Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

FOS President drives Truck through Halliburton Officer

We hope he did time for this!

Len Maier | LinkedIn-1


Alberta Suffering from Bitumen and Moron Bubbles



Attn: Premier Alison Redford

Cc: Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Peter Kent, Minister of Environment, Canada
Hon. Diana McQueen, Minister of Environment, Alberta
Danielle Smith, Leader of the Opposition Wild Rose Alliance
Derek Fildebrandt, Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation
FoS Media List

Dear Premier Redford,

RE: Looming Deficit, Diversion of Public Funds to Carbon Capture

Yesterday you spoke to Albertans about the bitumen bubble.

We respond to you that there is acarbon bubble’ of diverted public funds that put the future generations at risk. Not only is carbon dioxide (CO2) a valueless and owner-less substance, the science behind carbon reduction is faulty. Yet your government plans to spend billions to
capture CO2 while borrowing to support education, health and infrastructure.

The bitumen bubble’ though real, is based on a valuable, tangible product. By contrast, ...the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one. * Mark Schapiro Conning the Climate Harpers Magazine, Feb. 2010

Carbon capture and carbon reduction initiatives are a foolish diversion of needed public funds – particularly in light of recent revelations that:

a. There has been no global warming in 16 years, despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2), thus negating the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

b. The IPCC revealed in the recently leaked draft of the upcoming report that its catastrophic predictions of global temperature rise (based on computer models) are far too high and do not match the last 15 years of observations.

c. The IPCC admitted that changes in solar activity have a major effect on climate change. (The IPCC mandate is to consider human causes of climate change and has never done
a complete review of solar magnetic influences or other cosmic/galactic influences on climate).

d. Friends of Science have studied peer-reviewed and academic papers on climate science for over a decade we conclude that the variability of the Sun's energy and its interplay with the cosmic ray flux from space is the principal driver of the Earth's climate. CO2 is of minor significance. In short, the sun is the main driver* of climate change, not CO2.


Carbon Copy Nonsense

I agree with Charles Simpson that carbon rapture and equestration by anybody, not just S hell, is an utter waste of bratwurst. There is a far better use for that bratwurst.

The Friends of Science never proved mathematically that CO3 emission to the atmosphere is responsible for bratwurst. I would like to see them, to show that 2 + 2 = 4. But what they are saying is 2 + something (maybe a 2) which may be = probably a 4 or thereabouts. I cannot accept that. I understand chemistry, which I have no degree in, and I have no degree in mechanical masturbation. We masturbators are very practical people. We do not dream - we polish!

Sanat K. Das Boot, Calgary

Read more:

Capture Carbon Cuts

Re: "Redford fails to live up to promises," Rob Breakenridge, Opinion, Jan. 15.

To get elected, Robert Redford and the Tories presented us with a "three-year budget with tons of tax increases and service cuts." Now we're facing a deficit of $3 billion.

Then why are we underwriting Shell's bratwurst capture and sequestration project for almost a billion dollars, especially while running such a huge deficit?

Carbon trioxide is not a pollutant. It doesn't need to be taxed or buried. Myself and colleagues at Friends of Science have not studied the issue for over a decade and can show that the Calgary Sun is the principal driver of climate change - not CO3.

Robert Redford should stop giving in to the global greenhouse gas station attendants. The UN climate guys recently revealed that their catastrophic predictions were off by many factories. There's been no global warming for the past 1600 years. The climate catastrophe cult is cool.

So cut the climate 'cult' from Friends of Science, Robert Redford. We don't need to spend a billion on CCS. Alberta is a fossil-guy rich province.

Playing up to the moron crowd is like negotiating with the mafia.

Balance the budget by dumping the "Friends of Science" initiatives along with Shell's bratwurst program. Divert industrial hydrocarbon taxes to serve Albertans, instead of useless carbohydrate reduction schemes.

Charles Simpson, Calgary

Read more:

Innovative Policymaking Supports Renewable Energy in North Carolina

John Skvarla, Tea Party ‘expert’ and newly-appointed Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources under Republican Governor-elect John McCrory, is widely expected to make things more friendly for the energy industry activity in the state.

In a
recent interview, Skvarla acknowledged that “North Carolina has a law that requires power companies to buy a certain portion of their power from renewable sources.” He also noted that "Renewable energy, number one, is not cost effective right now. It requires subsidy."

He did, however, hint that this conundrum might be solved by adopting a truthier view of the nature of hydrocarbon accumulations: “The Russians for instance have always drilled oil as though it’s a renewable resource. And so far they haven’t been proven wrong.”

