Scientific American Challenged on Tar Sands and Climate Change by Friends of Science

Share Article

Climate change catastrophe thinking on global warming propagated by the premier magazine of American science is based on climate models that don’t work say Friends of Science. This skews the debate on the 343,000 new US jobs that await the approval for construction of Keystone XL pipeline opposed by Eco-activists for reasons that are not scientifically valid.

Global Surface Temperature and Climate Model Projections

"Should the Eco-activists be allowed to shut down the US economy based on faulty science? ...The oil sands and Keystone XL Pipeline offer Americans an estimated 343,000 new U.S. jobs."

"Should the Eco-activists be allowed to shut down the US economy based on faulty science?" asks Len Maier, President of Friends of Science, a climate science review organization.

“Science should edify, not terrify people," says Maier. "The oil sands and Keystone XL Pipeline offer Americans an estimated 343,000 new U.S. jobs between 2011 and 2015 if Keystone XL proceeds. Something like 2,400 American companies from 49 states already are involved in the development of Canada’s oil sands."

Friends of Science director Ken Gregory adds, “It’s ‘oil’ sands not ‘tar’ to be scientific.”

Recent Scientific American oil sands articles refer to the oil sands in the pejorative, unscientific term 'tar sands'. The articles also perpetuate the catastrophic theory of human-caused global warming. According to Friends of Science and leading astrophysicists solar cycles are the primary driver of climate change, not CO2.

“Whatever nominal impact CO2 has on the atmosphere is counteracted by declining upper atmosphere water vapor, which is the most important green house gas,” says Gregory. “Weather balloon data shows that at 8 km altitude, the water vapor content has declined by 12% from 1960 to 2012 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website. CO2 displaces water vapor as a greenhouse gas, so it has little effect on global temperatures.”

Friends of Science refer to temperature data released by the Met Office weather service in England showing that there has not been any global warming for 16 years.

“Furthermore, the leaked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft fifth assessment report shows no warming since 1988. The most recent temperature data is below the uncertainty ranges of all the previous forecasts. From 2002, global surface temperatures have been falling at 0.085 C/decade, but the climate models projected warming at 0.20 C/decade. ” says Ken Gregory. ”Why isn’t Scientific American reporting that?”

Eco-activists generally oppose the Canadian oil sands and the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, meant to bring oil sands product to Texas refineries. Thousands of new American jobs hang on the Keystone XL decision.

Albert Jacobs is one of the founders of Friends of Science. In his youth he worked in the oil sands 50 years ago. He explains how Mother Nature was” polluting” the river long before man arrived on the scene:“...half a century ago, I spent a very cold winter as a young geologist supervising a coring program to develop an understanding of the extent and the reserves of the deposit. At that time chemical studies of the water of the Athabasca River were also carried out by the Alberta Government and others”

Jacobs states that the oil sands were always exposed to the Athabasca River at the banks and even 50 years ago there was a visible sheen on the water.

Indeed this statement is supported by the diary of Charles Mair from 1899 "These tar cliffs are here hundreds of feet high,... constantly falling off the almost sheer face of the slate-brown cliffs, in great sheets, which plunge into the river's edge in broken masses.”

“The out wash of these deposits contains a number of minerals and heavy metals, which today would be called 'pollutants,' says Jacobs.” A key publication is the "Proceedings of the Athabasca Oil Sands Conference" September 1951.”

“The earth is not warming; emissions are not the main driver of climate change. These are the main arguments against oil sands and Keystone,” says Maier, an environmentalist who runs a tree farm in his retirement. “Furthermore, qualitative environmental management and reclamation is only possible if you have a strong economy. I’m surprised Scientific American is not presenting these facts.”

About the Friends of Science
Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired earth and atmospheric scientists with a collective experience and training of some 300 years.

Friends of Science
P.O.Box 23167, Connaught P.O.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2S 3B1
Toll-free Telephone: 1-888-789-9597

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Michelle Stirling
Follow us on
Visit website