Conflicting statements from two of the "world's top climate scientists"?

As much as I respect James Hansen, I do wish that he would actually study the actual effects of the oil sands, as Andrew Weaver did. The solution to global warming is not to single out the Alberta Oil sands as the source, but to reduce consumption of hydrocarbons.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. If the pipeline is not built, will the energy needs of America still be the same? Will the energy needs be met with more oil imports, coal, nuclear? Where will the oil from the tarsands go? Will Canada trim down their production? Will they increase their production due to the lower market value without access to the refineries? Will Canada build new refineries? Will the oil be piped to the west coast and shipped to China?

The choice of whether or not the tar sands will be tapped is a moot point, it will be tapped for no other reason than Canada's economy. Whether or not the pipeline is built is just how much of the pie the US will get.

I suspect that not building the pipeline won't save the world. If you want to slow down climate change, you need to invest in biochar to sequester carbon, tax fossil fuels such that synthetic fuels from biomass or directly from CO2 and H2O ( Sandia Labs CR5 ) can compete long term ( unfortunately that means a minimum of $4 a gallon for gasoline, not a maximum but a guaranteed floor price ). And an investment in the only energy source that is currently less expensive and safer than coal and oil, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors ( LFTR ). So far only China has announced that they will bring a commercial LFTR to market, note that the US had run a successful LFTR reactor for many years back when they were working on the atomic plane, a LFTR is the only reactor small enough for a plane.

I have also thought about this. I think the key is how you interpret James Hansen's comment. Only he can clarify exactly what he meant, but my interpretation is that he meant: If we tap into all the worlds unconventional fossils fuels, its will be game over... (i.e. long-term commitments to fossil-fuels, by doing things like building the Keystone XL pipeline are problematic because they keep us hooked on fossil fuels)

Another thing to realize, is that the newspaper statement "Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference" is not entirely consistent with what is said in the Swart and Weaver paper. Considering the impact of carbon emissions from the Alberta Oil sands on a per-capita basis (the only sensible way), it turns out they would be very damaging. For more discussion see this:

http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_oil_s...

Hansen's actual statement is far broader than implied:

"James Hansen: President George W. Bush said that the U.S. was addicted to oil. So what will the U.S. response to this situation be? Will it entail phasing out fossil fuels and moving to clean energy or borrowing the dirtiest needle from a fellow addict? That is the question facing President Obama.

If he chooses the dirty needle it is game over because it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing, like the other well-oiled coal-fired politicians with no real intention of solving the addiction. Canada is going to sell its dope, if it can find a buyer. So if the United States is buying the dirtiest stuff, it also surely will be going after oil in the deepest ocean, the Arctic, and shale deposits; and harvesting coal via mountaintop removal and long-wall mining. Obama will have decided he is a hopeless addict."

(http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110826/james-h...

The problem is that Canada will simply build a pipeline to the West coast, and ship the oil to China for refining. How would it make any difference if Canada is already refining the oil? It would just be more efficient and be less expensive to transport and refine if the US refined it.

There are pipelines already in the right-of-way the Keystone pipeline would follow. No environmental disasters with all the other pipes there, another one will make absolutely zero difference. It is all smoke and mirrors for political reasons to make the claims of doom and gloom.

If the oil is piped to China, there would be no difference if shipped to the US other than the US would employ people and get the revenue instead of China.

I am waiting for someone to say that if we add any more CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet will tilt and we will all fall off.

The $140 per bbl oil prices is what caused the global economic meltdown, and the $3.50 a gallon US gas prices is what is keeping the depression alive and well. Discretionary income (extra money per month) is what drives the economy, and with the artificially high oil prices is what is keeping us from having much extra (if any) money at the end of the month.

Yes, the statements are conflicting - they seem to have not read the same memo for how they should present what the Keystone Pipeline would do to destroy the planet. I simply keep throwing the memo's away.

Scientists disagree over a number of the aspects of the changes caused by AGW, they don't disagree that it is happening. Unless you plan on changing the basic chemistry of gasoline then burning it in a car produces Co2 and pound for pound the process of extracting it also is more energy intensive that traditional oil reserves. Neither scientist you mention dispute that AGW is happening or that Co2 is a major cause.

The us has one of the highest vehicle ownerships in the world, of the words 800 million cars the U.S. has ~250million.

There also seems to be a disparity in the time scales as the news story talks of the contribution of coal and oil sands by the total use of the resource and puts 15c as the amount for coal and 0.3c for the oil sands, but the oil sand are one regional resource coal is a much large global resource, coal has estimates of hundreds of years of remaining supply (at current usage rates) oil (for current drilled supplies) is measured in at best decades. The largest current single oil supply (Saudi Arabia)

Has lasted 60 years but much of that was at far lower consumption rates than we have today, at today's rates even the Arab fields would be consumed in a few decades. The stats on oil consumption tell it all in the last 25 years we consumed more oil than the total previous use since the industry started.

I don't think the major reason for opposing the pipeline, at least here in BC, deals with the emissions. The arguments I've seen of those opposed amount to the possibility of oil spills. It wasn't that long ago when the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill was felt and the recent BP disaster. It has more to do with keeping natural resources clean. I think that's one of the major reasons why Hansen is against it as he is, not only a scientist, but an environmentalist as well.

there is no conflict. Hansen is talking about continued reliance on fossil fuels. The USA can do better.

But it's highly likely that denier websites will twist any statements into their own version of reality.

if you don;t like the answers here, try at WUWT, it's likely they will give you what you want to hear.

Baccheus gave you the answer, do you understand what he said and how the positions of Hansen and Weaver are both correct and consistent with each other? If you really were a skeptic, you would have figured it out for yourself and not asked the question. But you likely read this on climateaudit or WUWT and thought not a bit about it for yourself.

Skeptic. feh. I can get better skepticism in any kindergarten classroom discussion of Santa Claus.

The oil sands will contribute more to climate change than an equivalent quantity of conventionally obtained oil, but in the bigger scheme of things, the oil sands are just one component of the many sources of fossil fuels.

are you for or against agw , because arguing semantics in this case does nothing to prove or disapprove anything its a bit like putting something down and discrediting something because of a spelling mistake,that is the spelling was wrong but the meaning has not changed