Jack Layton is Dead Wrong on This One
Sound Off!
Got something to say?
Sound off in Comments
Sound off in Comments
Share This Blog Post
Can't see the 'ShareThis' icon? Reload your page view by pressing Shift and clicking Refresh at the same time.With Jack Layton, NDP leader, in studio the talk turned to the Northern Alberta oilsands.
He confidently trotted out increased water pollution, more cases of human cancer and poisoned fish -- all the result of the oil sands projects near Ft. McMurray.
Suspicious of this -- I've seen data that says Jack is dead wrong on this -- I asked him about reclamation, where the mined soils are returned to a natural state. He, again confidently expounded that "reclamation has never taken place at the oilsands".
Huh?
Have a look:
http://sustainability.syncrude.ca/sustainability2006/environmental/reclamation.html
Comments
I don't know why anyone pays
I don't know why anyone pays any attention to the looney socialists. They wouldn't know sound policies if they came up and bit him in the face...
Beautiful John , truly beautiful to catch a poliltician in a lie
Beautiful John , truly beautiful to catch a poliltician in a lie. Your link proves he lied, time to get this on the supper newscasts.
Syncrude? Your really using
Syncrude? Your really using the company that was involved the poisoning of hundreds of ducks as an example of environmental stewardship? The point that Jack made (past your gotcha politics) is that the biggest emitter of green house gas in North America (not just Canada) are the oil sand operations. That is the bigger issue. A moratorium on their break neck development is needed not simply to slow down global warming but to avoid the contamination of land and water for tens of thousands of people. Look for the bigger picture instead of trying to make a minor political point.
Global warming?
Just a reminder: anthropogenic global warming is a THEORY which is not only unproven, but looks to be the least likely possible explanation for climate change (which is also in doubt, as the manipulation of historical data by UN-sponsored scientists is looking increasingly likely). Since AGW is by no means an accepted scientific fact, it is rather absurd to start spending billions of dollars and strangling our own economy to "fight" AGW, when the actions from the remaining 98% of the world will completely negate any impact our actions may/may not precipitate.
I suggest that you actually
I suggest that you actually learn something about science before making such claims.
Science never claims to have proved something, it is always tentative simply because new information can change conclusions. A theory is not a hypothesis, nor is it a conjecture as you seem to be implying. A theory is a collection of one or more significantly tested hypotheses and laws. That's right, theories encompass laws, they do not graduate into laws, they are in no way less important or less accurate than laws. The two serve different purposes.
Since every paper that has contributed to the IPCC's conclusions has not only its conclusions in the public arena, but the data, measurement techniques, statistical methods, tests performed and results available to all other scientists to examine for errors, by calling into question the IPCC's honesty you are calling all other scientists working in related fields equally as dishonest. If that is the case you are proposing a huge conspiracy of deceit.
I assume by 'scientific fact' you are referring to a theory that has a high confidence level of confidence. I assume that because a 'scientific fact' is not a theory that is 100% true but a single data point used to test a theory. AGW, may not be a 'scientific fact', but neither is the Theory of Gravitation. It is however a well tested, successful theory with an extremely high confidence of confidence in its accuracy.
AGW is the most accurate picture of future climate possible at this time.
If you have doubts of the validity of the science, critique the science, not the messengers.
Oops, I should have proofed
Oops, I should have proofed my post - 'high confidence level of confidence' should be 'high confidence level of accuracy'
your not the same guy that
your not the same guy that siad the titanc was unsinkable were you. i see you get your information from the L.R.G
I seem to recall while
I seem to recall while living in Fort Mac for 23 years that the land populated by the bison herds south of the plant used to be a pit mine.
Sounds like the Jack hasn't set foot in Fort Mac.
And it's not just Syncrude
Suncor has also reclaimed over 1,000 hectares:
http://www.suncor.com/default.aspx?ID=2163
Layton
Jack lives in a parallel universe. Facts from the real universe are therefore merely a minor inconvenience to him. When confronted with the facts, if they don't suit him (which they rarely do), he dismisses them as originating from the back pockets of the evil corporations. Jack has no idea how the world works. If he did, he wouldn't be a socialist, and he'd have some luck earning a living in the real world. In order to be a socialist, you have to believe in 50 impossible things, all before breakfast.
Add New Comment