What a scam these handouts are. I might re-elect Harper just for this.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:50 | 1988117 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

Just  a question for those who believe humans are not contributing to global warming-


If you are not concerned with humans carbon emissions, are you concerned that all the other emissions and pollutants being spewed/deposited/ingested might possibly have a harmful effect?


Will the whole world have to look like this  before we realize we are killing ourselves and our planet?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:53 | 1988127 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

There is a world of a difference between the pollution issue and the global warming / climage change (which is it?) issue.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:58 | 1988147 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

That is kinda what I'm getting at.  Let's focus on one tiny aspect of a problem and debate it ad nauseum, while the much larger problem gets no mention whatsoever.

So your answer to my question.......?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:02 | 1988163 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Not sure I made myself clear. Pollution, when it happens, is a real and verifiable problem. Global warming is not a verifiable problem. Climate change isnt either, unless you think that natural changes to the climate should be fought against or unless you believe that the Earth's ideal temperature should be set by humankind at a given degree.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:08 | 1988174 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

No, you made yourself clear. I was basically getting at the fact that both carbon emissions and *real* pollutants are a product of our industrial processes, yet everyone focusses on the carbon, and not often is there a mention of the very real problem of the pollutants. I was just wondering what the 'no human made climate change'crowd thought of our other pollutants, and whether they might have an effect on humanitys' future.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:13 | 1988199 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

I dont believe in the global warming hoax but I am concerned about pollution. Reality is, the lands that get polluted are always those that are not privately owned. Industries don't pollute their neihbours' land if they can be sued for it. They pollute where they are licenced to by the State.

China being communist and totalitarian, along with such a large population with no real property rights, no surprise it's headed towards the biggest pollution disaster in history.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:23 | 1988231 Pegasus Muse
Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:35 | 1988285 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

Ever tried to open a business on the site of an old gas station?? I ask because I had to give up on exactly that because there were too many toxins on the site. And to my knowledge, it was never publicly owned.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:35 | 1988286 darkaeye
darkaeye's picture

Too right NotSee!!  That's my biggest complaint about the AGW crowd.  As more and more of the general population come to realize that the whole anthropogenic global warming scam was a giant money grabbing scheme for a handful of begilionaires, the masses will begin to lose faith in ALL anti-poluution campaigns and that is a huge problem.  People remember being scammed.

CO2 is not pollution.  Check this out (and the many footnote/references to REAL climate science):

We need to concentrate on reducing TOXIC pollutants, habitat destruction, supporting wildlife diversification, energy conservation, clean energy alternatives and many other REAL threats to environmental health.  Carbon emmisions are just a distraction.

I'm no fan of Herr Harper, but Canada has definitely done the right thing here.  Way to go Canada!!

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:28 | 1989820 russki standart
russki standart's picture
FYI, this is why many of us do not trust the scientists behind the AGW Scam. Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?

By Maxim Lott

Are your tax dollars helping hide global warming data from the public? Internal emails leaked as part of “Climategate 2.0” indicate the answer may be "Yes."

The original Climategate emails -- correspondence stolen from servers at a research facility in the U.K. and released on the Internet in late 2009 -- shook up the field of climate research. Now a new batch posted in late November to a Russian server shows that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit refused to share their U.S. government-funded data with anyone they thought would disagree with them.

Making that case in 2009, the then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection -- and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.

“Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.

Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data "has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: "They are happy with me not passing on the station data," he wrote.

The emails have outraged climate-change skeptics who say they can't trust climate studies unless they see the raw data -- and how it has been adjusted.

"In every endeavor of science, making your work replicable by others is a basic tenet of proof,” Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and climate change blogger, told “If other scientists cannot replicate your work, it brings your work into question.”

Is the Department of Energy to blame? The Climategate emails reveal correspondence only between Jones and his colleagues -- not between him and the DoE.

"What’s missing," Watts said, "is a ... directive from DoE that they should withhold station data gathered under their grant. The email may be there, but ... still under lock and key.”

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wants that key. He recently filed Freedom of Information acts with the DoE, requesting the emails they exchanged with Jones.

"So far no administration department has bothered to respond, indicating they … believe the time bought with stonewalling might just get them off the hook for disclosure," Horner told

"Not with us, it won't," he said.

The Department of Energy has until December 29 before it must legally respond to Horner's request.

When contacted by, DoE spokesman Damien LaVera declined to comment.

However, climate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.

"I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s," Hughes noted in his request.

But Tom Boden, of the DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that "you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items."

McIntyre said he himself later had a similar exchange with the DOE, after which "I suggested that they amend this as a condition of further financing."

"I was surprised that the new emails show them actively taking the opposite approach," he added.

Asked about the connection with the Department of Energy, Simon Dunford, a spokesman for Jones’ Climatic Research Unit, told that Jones has changed his tune since the emails were made public. 

"Prof Jones has already accepted he should have been more open, and has since made all the station data referred to in these emails publicly available," Dunford told

Watts said that while much of the data itself is now available, the methods of adjusting it -- statistical modification meant to filter anomalies, "normalize" the data, and potentially highlight certain trends -- remain a secret.

"Much of climate science, in terms of the computer processing that goes on, remains a black box to the outside world. We see the data go in, and we see the data that come out as a finished product -- but we don’t know how they adjust it in between.”

Watts said he would like to be given the adjustment formulas to make his own determination.

"The fact that they are trying to keep people from replicating their studies -- that's the issue," Watts noted. "Replication is the most important tenet of science."


