Okay, no conservative who thinks the Keystone pipeline is the greatest idea since sliced bread is going to like any of these links and I accept that. But I am hoping to reach SOME who are willing to read something that opposes the building of it.

http://tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

http://www.foe.org/projects/climate-and-energy/tar-sands/keystone-xl-pipeline

And this last one provides facts on what it takes to convert tar sands to a barrel of oil and the impact that has. I am hoping some here are reasonable enough to think about this.

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/17/geography-in-the-news-keystone-pipeline-and-canadian-tar-sands/

That said, if you don't live in the areas where the pipeline will be built then of course you are not worried about it. It won't affect you. I get that. Not your water supply, nor your land. It is a shame that some have become so selfish not to care what happens to those who do live where the pipeline will run. (and that includes a lot of farmland in the Midwest)

The Koch Bros. must be laughing up their sleeves. I try to avoid name calling based on a political ideology. I wish others would do the same.

Don't forget the oil is just passing through the US and will not supply the us oil supplies. Also, the Koch oils sands
are the dirtiest oil on the planet and chew up vast swaths of land
making it a toxic wasteland afterwards.


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-03-01-TarSandsDestruction_Web.jpg

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/jun08/feature_tar_sands.asp

http://www.wilderutopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Clear-Water-Media-Alberta-Oil-Sands.jpg?62075d
http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/OilSandsDamage.jpg
http://www.forestethics.org/sites/forestethics.huang.radicaldesigns.org/files/tar-sands-tailing-pond.jpg
http://www.pri.org/sites/default/files/story/images/140407-0275.jpg
http://static.theglobeandmail.ca/2f2/incoming/article864964.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/web-oilsands22.jpg
This is wholesale environmental destruction.

Obviously you've never heard of ice cores. At Lamont-Dougherty Geological Observatory (part of Columbia University) they have ice cores that prove atmospheric gas content going back 50,000 years or more and ocean bottom core samples that demonstrate the same composition of gasses. Air samples are captured inside ice and mud can demonstrate the organisms that lived long before any instruments were invented to measure them but the data is there and researchable.
You make a weak argument and have nothing to prove your case. Ice cores do not lie or make false claims.

Amazing how conclusions are reached here. I guess you never heard of "PEER REVIEW"? Your illustration comparing Galileo, Keppler and Coperincus has no relevance since they were fighting the Catholic Church and not other scientists.

"As for carbonates posts, he is correct. It does not matter if there is a consensus if the consensus is wrong. If you are familiar with scientific history then you have heard of Copernicus, Keppler, and Galileo. Each man fought against the prevailing consensus of a geocentric solar system (sun and planets revolving about the earth). They promoted, based on thier scientific observations a heliocentric solar system in which the planets, including earth revolve about the Sun."

Carbonates post about Hawaii volcanos has no relevance either since this volcano is not like those spewing massive dust clouds into the atmosphere like Hekla in Iceland or Krakatoa in Indonesia. The volcanic ash cloud from Krakatoa was visible world wide and stayed in the atmosphere for years altering sunsets to RED. You're comparing microbes to dinosaurs. Hawaii is located over a hot spot but the lava flows are slow and constant while those of Hekla and Krakatoa are noxious and explosive reaching high into the stratosphere.

"NOAA even says this about the measurements:
Mauna Loa is indeed an active volcano; it last erupted in 1950, 1975, and 1984. Between eruptions, it emits variable amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from fissures at the summit."

SO WHAT?

At least bring relative references to this debate.

I don't say carbonate is a f**e but his references to John Coleman sure make doubts about his credential. How can you reference someone who has no degree in the field they lecture on?

The Sea Temperature graphs over the past 150 years and the shrinking or polar ice sheets and glaciers seem to tell the whole story that GLOBAL CLIMATE CAUSED BY HUMAN CIVILIZATION is a FACT.

CARBONATE's statement on the number papers on anthropomorphic causes of c*****e c****e as being the major cause of present day drastic consequences shows me that the argument is MUTE and the references are out of text.