cookinlover wrote: 
That very unique "kiwi sound" never, ever gets old. 

 Manbird wrote: 
Yeah, I already knew that. Have you tried opening one? 

 cookinlover wrote: 

Depends on which side of the field you were watching from.

 katzendogs wrote: 
What, like corn dogs and catsup, you mean?

 Beaker wrote: 
I read both links, and it is a scary scenario. Also went to the Molycorp site and found this equally new information (to me) . Food for thought.

 Beaker wrote: 
I read the article, and found no argument of any substance whatsoever. Hair-raising rhetoric powered by randomly quoted "scary" numbers? Yup.
 
Sensible discussion of a serious issue? With this image at the head?
 

 
And you put your name to this Trevor?
 

 Beaker wrote: 
I'd be interested to hear in what ways (specifically) you think that China is a threat for the USA.

or to put it another way, like  every other country on earth, the USA is dependent on international trade.. so what's new?

 Beaker wrote:
Pipeline?  Nuke plants?  Having trouble staying focussed on examining one topic at hand at a time?  Or trying to cast yourself as sincere? 

Let me reiterate:
a) your original post is suspect.  This post is more of same.
b) there are dozens and dozens of better sources for info out there than the one craptacular blog you linked.
c) I don't believe you
d) why are you trying to educate yourself on an important topic of the day via an Internet radio website whose forum regular readers number less than 200?
e) your attempt to engage me in the manner you claim you wish has failed.  What do you suppose you might have done differently, if you were to attempt to engage me in a productive conversation?
f) I don't believe you.

 

Sorry T., I honestly was asking for input regarding the oil sands controversy.  You're quite correct that its' not your job to educate me.  My original question was in regards to the CO2 output as a result of the oil sands operation and was addressed to "whoever" had some insight into the problem, not specifically to you.  You responded, so I asked you.

I still think its' too bad that you spent your time with the above response, instead of sharing any insights you might have regarding this issue.

As too the proposed nuke plants for energy in the site area, its' an idea that the sites' managers have considered to reduce the CO2 footprint required for production.  The pipeline has ignited a controversy in Canada due to the possible destruction of forrests and other areas in the case of a rupture or spill.  Just thought you might have some constructive ideas regarding the problems.

Why do I ask those questions on RP?  Simple, we have Canadian posters here that might know more about the situation than I do.  It is, after all their country and their oil.

The world needs the oil; is there a way to produce it that is less destructive to the environment?

 Beaker wrote:  

My opinion's not formed yet.  I was hoping for some informed input from you (you are living in Edmonton & should know quite a bit about the issue), not the sarcasm I received.

I heard a pipeline is being proposed to run across Canada to the west coast right thru some very pristine areas, with oil tankers parked right off the coast waiting to transport the oil to China and India.

I also wondered about your take on the two new proposed nuke plants to provide cleaner energy at the source sites.

Oh well, so much for an attempt at dialogue..

Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli has again issued a "subpoena" to University of Virginia demanding emails from former professor who did study on climate change using state and federal grants.  AG says he wants to know if the university was the victim of fraud. The first subpoena was rejected because AG had asked for emails pertaining to projects that were federally funded.  So, AG has pared this request down to only a stated-funded project.  U of VA is fighting it, like it did the last one, on grounds of academic freedom, saying it would have a chilling effect (I agree with that).  It estimates that its legal fees are topping $300,000.

This is an issue the citizens of Virginia care about?  Who is perpetrating a "fraud" here?  I would say Cuccinelli, who hit the ground running after being elected AG and is actively seeking national publicity — for himself.        

 oldslabsides wrote: 

i'd like to have some warmer weather like that when my parents get here in a couple weeks. we have football tickets. i want sunshine.

Yesterday a record low temperature was set in Oklahoma City.  By the end of this week, we'll be back into the upper eighties - in October.

Yes Senator Idiot Imhoff - climate change is a myth.

 arighter2 wrote: 

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Canada won't be worth invading until extraction technologies for oil are improved. We'll need a Beaker approved president too.

 rachlan wrote: 
USA wouldn't dare. Canada's got some mighty strong friends,  NZ, for instance.

 beamends wrote: 
no joke!

 HazzeSwede wrote:  Your not supposed to tell anyone Canada! Now they will have to be invaded......

 Painted_Turtle wrote:  Hmm..some must be busy counting the doll.
 
  It is a dirty biss,or so I'v heard.

Canada’s tar sands

• Canada’s tar sands are the biggest energy project in the world, currently producing 1.3 million barrels of oil a day.
• Largely located in Alberta, the tar sands cover 140,000 km2 – an area larger than England.
• Canada has the second largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia.
• Canada is the biggest supplier of oil to the US, the world’s largest oil consumer.

 Beaker wrote: 

Just read a little bit about it.  Looks like you folks up North are sluggin' it out over it.  

I wonder how much CO2 is being emitted to produce this?