Read more:
Sun, 12/18/2011 - 01:24 | 1990560 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"CO2 is not pollution" ...therefore an inbalance of that or any other substance is nothing to worry about. Your logic and your science need work. Amazing conspiracy of thousands of scientists isn't it. Carbon tax scam neither proves or disproves anything.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:35 | 1988276 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

Carbon is the gas of life. 

Here's a better reason why the whole global warming/climate change is it more important to stop the propaganda filled reasons that wrong computer models like housing can never go down say cause it, or is it more important for the human race to be able to adapt to any change in the Earth for whatever reason?  Because guess what, whether or not human beings are here are not, the Earth changes. 

It is far more important that Human beings learn to adapt to changing environments.  Our future isn't limited to Earth, and even ten degrees warmer will be better than most other celestial bodies out there that are capable of harboring life.  It's funny, all these planets considered in the habitable zone, maybe a few degrees warmer or colder, and colonizable, but we should shut off 99 percent of our industry, kill ourselves off, damn the human race to extinction, because a computer model (that has never been close to right, and never will be) told us we might warm a few degrees in the next hundred years?  The climate idiots are more dangerous than caron dixoxide by a factor of 10000000x.

Pollution is a whole other beast, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  Again, it's the gas of life.

You also might remember....why is it that it's hard to find ancient habitats?  Because they're underwater.  Guess what that means?  What's currently above water by up to a couple hundred feet, will probably be underwater for awhile, until another ice age drops sea levels by a few hundred feet.  The oceans have been rising since the end of the ice age, and will continue to.  So people built shitty houses along the coasts, most of which will probably be torn down and replaced again before the waters innundate them.   This was a given no matter what.  Plus a lot of people tend to think the Sun and cosmos radiation have a lot to due with our warming.  Ceasing our industries won't change that.

Even if Global warming was real, it's not going to create a tsunami flooding everything in a split second, and us human know how to adapt, and can adapt.  If we choose not to, and say a levee breaks, then THAT is OUR fault, not Global Warming's fault.  But then again in monetary sophistry, there is no money for levees, so the global warming/monetarists are fucking us at both ends.  There is no money to adapt, and we must shut everything down.  That is what we face, and both of those pressures on us are completely made up.  There is money to adapt, and the human race must continue onward and upward.  The only green energy is fusion, the rest is complete bullshit.


Remember, the British Crown created Green Fascism.  Don't ever forget that. 

They also are the figurehead for this bankster sophistry monetarism fucking up the world's 'economics'.

All that they touch is mired in bullshit.  How about us humans use our brains and adapt, invent, and move beyond this manufactured idiocy? Instead we believe their bullshit, and play their shitty game.  Life isn't about their bullshit, except it is, because we act like idiots and accept their bullshit.  It doesn't need to be this way.  It's idiotic to be this way.



Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:45 | 1988326 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You really do work hard at being a moron. I am impressed.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:03 | 1988438 akak
akak's picture

He's a LaRoucher --- it comes naturally.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:38 | 1988606 trav7777
trav7777's picture

yeah i am going to have to side with the scientists on this one, but am concerned also about Mars' warming and why pan evaporation rates have fallen.  CO2 is probably not the cause, but a coincident effect.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 22:33 | 1989158 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Thus speaks the Fagmeister, he of the phony PHD.  Unlike most soft headed greens, many of us on ZH are capable of critical thinking and can parse statements. The computer models prove nothing and correlation is not causality.  Empirical experiments by CERN demonstrate that, surprise, the sun plays a role in global warming. I will not spend time here rehashing old arguments as there is plenty of material freely available that conclusively demonstates that AGW is a myth.


 Since you enjoy insulting others, let me return the karma: You are just a stupid pretentious ass, a pompous oaf who cowardly hurls gratuitious insults behind the anonimity of a keyboard.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 21:19 | 1990565 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

says he of anon avatar. Global warming is not a simple subject nor has it been settled with any academic, economic, or political scandal. Too much data, too many scientists. Statements like "the sun plays a role" pretty much reveals the sophistication of ones approach. Yes it is the sun that heats the earth, it's all the stuff covering the earth and its changing nature that complicates things... 

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 07:46 | 1991081 russki standart
russki standart's picture

DaveyJones, if you make extraordinary claims, that our environment will face a critical tipping point that is irrecoverable, and the solution is to pay Trillions to the UN, you better have an incontrovertible case. The process must be clear, transparent, verifiable by disinterested 3rd parties and include a very broad spectrum of scientific specialists.

Instead, what we ended up is a small insider cabal reviewing each other work and blocking alternative views. What we have are political and ecological ideologues masquerading as scientists, making asinine claims that the science is settled, when it clearly WAS NOT, and calling skeptics deniers, ad hominem attack designed to shut down debate.

I do not care what studies are published if the authors lack basic objectivity and integrity. When Phil Jones was compelled to produce his original unadjusted data, why he misplaced it because, get this, he is an absent minded professor type. So without verification of the original data, we now have science fiction instead of science fact.

Guys like you, Flakmeister, Use of Guns and the rest of the greenie cabal will never get that if you lack credibility, whatever you publish, even if it is grounded in empiricism, does not  matter. Beyond the usual cheering squad, it is all BS to us.


Sun, 12/18/2011 - 11:41 | 1991432 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

if one scandal refuted all the direct and circumstantial evidence and all the scientists, you'd have a struggling point. This was one group. There's more than one. Not everyone who is concerned about this subject supports a carbon tax in fact many intelligent folks see it for the non productive scam that it is. Scam artists will always exist. If you were a scam artist, why wouldn't you leach on to an important subject like this? Thus, it proves nothing. I forgot, what step in the scientific method involves calling someone a greenie or a fag?   

