It was inevitable that climate change deniers and some oil industry promoters would misinterpret a study by scientist Andrew Weaver before reading beyond the headlines. A letter in the Calgary Herald actually claimed that "Weaver's revelation … raises even more skepticism about the entire science behind global warming."
The writer went on to argue that the report by
University of Victoria climate scientist Weaver and PhD student Neil
Swart is an "awakening for David Suzuki and his environmental
followers."
It's typical of the nonsense people who understand science have to put up with every day. The study, published in Nature, says the opposite.
Weaver and Swart set out to answer a simple
question: "How much global warming would occur if we completely burned a
variety of fossil fuel resources?" Their conclusion that burning all
the coal or all the gas from the entire world's resource bases would
raise global average temperatures more than burning all the Alberta tar
sands reserves is hardly a surprise.
What is surprising is their finding that emissions
from burning all the economically viable oil from the tar sands would
only contribute to a 0.03°C rise in world temperatures, and burning the
entire tar sands oil in place would add 0.36° C. That may not seem like
much, but we need to put it in context.