67 More On Fracking + AR5


The activists shout "We can't have shale gas cos "experts say"* cos most fossil fuels must stay in theground cos we can't afford to release the CO2 !"

- Hang on, our homes are full of gas hot water & heating systems, which have more than 10 years left of useful life; so we might as well put shale gas in it now . In 20 years time we might have moved over to fusion power by then Or have proper CO2 capture working . If we don't work it that way we'll end up having paid big for foreign gas and never used up our own gas.

- Even if fusion doesn't come by 40 years, we can buy foreign gas then rather than now (cos for sure fantasy renewables like wind & solar PV will never generate much more than they cost in construction.)

- Activists fail to mention that it was due to the development of slickwater fracking in 1998 that shale gas could be exploited and the US became the world's largest producer of oil. Energy Independence.

* Who says ? International Energy Agency part of OECD. It seems they are one of those agencies hijacked by activists and so they are heavily into promoting renewables and present some nutcase reports; like the one saying "fossil fuels are subsidised" [activists always forget to mention they aren't talking about the west they are talking about some oil rich or poor countries like Nigeria which do subsidise them]

- #1 resource for info about fracking : nohotair.co.uk/ looks professional but is a one man band Nick Grealy

Fracking could be the end of the whole game for the Greens

They say
1)"fracking IS causing GREAT harm right now" *
2)"Future Climate WILL cause MEGA harm in 50 years time"

* Note in 1)
- they offer NO proof, not even credible evidence,
- note the absense of perspective. There is a difference between things that kill 1-2 people a year and AIDs and malaria killing 1million/year plus
- So in 1) when people realise Greens = SCARE MONGERS, then people are not going to believe them about 2)
- How can we believe there'll be mega bodies in tomorrows "disaster"
- if they can't show any bodies for today's "disaster" ?

..and how many years of GMO's ? How many bodies ?
(negative 1000s due to lives saved due to GMO medicines)
Aug 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM | stewgreen

Fracking : activist could show no real evidence

- In a Twitter storm an activist told me : fracking water contamination HARM had been proved
- So I requested the proof : the best "proof" he could show me was hype from activist websites. He directed me to 2 hollow articles
- One from Desmog Blog (credible NOT), and another from the Union of Concerned Scientists (where some members are pet dogs)
- Now he did have a 3rd source from a local Texas paper, but that was was from a VTA study which has only just come out
...so that is not long enough to have been properly analysed
..and as for it being PROOF : the report contained a quote from the scientist "This study alone can’t conclusively identify the exact causes of elevated levels of contaminants"

- ANYWAY hang on when you frack you ONLY use water at the beginning to fracture the rock. Am I wrong ? So if the up pipe lining did fail and "dirty water" did somehow bubble to the surface, in the wet UK climate it would would quite quickly get flushed out. If contaminants were due to fracking then the elevated levels wouldn't show up after 1 or 2 months.

- Very Good website scarebusting Frackoff stuff

John Selwyn Gummer AKA Lord Debden has been tweeting a lot

- I wouldn't waste too much time using reason and logic to help Lord Debden
- I would guess some activist is writing his tweets for him

- I Guess he has worked out that fracking means the end for his wind pig trough , and in a desperate last move he's handed the twitter keys to the activists
- His tweets often say "the dismissers" .."the deniers"
- In this one Lord Debden opens by namecalling : "Deniers fail to produce promised list serious scientific institutions which support their view. Diversionary tactics underline their failure"

Someone replied : List of Climate institutions which have ballotted their members

I say
- none in the west (cos we haven't BOUGHT any...unlike. ..)
- however science is not VALIDATED by the OPINIONS of Institutions It's VALIDATED by evidence of the real world

precautionary principle

- There seems to be a correlation between our hair going grey and heart attacks. 1972-98 we could see our hair going grey (CO2) and at the same time tests showed our arteries were thickening (temperature). The doctor saw that a heart attack was inevitatable and prescribed a coctail of medicines.

1998-2013 our hair is 15% more grey, but our arteries haven't thickened anymore ...Question since all drugs have side effects and these ones cost an awful lot should we still be taking that coctail of drugs ?

- Is the precautionary principle rather like taking medicines all our life although we were never going to have a heart attack anyway ?

Bottom line for the new IPCC AR5
: There are 2 different things : real world EVIDENCE by validated science, which is not the same as OPINIONS of those scientists who run to the media (and note that they usually started as activists first before they became scientists).
- The validated real world evidence does show a strange steadily rising CO2 trend over 100 odd years , but doesn't show a clear link to temperatue & climate patterns AND doesn't seem to show that we are on a clear trend to certain catastrophe. The rest of what the IPCC say is just noise.

- As I say what counts is what Validated science says ..not what "scientists say" cos that is just opinion like supporting bloodletting, or saying ulcers are caused by stress.

- The levels of CO2 and temperature are pretty much accepted by all *. Anything beyond that is opinion. Yet some peope driven by fear seem so certain of future catastrophe. But look at the data ..does it look so certain ? Put the ACCEPTED graphs of CO2 and temperature and they don't seem to run together like Al Gore says and temp seems very insensitive to CO2 levels.
( *except for skeptics saying past global warming hype got a boost from urban heat island biasing measurements upwards and there is now tampering with past temperature measurements to make them seem cooler.)

Joke : "Computer says No"

1998-2013 was global warming in pause ? "Computer (model) says No !"
..despite what reality say !

Odd Notes

The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know : Aristotle

We should make an FAQ For Trolls on BH site.. see page 54 about Tolls for trolls

THANKS If you find some useful info here then click to easily/safely send me a Paypal TIP

1 2834 5 6 7 9 10

a Stew Green opinion
Out of the box thinking
- from someone who was never in the box in the first place
moved from the USEFUL BLOG to the REALITY CHECK BLOG

NEXT -->