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:45 | 1988814 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

We currently live near the END of an INTERGLACIAL period within a long series of cycles of MOSTLY glacial periods.

Global warming is a good thing that we should research, urgently, in order to ensure we can keep the current, relatively short interglacial period of warming permanently "ON".

This would be any sane person's conclusion looking at what an ICE AGE, just about overdue now, would do to man and all other life on this planet. Yeah, greenies, suck on that thought for a while. Al Gore too. A mile thick sheet of ice would scrape NYC and every single canuck creation off into the ocean, which is worse than NYC getting its feet a little wetter fifty years from now.

Yes I am serious, we ought to have a bias toward keeping anthropogenic global warming fully ON for now, by "principle of precaution," even if it means the oceans continue to rise slowly for a while...... as they have fairly continuously since the end of the last incredibly long, fauna and flora Apocalypse we call the last (of a great many) loooong ICE AGEs.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 21:50 | 1989074 fuu
fuu's picture

"A mile thick sheet of ice would scrape into the ocean"


And this is bad why?

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 22:34 | 1992705 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

Huh?Even the most pessimistic projections put the next ice age out over 50,000 years into the future....where are you getting your information from? You should probably question everything that your source is giving you if that's the kind of information you're getting...

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:06 | 1988173 Hippocratic Oaf
Hippocratic Oaf's picture

Doesn't matter, China is going to gobble up this resource and pay hi-mother-fuckin'-dollar for it. The technology isn't quite there yet.........but China has love-me-long-time money. 

Opti Canada tried and ran out of dough. They welcome China and their bad habits. What more doe Canada have as far as choices with the economic destroyer-in-chief in office?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:09 | 1988185 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Oh and to your question. The images are disturbing, no doubt. But the fact that there are no real property rights in China makes it all too easy to pollute all over the place. This is mostly a political problem over there if you ask me.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:11 | 1988183 Manthong
Manthong's picture


 OK.. OK.. so some of the crap in the air that just might add to the temperature one way (or the other) we put there, but don't forget about termites, animals, volcanos and other geologic gasses .

 And to quote Ann Barnhardt :"maybe you didn’t get the memo, but the two octillion ton fusion gas ball up in the sky that we lowly riff raff call the sun is what determines the weather.. not cars or factories or car farts :"

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:20 | 1988224 darkaeye
darkaeye's picture

Exactly!  If I could thumbs-up this comment by 100 I would.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:42 | 1988315 Whalley World
Whalley World's picture

The sun with a little help from cosmic rays.  Henrik Svendmakr (sp) has done extensive studies on the interaction of cosmic rays with solar activity create earth's cloud cover.  Worth a read.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:10 | 1988348 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you then cite any observational evidence to back up you assertion? Also explain how the solar cycle contributes to the acidification of the oceans?

Basically changes in the TSI cannot explain what is observed....and if you don't know what TSI stands for, simply STFU

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:21 | 1988519 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Why waste your time on these morons? They always say carbon dioxide doesnt cause a greenhouse effect, yet just 40 million km away is Venus, covered in a blanket of carbon dioxide and swelting at 450 C.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:40 | 1988614 trav7777
trav7777's picture

refresh my memory but water vapor is a byproduct of combustion as well and is a significantly more powerful GGE.

Venus is also way closer to the sun, jackass...Mercury is even hotter

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:09 | 1988716 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah, but water vapor is not forcing, whereas C02 is.... Water vapor is basically in global equilibrium, i.e. peturb the system and you will return to equilibrium in short time scale....

Nice discussion here

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:24 | 1989262 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Methinks you don't even know how to even figure out what is what.... You have displayed absolutely zero scientific acumen in your posts here....

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:15 | 1989663 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The only scientific acumen needed to rebut your nonsense is what trav said above and has been known for years.

The sun is hot. Mars got warmer.

Its understandable though, the Martians love their SUV'

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 22:42 | 1989176 russki standart
russki standart's picture

I do not bother reading real climate any longer since it is nothing more than the propaganda mouthpiece of  greenies masquerading as second rate scientists.  Maybe one day one of your idiot eco nazies can explain away the Medieval Warm Period, or the passing of at least 5 known ice ages, all without the benefit of SUV's.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:47 | 1989313 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey Russki,

You are really a pathetic troll.... you claim a B.A. in Poly-Sci and an MBA. Have you taken a college level science class? Or are you simply on somebodies payroll? I bet you could not even read, let alone understand the most basic monogram on climate science...

It is fairly obvious that you are paid or are stalking me.  The only time you appear here is when  AGW discussions occur and your apparent purpose is post followups to my missives. 

I take this as a compliment and a sign that rational thought is prevailing.  Once upon a time the Peak Oilers at the Hedge were shouted down by Neanderthals of your ilk, but between the efforts of a number of people, the PO deniers have lost the battle based on the data and facts....

As with PO, it will be AGW not just GW.  Science always trumps ideologically driven agendas, though it can take time....

Now go ahead and hurl your empty insults and intellectually bankrupt counterarguements.  I know I have have the moral and scientific high ground....

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:40 | 1989673 russki standart
russki standart's picture


I do not claim a scientific background, but unlike you, I also do not claim phony PHD's

Unlike you, a AGW zealot, I actually asked help from friends who are world class statistical modellers, far smarter than I. Their conclusion, the AGW models are worthless, proving nothing.

Then I ask myself, if this is really a scientific debate, why are sceptics called deniers, a political ad hominem attack designed to shut down debate. Why do the AGW'ers scream so loud, simply because their evidence is weak.

