Good news - peak oil theory seems to be untrue(191 Posts)
'The so-called peak oil theory, which suggests that within the foreseeable future the world will run out of fossil fuels coal, oil and gas has never looked more absurd.'
'The green lobby, of course, is terrified that, despite the promotion of expensive and heavily subsidised wind power at the heart of the Energy Bill a subsidy paid to a considerable extent by poor householders through their bills to wealthy landowners with wind turbines the emergence of large supplies of cheap gas will make this policy unsustainable.
Hence the scare stories, lapped up by the BBC in particular, about shale oil and gas extraction causing earthquakes and pollution of the water supply.
Needless to say, there is no substance whatever in these scares.'
What will the think tanks and elite lobbies do now in order to stop the growth and progress of ordinary people?
Lujas didn't seem to play up earthquakes or water pollution, which is interesting. She seemed more worried that it might mean that we do not meet our climate change "targets".
You are right that his delivery gets on lots of people's nerves. He is a bit hyper and rapid fire. He knows lots and tries to get it all out in one go in a short time scale. His hyperness is annoying.
Yes, I am not sure it is safe. When I first heard about it I thought it was unsafe. But having read Lawson saying it is safe, has got me wondering if there if the safety fears are being hyped by greens etc. just like they hype climate catastrophe and tipping points.
I am not sure yet. Will have to wait and see.
It's the machine gun delivery. Why do all american presenters shout? I have watched a few of his shows but he gets on my tits
There are a lot of reports about water contamination in the states. Must do some more reading. There are plans to start fracking not far from where we live.
Very good Channel 4 News video report about fracking. Debate with Caroline Lukas and a filmmaker about fracking starts at about 4.30
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I tried watching it claig, the man's a loon
Fracking in the new today
OK, got it. Lets stop listening to real scientists and form our opinions based the Daily Mail comments. Good plan.
The sad fact is that the majority of people in this country are pretty much functionally illiterate when it comes to science and statistics. I don't mean they're all stupid, far from it - just undereducated.
there have been lots of daily mail readers who believed that vaccination caused other things, based on lies and fantasy from a single publicity-seeking nutter.
I can see a parallel.
'If Daily Mail readers believe that vaccination causes spontaneous combustion, does that make it true?'
There isn't a single Daily Mail who believes such a thing. Please do not attribute the beliefs of Guardian readers to the Daily Mail reader!
PigletJohn, have a look at a link called "Real Science"
it talks about data being changed etc.
If Daily Mail readers believe that vaccination causes spontaneous combustion, does that make it true?
Comments of Daily Mail readers to the article are interesting. Lots of people don't believe the climate change scam, in fact the majority of the people in the country don't believe it. They agree with Dr Piers Corbyn that it is a gravy train and a fraud. Alex Jones says that it is the biggest fraud in history and it will eventually collapse. Time will tell, we will have to wait and see.
so if we look at 120 years records, and see this do we deduce that the world is cooling?
'you're off base in castigating the BBC in particular for reporting it. It was relevant news, they reported it. That's what they do.'
I like the BBC. It's all we've got. But many people believe it has a bias over climate change as well as other issues that suit the elite and establishment. That is only natural.
If reporting news is what they do then why didn't they report on Climategate as soon as they knew about it?
'The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.'
However, Hudson does not explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long'
'The leak comes ahead of inter-governmental talks in Copenhagen next month which campaigners have argued is a last opportunity to prevent irreversible climate change.'
Was that the Copenhagen conference before which we were told that we only had 50 days left to save the planet? Did the BBC believe the 50 days bit and not want to publish the information during those 50 days?
Boulevard, the world really runs on politics, and climate change is about politics not science. Corbyn says it a a fraud.
Climate change is about wealth redistribution from the rich countries to the poor, from the poor people in the rich countries to teh rich people in the poor countries. It is to slow industrialisation and growth in the developed world and to pay the developing countries to slow industrialisation and growth for their people.
'But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.'
It takes about one minute to google 'fracking seismic' and find this but also this.
All the major UK newspapers and broadcasters reported the Blackpool case (which you will note the second link does say it was one of the 'confirmed cases where induced seismic activity has been linked to fracking'. So while it may be that fracking doesn't pose significant risk (presumably depends a lot on what sort of faults it hits) you're off base in castigating the BBC in particular for reporting it. It was relevant news, they reported it. That's what they do.
'but does not put forward an alternative hypothesis for examination.'
There is no need for an alternative hypothesis is his view because he says anthropogenic climate change is a nonsense and a gravy train. He says that the world is in a cooling phase for the next 30 years, not warming.
Claig, I'm really sorry, but if you don't know the difference between weather and climate you are just embarrassing yourself. I know you feel really strongly about this, and I know you like to keep informed, but you ought to try mixing in some general scientific info with the commentaries and such. Science can be interesting, honest! <tumbleweed>
(I feel like the nerdiest girl in the world when I say things like that)
Did you see that the recent Doha accord makes provision for rich countries to pay compensation to poorer ones for envt'l stuff? That won't be a lot of help to eg the Maldives, but it's a start.
I mean Corbyn the self-pubicist who disputes the evidence of climate change but does not put forward an alternative hypothesis for examination.
he is a weather man not a climatoligist.
Weather is not the same as climate change.
Piers Corbyn on the BBC with what I think is a man from the Met Office.
He won't give the Met Office his equations.
The Met Office can't even predict the weather months ahead accurately, so how they know about "tipping points" and climate catastrophe in decades to come is a bit of a mystery. They must have a very good model, but Piers's model seems to be more accurate on many occasions.
Grimma, I was worried when I heard the reports about earthquakes due to fracking, and I do not rule out that these reports may be true. But the US is now doing fracking and my thoughts are that if it caused earthquakes in the US thatthe greens and the BBC would have publicised it to us, but I have herd nothing about that. I am not saying that it has not happened, but I have not heard of it on BBC News and I am pretty certain that they would have made that headline news for us for days if it were happening.
PigletJohn, do you mean the Dr Piers Corbyn who predicted the weather more accurately than the Meteorological Office?
I don't know the names of any serious climatologists. I know about lobbyists, think tanks and newspaper columnists who are shown on the BBC promoting climate catastrophe, but I can't think of any actual climatologists.
Well [[http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquakes/BlackpoolMay2011.html here's ] the deal on the local earthquakes - that's what the British Geological Survey calls them, so you can hardly blame the BBC (and also telegraph, guardian, independent, channel4, FT) for reporting as such. They were small, but did seem to be correlated with the fracking activity.
have you got anything from serious climatologists or respected institutons, or just more made-up stuff from that one eccentric Corbyn?
Join the discussion
Please login first.