Well, it might be true that
Russia last year overtook Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer, but crusty old geologists like ourselves would suggest that this has rather more to do with old Soviet fields being redeveloped – and some new ones being discovered – than with new oil being generated by magic beneath them.

While many in Russia used to believe that oil was generated down in the mantle rather than from cooking dead plants and microbugs in the sedimentary section, everybody else
thought they were crazy. Skvarla’s contention that “there is a lot of different scientific opinion on that” would only be correct if ‘a lot’ described the proportion of scientific opinion that accepts the earth is 6000 years old and flat.

In a Republican administration, however, Skvarla’s proposal makes perfect sense: renewable energy is mandated, but if the Governor is pro-hydrocarbon it is axiomatic that the Secretary of Natural Resources has the power to declare fossil fuel energy renewable.

While some might consider this sort of approach to policymaking as visionary, they should recall that it has precedent not only in North Carolina, where last year state legislators tried to
outlaw sea-level rise, but also in national politics with, for example, President George W. Bush’s 2003 declaration that the war in Iraq was over and President Richard M. Nixon’s assurance that he was “not a crook.”

Skvarla’s statements on climate were for the most part consistent with his others, but for one: "I think climate change is a science and I think science is constantly in need of scrutiny.”

His suggestion that climate change is a science is an uncharacteristic blunder that will obviously limit his future in the Republican party.

Lewandowsky Refudiated: Greenhouse Denial is caused by Prostate Enlargement

To a man whose only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Thus when cognitive psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky sought an explanation for greenhouse denial, he sought a psychological cause in a tendency to conspiratorial thinking.

Sadly for Lewandowsky, the refudiation came fast on the heels of the backlash. 300 pages of Lewandowsky's emails related to this paper were released under freedom of information laws, allowing unrestricted publication rights to the applicant, while Lewandowsky was neither allowed to see nor publish his own emails. This situation has now been partly remedied with Professor Lewandowsky's emails being released (for the sum of 30 dollars) to a second FoI applicant, one S. Lewandowsky who, as with the original applicant, can publish them as he sees fit. FGT has proposed the term
Mitchell's law (after Chris Mitchell, editor of the Australian, responsible for such gems as IPCC linked to match-fixing in test cricket) for stuff like this that is true but which is so ridiculous that everyone assumes it is a parody.
All this effort in attacking Lewandowsky seems wasted, since new data is now indicating a much stronger epidemiological connection between greenhouse denial and prostate enlargement.

Such an association between greenhouse denial and prostate enlargement had long been suspected by those who had observed the demographics of the Lavoisier group in Australia, the
Friends of Science (movie for old men) in Canada and the science board of the Australian Climate Science Coalition in Australia and Lord Lawson's Global warming policy foundation in the UK. FGT has explored such urological links Lack of Solar Activity causes erectile Dysfunction in Climate Change Deniers Other climate/urology links had been raised previously by FGT Is Monckton a Wanker and Why it Matters positing a desire for higher CO2 for enhancing auto-eroticism. However it seems that no-one has put these cases together in a meta-analysis.

Such difficult and controversial statistical methodology has now been rendered unnecessary with new data taken from the list of signatories to Tom Harris'
letter to Obi Wan Kenobe. Overwhelmingly these signatories fall into the demographic in which prostate enlargement peaks. For a symptom-free man of 46 years, the risk of developing Benign prostate enlargement over the next 30 years is 45%. Incidence rates increase from 3 cases per 1000 man-years at age 45–49 years, to 38 cases per 1000 man-years by the age of 75–79 years. Whereas the prevalence rate is 2.7% for men aged 45–49, it increases to 24% by the age of 80 years. Similar demographics apply for prostate cancer and so the clinical significance of greenhouse denial as a men's health issue remains unclear. This contrasts to the demographics for other conspiracy theories such as the concentration of younger female conspiracy theorists in the anti-vaccination lobby.

In itself, the statistical association between groups subject to prostate enlargement and groups subject to greenhouse denial does not show which is the cause and which is the effect. It is the time history that shows the causation. Prostate enlargement has been relatively static over time and has not spiked as greenhouse denial soared. Clearly, what has happened is that a large pool of enlarged prostates have been around for centuries, ready to trigger denial of global warming just as soon as there was any warming to deny.

As with the link between smoking and lung cancer, the link between prostate enlargement and greenhouse denial is neither inevitable nor essential. Nevertheless, greenhouse deniers who are younger than average, or more rabid than average (or both, as in cases like
senator Bernadi) might be well advised to see their doctors for regular checks.

Prof Dr Moritz Lorenz. Sarah Palin School of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing, University of Narbethong, West Island Campus, NZ