I also find it amusing that you think so highly of yourself  that you assume if I am rebutting your lies, this somehow makes me a stalker. Don't flatter yourself, buttboy, you are a non entity suffering from delusions of grandeur. Or perhaps you are projecting your tendencies onto me....

The good news is that AGW is discredited and support continues to decline for paying carbon taxes to greenies. Time for you to find another job....Hmmm since you are opposed to green house gases, I hear there is an opening in the Vancouver Public transit system, a green project to sequester Methane, 35x more powerful than CO2 as per your peer/anal buddies.. It appears that commuters tend to release lots of Methane, so I think you would be highly qualified, helping the plant, sucking farts out of bus seats.



Sat, 12/17/2011 - 05:24 | 1989586 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Hey Trav you racist fuckwit, Venus is hotter than Mercury, do a little reasearch in astronomy you stupid cunt  rather than reading "How to castrate blacks".

Water may be a better GGE, but carbon dioxide plugs those infrared windows that previously allowed those wavelengths to escape to space. Learn some basic infrared chemistry.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 22:44 | 1989177 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Wow, praetor, you just won the nobel prize for that original observation. But hmmm, let me think, isn't Venus a bit closer to the sun? Could it be, gasp, that the sun is responsible, in part at least, for warming planets?

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 05:27 | 1989587 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Yes Ruski dickhead it is closer to the Sun than Earth. If Venus had no carbon dioxide atmosphere it would not be cooking at 450 C.

Learn some basic chemistry and physics.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:39 | 1989674 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Are you suggesting Praetor, that the atmosphere of earth will  approach that of Venus in the next 50 years? Now who is it that does not understand basic physics?

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:50 | 1989685 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Well, assuming you mean approach as in composition, of course not. However the message is clear, increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere blocks the ability of thermal energy to radiate away into space, hence remaining in the Earths atmosphere longer than it would if carbon dioxide levels were lower. Increasing the temperature of Earth increaes the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, causing more greenhouse effects leading to a runaway greenhouse effect similar to what occurred on Venus.

And how does your statement prove anything of your understanding of physics?

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:49 | 1989836 russki standart
russki standart's picture

I do not need to be a physicist to comprehend that AGW is a political movement hiding behind phony science. Physics has nothing to say about frauds like yourself.

Nearly all of what you have stated is speculation, unproven and without foundation. A stronger argument could be made that increased CO2 is an effect or result of increasing global temperatures.  I will not waste time explaining why your computer models are BS, suffice it to say their predictions have been wrong.

Even if what you said is true, it is still a trivial prediction without a set deadline that can be independently verified by non conflicted and disinterested scientists.  I can predict for example, with 100% certainty that the world will end, but this is meaningless without a specific timeline.

Essentially greenies like yourself want us to pay trillions in taxes to a centralized authority on the basis that you might be right. Sorry, but that dog does not hunt. AGW will be tossed into the intellectual scrap heap of history along with the piltdown man and the geocentric solar system.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 19:58 | 1990477 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Great straw-man argument, I never said I support taxes or a 'greenie'. Then again your 1 page cheat sheet on how to try to debunk scientists has as point #1- "Introduce straw-man arguments to deflect debate off topic"

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 01:32 | 1990781 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

interesting  how the r man continues to prove his position by "not wasting [his] time" explaining the scientific proof behind any of his positions 

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 07:51 | 1991084 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Sorry, DaveyJones, the onus is on the AGW'ers to prove their theory, not on me to disprove it. Besides, this is not a scientific debate, but a political and social debate, whether we as humans should give our wealth and sovereignty to an unelected dictatorial UN, or live free of centralized control


I like your choice of moniker. It perfectly describes where your theory of AGW and greenie religion will utimately reside.

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 11:51 | 1991460 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

every time the logic corners you, you claim this subject is the carbon tax and that you have no burden of proof, it isn't and you do. This is an argument, much like peak oil, that is indeed wrapped in tremendous political power games, involves a wide variety of science, and has outrageous implications for every one of us. Anyone who enters the ring needs to hold their own and can not weenie out with stereotype labels and burden shifting retreats.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:50 | 1989837 russki standart
russki standart's picture

I do not need to be a physicist to comprehend that AGW is a political movement hiding behind phony science. Physics has nothing to say about frauds like yourself.

Nearly all of what you have stated is speculation, unproven and without foundation. A stronger argument could be made that increased CO2 is an effect or result of increasing global temperatures.  I will not waste time explaining why your computer models are BS, suffice it to say their predictions have been wrong.

Even if what you said is true, it is still a trivial prediction without a set deadline that can be independently verified by non conflicted and disinterested scientists.  I can predict for example, with 100% certainty that the world will end, but this is meaningless without a specific timeline.

Essentially greenies like yourself want us to pay trillions in taxes to a centralized authority on the basis that you might be right. Sorry, but that dog does not hunt. AGW will be tossed into the intellectual scrap heap of history along with the piltdown man and the geocentric solar system.

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 01:46 | 1990793 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"I do not need to be a physicist to comprehend that AGW is a political movement" That's right, you need the collective expertise of a wide variety of science and disciplines to even approach something more than an idiots comment.  

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 22:37 | 1989165 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Hey Faggotmeister, the onus is not on us, asshole, to disprove AGW. If your religion was revealed, the rest of us would get it. Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to support AGW and this is the problem, isn't it.  Go ahead, smart guy,  prove AGW and become the most famous and rich scientist in history. Otherwise, to borrow a phrase, STFU.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:25 | 1988765 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

"to quote Ann Barnhardt". . .

