Listen to this one-sided battle of Bluster vs Brains -- too bad it is only a lone newscaster who gives Joe "what for" on behave of his fellow environmentally-friendly Canadians ...
Joe Oliver vs. Scientist (James Hansen)
Apr 24, 2013
link to video
Oliver slams scientist's oilsands claims as 'nonsense' (source of Video)
CBC News, www.cbc.ca/news -- Apr 24, 2013
[Canada's Natural Resources Minister, Joe] Oliver, in Washington, D.C., to shore up support for the Keystone XL pipeline, took aim at scientist James Hansen, who has been a vocal opponent of developing the oilsands. "It does not advance the debate when people make exaggerated comments that are not rooted in the facts. And he should know that," Oliver said to reporters, following a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
In an op-ed piece for the New York Times last year, Hansen claimed that "if Canada proceeds [with oilsands development], and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate."
Oliver countered that when a source of energy represents 1/1000th of global emissions, "to say it’s the end of the planet if that’s developed is nonsense."
He added that "crying wolf all the time" does not advance the serious debate.
PS. Joe Oliver is on a US tour today and tomorrow to persuade Congress and the new DOI Secretary -- that letting the KeyStone XL pipeline tread across ours lands is actually good for us and good for the planet.
Hmmm? I wonder where his portfolio is invested?
'As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government.'
by Jon Queally, staff writer, Common Dreams -- April 2, 2013
In a letter to 350.org supporters Monday night, McKibben, always the activist, urged members to honor Hansen's commitment by submitting a personal comment against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline which is still under review at the State Department:
Sending a message to the State Department might not seem like much, but I think it’s actually quite fitting tribute.
One reason we’re fighting the pipeline is because Jim Hansen did the math to show that if we combusted the tar sands on top of all else we burn, it would be “game over for the climate.” So far that message hasn’t gotten through: the State Department hired a bunch of compromised oil industry analysts to ‘review’ KXL, and unsurprisingly they decided it would have ‘minimal’ environmental impact. We need to get them to take reality seriously, and change that assessment.
NASA's Hansen Explains Decision to Join Keystone Pipeline Protests
"Einstein said to think and not act is a crime," James Hansen tells SolveClimate News. "If we understand the situation, we must try to make it clear."
by Elizabeth McGowan, InsideClimate News, insideclimatenews.org -- Aug 29, 2011
[...]"If released all at once, the known tar sands" would kick our 390 ppm up to 540 ppm
SolveClimate News: You have referred to Keystone XL as the "fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet." What actual effect would it have on the amount of carbon dioxide in the air?
James Hansen: If released all at once, the known tar sands resource is equivalent to 150 parts per million. As is the case with other fossil fuel sources, the amount in the air declines to about 20 percent after 1,000 years. Of course, only a small fraction of the resource is economically recoverable at the moment. But if you decide you are going to continue your addiction and build a big pipeline to Texas, the economically extractable oil will steadily grow over time. Moreover the known resources would grow because there is plenty more to be discovered.
Every seller will tell you his pile of pollution is small compared to the total pile on Earth, and that is correct. What makes tar sands particularly odious is that the energy you get out in the end, per unit carbon dioxide, is poor. It's equivalent to burning coal in your automobile. We simply cannot be that stupid if we want to preserve a planet for our children and grandchildren.
-- the goal is 350 ppm ... 540 is another way of saying game over.
Post em if you got em -- Facts that back up Joe the Bureaucrat vs Facts that back up James the Scientist.