I don't really get what all the fuss is about. I guess concern about a pipeline spill is a possibility but the USA has thousands of miles of crude oil pipelines already. If it's about "dirty oil", the oil is going to get refined regardless if there is a pipeline there or not.
No, skeptical science has not been taken over by environmental extremists. The XL pipeline is just a reasonable place to draw a line in the sand. On one side we have those who think we should develop every fossil fuel source available no matter what the environmental consequences, and on the other side we have those who think that it's time to decide that we should leave the carbon in the ground and develop other energy sources. The oil companies have not been able buy the president the way it's bought Congress, so protests against the pipeline may actually do some good if it will convince the president to stand firm on not letting the pipeline be built.
There are a lot of problems with the tar sands besides the carbon emissions. The First Nations People are opposing developing the pipeline because it is destroying large areas of Canada and polluting the rivers that the people depend on for water and food. Canada was a strong supporter of environmental issues until the election of a so-called conservative government that doesn't really want to conserve anything important. It is also a test of whether Canada will begin to again put its natural resources ahead of money, limit the development of the tar Sands, and return to its Kyoto goals.
This is a moot issue since there isn't any Global Warming. Never has been any Global Warming. And never will be any AGW. Any true scientist would prove that there is GW BEFORE trying to find the cause.
As to the Keystone Pipeline, that is a totally political subject. Critics don't know what they are talking about. That land is so bad that the white man gave most of it to the Indians. Also, we do know how to build safe pipelines. We can't trust man to build a pipeline but we can trust him to measure the temperature of the whole earth? Which one would be harder? University of Colorado is trusted to measure the ocean's level from a satellite down to a tenth of a mm and yet man can't be trusted to build a safe pipeline?
The 'saviors of the earth' will put their trust in obviously corrupted figures of James Hansen and not trust oil companies to build safe pipelines, ignoring the fact that there are tens of thousands miles of safe pipelines safely operating on this very day.
If we are proven correct, it will not be a 'silver lining' for people like me. It will mean needless suffering put upon the average person for no apparent reason. It will mean huge profits to those tax collectors and less food for the average man. It will mean more power to the powers that be and less to the powers of our Constitution. Contrary to popular opinion, I take no delight in being right, but feel a gut wrenching feeling for seeing so many people led down a path by a bunch of looney con artists who should be committed, rather than freely raking in the dough and grabbing liberties from mankind.
First, I don't think the article (or the one I'll link to here) actually blames it for global warming. However, some climate scientists feel strongly about the implications of its active exploration and use.
So no, not a strawman. Back when the link below was first posted in 2011, I read it. It's been awhile and I haven't stayed up to date on the topic. But I can provide the link I read. Perhaps it will add to your frustration or reduce it. I've no idea which. But I think it was worth reading back then, anyway.
This seems like a very complicated question, but NO, I still don't buy the Global Warming premise, because real science does not support it. And, at least hundreds of scientists are in the same boat with me.
Looks like after reassessing the potential emissions, it appears that the tar sands project will produce 7 times more emissions than Dana had thought when producing the two previous blogs. I guess this is an example of someone incorporating new information into their previously held position and changing their position as a result.
But I don't see any reference to straw man arguments or any real support for tar sands mining in the previous blogs. Dana addressed numerous environmental issues and even when he thought the emissions would total (only) around 1 billion tonnes CO2eq, he still concluded it would be better not to mine.
So where does the straw man argument come into it?
EDIT: Thanks for the added details, I assumed you meant that skeptical science had addressed this issue as a strawman in the past so I was a bit confused.
I can only agree that the denialists were correct in their fears that tar sand mining would be opposed. But since Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol it becomes a moot point. Environmentalists would oppose tar sand mining regardless, just as denialists will oppose action on climate change regardless of what evidence can be produced to show that action is warranted or it is at least worthwhile to mitigate potential risks.
Keep playing the middle. That's why you call yourself a realist (Climate Realist). FO! You've been one of the people that have been perpetuating this moronic cause that has costed people billions of dollars. I hope you feel better in your question and your quest!
You keep the quest going for people like Dana. Dana has no clue about how the world works, but he sure tells a big story on "Skeptical Science". He (Dana) tries to discredit people like Richard Lindzen and John Christy but he doesn't have the "kahunas" to discredit people like Ian Clark, Tim Patterson, Robert Balling, Stephen McIntyre, Patrick J. Micheals, Fred Singer, Jim Bunce, Paul Reiter, Fred Seitz, and Paul Dreissen. The facts about "Global Warming" are based on the allegation made by Al Gore and people at "Skeptical Science". I would emplore people to get the facts straight and not rely on people with a political obective. I will re-iterate the fact that people have a less than 1% impact on this planet when it comes to our "Greenhouse Effect" on the planet. Please don't get mixed up with machines (I've seen them from Jeff M here) and scientific jargon. There are a few scientists that help us understand that don't need a Government Grant to help us understand. I'll keep fighting, but people like "Climate Realist" tend to send the facts in another direction. Please follow Climate Realist's idea and you will understand his mis-information. NOAA and NASA have facts that are well preserved. Interpretation is a key that will propel people forward. We'll figure it out!
That's like claiming MSNBC has been hijacked by liberals.
Pat, Climate Realist isn't playing the middle, he's simply struggling with a choice of figuring out which faith to follow Warmonism or Christianity.
Gas - He did not change his position, he simply doubled down on stupid.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/updated-keystone-climate.html
The above article blames the Alberta oil sands for global warming. A few years ago, I thought that the idea that people would try to shut down the Alberta oil sands was a denialist straw man argument.