You just made me throw-up in my mouth. JFC, why don't you go straight to the hard shit and start citing Ann Coulter.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 21:04 | 1988917 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Dude, Barnhardt makes Coulter look like Mother Theresa.

You don't have agree with everything she says..

I think she's spot on with a lot of stuff and a hoot to boot.

Oh, and to quote Coulter: "scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic."


Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:58 | 1989348 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

This is the same Coulter that suggested that radiation is good for you.... I suggest that if you scratch a PO/AGW denier that you will find scientifically deficient, white conservative evangelical male likely from south of the Mason-Dixon line.... of course, the exception only proves the rule.

and this one

"Cool Dudes: The Denial of Climate Change in Conservative White Males in the US"


Scratch Ann Coulter and you will find a hatemongering neo-con fascist  (see how easy that was!)

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:42 | 1989677 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Blah blah blah, same cheap rethoric from the repressed faggy meister....Too bad  the 'you must be rascist if you do not believe in AGW' meme did not catch on....On second thought, isn't Al Gore a white male southerner?

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 01:38 | 1990786 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

the more you reveal your ongoing fantasy that Flak is gay, the more we follow your arguments 

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 07:53 | 1991086 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Where is your sense of humor, DJ, or are you (gasp) homophobic? Flaky likes being called gay.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 21:08 | 1990558 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture


Oh, and to quote Coulter: "scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic."

huh, so Ann Barnhardt is a global warming scientist as well?  whodahthunk!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:58 | 1988847 omniversling
omniversling's picture

you tell us..enlighten us please.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:03 | 1988168 Lord Welligton
Lord Welligton's picture

Seen it many times.

Effectively the West, under cover of "Environmental Protection" exported pollution to China.

The Chinese didn't give a shit.

Now we have a nice back yard.


CAGW is a bucket of shit.



Fri, 12/16/2011 - 20:06 | 1988861 omniversling
omniversling's picture

What goes around comes around. the planet is finite, and we're ALL interconnected and dependant on each other. Look what's coming to your 'clean backyard', and it seems that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is being done about it except by some privateer oceanographer. First question: will there be bodies in that debris?

Well you can be absolutely sure that however many bodies there are in that debris will be NOTHING compared to the bodies that will be consequent to that catastrophe landing on the US west coast.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 08:39 | 1989635 nickt1y
nickt1y's picture

What form of government brought the worst pollution and biggest nuclear accidents? Socialism / Communism! The philosphies that are the bedrock of the command and control economy that the ..... wait for it ...... Green Movement espouses. Pure irony!

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 08:39 | 1989636 nickt1y
nickt1y's picture

What form of government brought the worst pollution and biggest nuclear accidents? Socialism / Communism! The philosphies that are the bedrock of the command and control economy that the ..... wait for it ...... Green Movement espouses. Pure irony!

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 02:18 | 1989522 Albertarocks
Albertarocks's picture

Right you are sondog.  Canada's not being uncooperative, we just don't like Al Gore's horseshit angle on it, that's all.  Carbon dioxide is not a polutant for Christ's sake.  It's what trees breath.  Ever seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle"?  Canadians have:

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:41 | 1988073 Desert Irish
Desert Irish's picture

Well mate, I guess all those oil royalties that keep you in social security and the other social programs you enjoy should immediatly be scrapped???  The liberals signed Kyoto not Harper....lets shut every factory, hospital, electrical generation plant and vehicle just so we can be in compliance with a hairbrained idea that supports China's manufacturing industry.....seriously you been to Northern China and tried looking at the sun midday especially this time of year??? yea they're in compliance....

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 20:14 | 1988875 PonziBeaver
PonziBeaver's picture

It's just a little piece of Northern Alberta.

Oil sands are a convenient whipping boy and diversion. Check out the pollution from coal power, please see attached link from Oil Producers propaganda (but still true).

Oil Sands vs Coal Power

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 08:58 | 1989650 falak pema
falak pema's picture

As per your attachment :

the east coast of USA/Canada gets double CO2 emissions. No wonder the women of Nj are fed up of being double deckered. It must feel like being a London town bus.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:23 | 1988021 Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris's picture

Way to go Canada!  I always say I'm gonna start worrying about Global Warming when I finish bigfoot proofing my house.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:16 | 1988210 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Dirty money grubbing bastards. This will come back to bite you on the arse.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:52 | 1987889 UGrev
UGrev's picture

...that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government

SLAM!!! bitches!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:50 | 1988112 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

Yeah. Down with the global warming religion.

Only today, it was in the mainstream news that climate change causes polar bear cannibalism and the dying of african trees. You can't make this up.

For those who'd like a good laugh, here's a short list of things "caused by global warming / climate change" whatever :

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 09:43 | 1989680 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Hillarious, almost as funny as Fagmeister in the nude!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:54 | 1987894 sabra1
sabra1's picture

if you americans don't watch it, we canadians (including all beavers) will have to invade your country, and cut off your supply of maple syrup for you waffles, in which you all bought $2 waffle makers!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:04 | 1987947 pods
pods's picture

Why not just make money by saying you found a mouse in a bottle of beer eh?


Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:05 | 1987952 Sweet Chicken
Sweet Chicken's picture

My brother and I used to always say that drowning in beer would be heaven.....well he isn't here and this ain't heaven.....this sucks!!!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:16 | 1987988 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture



Some Hosehead horked our clothes!

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:20 | 1988005 kito
kito's picture

our northern neighbors, smug in their satisfaction of having vast amounts of natural resources with only 30 million people, especially the truly cherished liquid, fresh water....its only time before its all ours......beware.........

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:25 | 1988245 msamour
msamour's picture

Sure , just cross the border and come and get it. What are you waiting for? Be my guest. Please come between January 1st, and February 28, it's easier to take.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:33 | 1988786 Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

Do they know what maple sirup is? Who uses that shit anyway? I'm Canadian.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:54 | 1987896 lance_manion
lance_manion's picture

Amen.  Usually our Canadian government is completely out to lunch, so I for one applaud this decision and hope that it is not just a momentary lapse into sanity.   

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:56 | 1987904 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

Shale drilling in the USofA, tarsand drilling in Canada.

North America seems hellbent on doing whatever it can to ruin what is left of its environment.

Come to Western Pennsylvania, to smell what your future - and your water - is going to taste like if this stuff keeps on going unabated.

Maybe this will get into the minds and hearts of the serfs.

All it takes sometimes, is an important societal figure. I guess in 2011 Amerikkka, that means a sports figure.

Oh well. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:20 | 1988008 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

No drilling in the tarsands- Essentially they take Titan sized dozers and track hoes, scrape about 100' off the surface of the earth, steam it with trillions of gallons of fresh water heated by equally enormous amounts of natural gas, to get a product nowhere near as good as conventional oil.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:31 | 1988044 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

Well, I used the wrong term, and for that, I am a doufus.

Thanks for correcting me. In the end, it is like shale drilling here in the USofA.

Not worth the expense put into it.

In short - another "get rich quick" scam for the FIRE economy.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:47 | 1988102 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

There are many reasons to be judged doofus.

"Not worth the expense put into it."

There is no choice.  There is no oil anywhere else.  Only oil delivers food to your grocery store shelves.  Solar doesn't drive trucks and never will.  Neither does natgas.

Drill or die now.  Drill and die later.

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 01:58 | 1990809 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

we could and should quickly change our food production and delivery system by making it local and non dependent on petroleum pesticides and fertilizers. Those systems are acutally more calorie and nutrition efficient.  

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:21 | 1988228 imapopulistnow
imapopulistnow's picture

" get a product nowhere near as good as conventional oil."

It is good enough.

Sun, 12/18/2011 - 02:28 | 1990869 grgy
grgy's picture

As I see it, the US can continue to bow at the feet of the Saudi's, cooperate with a friendly neighbour to the north and work through the environmental issues or return to living in caves.  Only an idiot has trouble figuring this out.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:20 | 1988214 defencev
defencev's picture

Let us just not confuse pollution with global warming. There are definitely changes in global temperature and Chinese are on receiving end of it (due to melt down in Hymalayan region). It just so happens that they are not obliged to make any emission reductions under Kyoto protocol and they are the ones who are , in fact, can afford to make substantial environmental efforts.

Thus, I welcome Canadian decision to exit Kyoto protocol. Chinese really need to make effort to take care of themselves while the Northern America should concentrate on energy independence. And let us notice that nobody really knows whether

global warming is due to cyclical changes or human activity.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:56 | 1987905 midgetrannyporn
midgetrannyporn's picture

Hopefully this will kill the carbon scam on wall street. suck it al gore.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:48 | 1988641 Matt
Matt's picture

If Al Gore had been appointed President, Enron might not have gone bankrupt, as they were best in the position to make billions off trading carbon credits. All they had to do was keep the shell game going long enough until the trading scams started.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:57 | 1987908 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

Tar sands- turning vast amounts of water and natural gas into a wee little bit of oil since the 1970s.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:58 | 1987919 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

The treaty went unsigned in 1996 under Clinton (with algore as V.P.), not Bush.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:02 | 1987940 akak
akak's picture

I hope that the many sanctimonious and hypocritical Canadians who like to smugly thumb their noses at the USA are proud of the fact that their country has an even worse history of environmental despoilment, proportionate to their population, than does the USA.  And this is with even greater governmental regulation!  So much for the theory that those in government are there to "protect" anything other than their own self-interest (and that of their campaign contributors).

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:11 | 1987976 jimmyjames
jimmyjames's picture

I hope that the many sanctimonious and hypocritical Canadians who like to smugly thumb their noses at the USA are proud of the fact that their country has an even worse history of environmental despoilment, proportionate to their population, than does the USA. 


If you're speaking about the dreaded "carbon emissions" which is complete bullshit-i suppose you're correct-

As far as environmental practices we are second to no one-

40+ years in the oil industry-so i do know a thing or 6 about it-

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:18 | 1988001 akak
akak's picture

You've apparently never flown over the Alberta tar sands region.  I have --- and thought I had been transported to Mars.

As for logging, the government-sponsored clearcutting of the BC rainforest was proportionately even more rapacious and short-sightedly destructive than what occurred almost anywhere in the USA.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:32 | 1988047 lance_manion
lance_manion's picture

Your Temagami Chainsaw Massacre shirt must be getting holes in it by now.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:00 | 1988154 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Like the Temagami reference! Family has a cottage around four hours north of Temagami but usually stop there to regroup. Nice place but when talking about inflated real estate ....

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:44 | 1988071 jimmyjames
jimmyjames's picture

The subject is oil sands-

The oilsand is already there-it has been for a million years-so how does this "natural resource" suddenly become so toxic?

They dig it off the surface and haul it to process in dirt hauling trucks-process it and pipe it down a pipeline-then the land is "re-claimed" and put it back to bed-

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:41 | 1988074 Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

I'm Canadian and I fully agree with you, the economy of this country depends on "clear cutting everything" and delivering it to US. There is no thought behind it at all just dig out, cut it, and send it to whoever wants it and for whatever price they are willing to pay. There is no industry to value add to our products, nothing just primitive harvesting, we're unable to develop our own industries at all, in comparison with Finland we're midgets equiped with spades and saws.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:56 | 1988142 jimmyjames
jimmyjames's picture

I'm Canadian and I fully agree with you, the economy of this country depends on "clear cutting everything"



I suppose we can have a choice about letting these things do it and let it lay to waste or we could short circuit them "somewhat" and utilize the resource-


The tiny beetles have already destroyed about 163,000 square kilometres of timber in B.C. — an area more than five times the size of Vancouver Island. The province estimates it has spent about $600 million in the last two years to fight wildfires.

Wildfire experts say the pine beetle is making forest fires more dangerous to fight and warn it will worsen as millions of dead trees fall to the ground in B.C. and Alberta.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:01 | 1988158 akak
akak's picture

We suffered from a tremendous plague of spruce bark beetles here in Alaska in the 1990s as well, which killed off almost innumerable square miles of old-growth spruce.  And you know what the cause of their population explosion was finally determined to be?  The lack of sufficiently-cold winters to kill off most of their larvae  --- in other words, a warming climate.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:49 | 1988347 jimmyjames
jimmyjames's picture

The lack of sufficiently-cold winters to kill off most of their larvae  --- in other words, a warming climate.


Of course-the climate cycle is warming and mother nature will deal with it with perfection as always-

Did you also know that Alaska/Arctic was once a tropical rain forest?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:53 | 1989333 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

mother nature's never seen the likes of us....mother nature is fucked

Mon, 12/19/2011 - 15:10 | 1991612 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

that is the most intelligent post of this entire thread. Love how folks defend the evidence by claiming this or that is a natural substance or natural resource or that mother nature "goes through cycles." Mother nature has never had one of her species do the things we do. Last time I checked, she keeps most other species within gravity's pull. Wonder what else we can mess with?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:10 | 1988470 slavador
slavador's picture

Most forest fires are put out before they can accomplish the sterilization they are famous for. Man found an alternate means by skillfully clear-cutting enormous cut-blocks and burning the remaining organics on the surface  to control disease and bugs. Where the environmental wacko's halted this practice such outbreaks now come regularly.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:06 | 1988175 Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

My friend, just looking at the price difference between WTI and Brent should tell you something, if not too bad. 

Finland produces enginered lumber for construction, paper bags environmentally friendly from beetle infested forest and makes money on it, what we do produce 2x4 and raw lumber? We burn our gas to produce synthetic oil and destroy environment at the same time, is this the best use for our resources?  

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:43 | 1988089 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Most of Canada looks like Mars! Google Canadian Shield.  I did a project on that area when in grade school - not much growing there.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:52 | 1988123 akak
akak's picture

I've also flown over significant expanses of the Canadian Shield over northern Ontario and especially Quebec, and I assure you that what I saw below me there was NOTHING like the moonscape that I saw over portions of Alberta.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:26 | 1988251 imapopulistnow
imapopulistnow's picture

BFD.  Google Earth Northern Canada.  It is a huge expanse.  So what if one small, unpopululated section is strip mined?  Still penty of room for the critters.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:28 | 1988257 jimmyjames
jimmyjames's picture

I've also flown over significant expanses of the Canadian Shield over northern Ontario and especially Quebec, and I assure you that what I saw below me there was NOTHING like the moonscape that I saw over portions of Alberta.


Maybe should have asked the flight captain to take it below 40,000 feet?


Reforestation has been the law in Alberta since 1966. Under legislation, a forestry company must "treat" a harvested area within two years of logging. "Treatment" means ensuring either natural regrowth or artificial reforestation. With natural regrowth, or regeneration, a timber company ensures that conditions are right for trees to grow back naturally.

The reforestation success rate in Alberta is generally above 92 percent for coniferous, deciduous and mixedwood areas.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:59 | 1988405 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Can I offer you a warm fuzzy puppy to adopt?


Oil industry guy denying AGW, somehow why am I not surprised? Are you on the Heartland Institute mailing list?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:32 | 1988585 jimmyjames
jimmyjames's picture

Oil industry guy denying AGW, somehow why am I not surprised? Are you on the Heartland Institute mailing list?


Never heard of the heartland institute-

I do however live amongst "the ruins" we drink the fresh water that flows down the streams and we eat the food that is grown here and my kids are all adults and extremely healthy and they are reproducing and all of the offspring have 2 eyes etc.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:04 | 1988649 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Very happy for you.... clearly you did not get the gist of what I was implying... far too subtle I guess...

Do you have any scientific training or understanding to enables you to refute AGW or is it a faith-based belief?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 19:38 | 1988800 jimmyjames
jimmyjames's picture

Yes i have "scientific" proof-

We live very healthy lives and "survive" here and have for generations-

Have you ever heard of a river catching fire in Canada?

Detroit comes to mind-

Have you ever studied the "ill" effects on people and animals that thrive here?

You can't computer model that one can you-

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:26 | 1989266 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

As I thought... not a shred of evidence, just faith based denial....


Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:52 | 1989331 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Thats right Faggy, not a shred of evidence, just faith based belief in AGW... a good way to descibe you.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:51 | 1989328 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Do you, FaggyMeister, have any scientific training other than phony degrees in global warming stupidity? AGW is not proven, and will not be proven since CO2 is a harmless trace gas critical to all life.  I will not waste time refuting your BS, since it is more fun insulting you.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:06 | 1989228 russki standart
russki standart's picture

Hey, faggy, what with you and puppets? Miss Al Gore releasing his third chakra into your rosebud?


Huge integrated oil companies want carbon taxes.  Enron showed them how to make billions trading worthless carbon credit derivatives, without  actually producing anything of value. Google BP and carbon taxes. But then, you already knew that, didn't you? I guess  your opportunity to make millions  circled the toilet bowl along with the cap and trade scam.

Must really suck to be you.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 17:59 | 1988403 slavador
slavador's picture


I remember treeplanting on Vancouver Island in 1985. A really hot hippy girl named Sunshine stood on a meter wide fir stump and wailed: "This old growth forest is gone for ever due to the selfish men that destroy everything". The forester on site pointed out that this had been a cut block in 1925 as well!

As one who has derived much income from logging rainforests in BC I can say with some authority that like the lovely Ms. Sunshine you know almost nothing about our rain forests. The clearcuts my father cut in the 1940s that were not replanted are now mature forests. The clearcuts I have had a hand in in the 1980s that were all replanted are now very healthy stands of six inch thick 40 foot trees. These forests are teeming with life and are at the peak of their carbon capturing cycle. Whether its cleaning the soil of its natural oil contamination in Alberta or logging the decadent old growth stands of BC, Canadians are combining prosperity with enhancing our natural environment. Viewing any extraction site at the moment of extraction gives a very twisted view of what it is all about.  

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:18 | 1988491 akak
akak's picture


With your experience, you surely know then that ecologically there is a tremendous difference between a tree plantation and an old-growth forest --- for example, many species of insects, birds, fungi and understory plants can only thrive or even only survive in the latter. 

I am not against logging by any means, nor some Earth Firster, but let's be honest and clear on the extent to which mankind has altered and, in many cases, negatively impacted or even destroyed the natural environment both in Canada and worldwide.  There is a point, somewhere, on which to balance man's needs for room and resources on the one hand, and the health of the overall ecosystem on the other, but it seems to me that unfortunately that point is pushed ever further into the distance, or into the future.  We collectively do so at our own peril, as manycivilizations (such as the Anasazi, the Mayans and the Easter Islanders) learned all too well, and at the ultimate price.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:22 | 1988524 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

  I've seen MacBlo reforestations from the 1950's in the QCs.... it has a long-long way to go,

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 14:05 | 1989984 memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

drive through the centre of vancouver island west of duncan- acres and acres of dead stumps and sand where there used to be old growth forest. Thousands upon thousands of little dead seedlings that someone planted in the sand.

Sat, 12/17/2011 - 12:12 | 1989807 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

You Know what? I despise tar sands extraction. I see it as a form of rape. It's a damn shame that we tear up such beautiful landscape for so little real value in return. That having been said, on a scale of justice, the epic fraud employed by the gobal left in attempting to herd humanity into some perverted version of an elitist 'sims' game is far worse. Life never has perfect choices, only best choices. If it boils down to tar sands or prison planet/global zoo, I opt for freedom.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:21 | 1988010 Lore
Lore's picture

Dude. Americans are so much worse than the USA. Look at the numbers of your coal alone.

If you're going to talk about oilsands, educate yourself. Google SAGD.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:42 | 1988619 walküre
walküre's picture

you think shutting down the tar sands would have left Canada off the hook?

think again.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:57 | 1987914 jimmyjames
jimmyjames's picture

Alberta's oil looks dirty until you have to park your car-then it mysteriously cleans itself-

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:48 | 1988110 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture


There is no choice.  And it's not the car that parks.  It's the truck that brings food to the grocery store.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:58 | 1987918 unionbroker
unionbroker's picture

yes we need more greenhouse gasses so that more of the arctic  ice will melt so we can access more hydrocarbons to crerate more greenhouse gasses so that more ice will melt and so on and so on

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:56 | 1988051 UGrev
UGrev's picture

One phrase for you "Climate-Gate 2.0"

One word for you: FRAUD


Fri, 12/16/2011 - 18:00 | 1988421 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I wonder if it was the same guys as on Murdochs payroll?

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 23:12 | 1989239 russki standart
russki standart's picture

No Faggotmeister, they were on the UN, US, British payroll, as a matter of public record. Climategate 2.0 is real since the self styled climatologists behind it admitted to writing the emails. They were hung by their own words.

Gotta update your talking points, perhaps you need another round with Al Gore and his Butt Blasters.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 22:24 | 1989134 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

but if there is peak oil we will run out before we destroy the climate right?? 

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:59 | 1987921 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

sgt preston, we salute you!

it looks like africa is still interested in building new hotels in which to host future conferences and settlement platforms for the offsets;  i hope i'm wrong, but a i sense a near-religious fervor about global warming from the africans

probably b/c its so fuking hot there already, now that i think about it...duh...

maybe the obverse applies to canada;  or the converse, if you're in the southern hemishere, i s'pose...

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 15:59 | 1987922 Rodolfito
Rodolfito's picture

Ahh, how perfect is that ... the fake global warming promotion which was designed to enable a global tax on breathing (for the serfs) is a nice enjoyable, slow trainwreck. Puppet Harper will be doing his best to avoid his handlers for the foreseeable future.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:03 | 1987944 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

Pinnochio was unique among puppets. The strings stay on all others.

Fri, 12/16/2011 - 16:21 | 1987968 akak
akak's picture

Go ask the Eskimos of Barrow or Kivalina or Shishmaref, Alaska, whose villages are being washed away by the increasingly ice-free Arctic Ocean and Chuckchi Sea and their autumn storms, or those of Kotzebue, who effectively can no longer hunt walruses or harp seals due to the retreating sea ice, or many of the natives in Interior Alaska, where the widespread melting of permafrost continues to cause former trails to dissolve into boggy quagmires, just how "fake" global warming really is.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!