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?
Bad news! Man made climate change isn't untrue.
ttosca, the elite's peak oil narrative has collapsed, it is only a matter of time until the elite's man-made climate change story will fall too. They'll doubtless pull another arrow from their quiver and try to sell the people down the river.
'Il popolo vincera'. There is enough food to feed the planet and enough fossil fuels to heat and power the planet, there is no truth in the story that we only have '50 days to save the planet'.
I'm glad this is from a reputable site such as the daily mail, otherwise I might think it was a load of old nonsense
I'm glad this is from a reputable site such as the daily mail, otherwise I might think it was a load of old nonsense
'I'm glad this is from a reputable site such as the daily mail, otherwise I might think it was a load of old nonsense'
Exactly, mercibucket, that's precisely why I chose the Daily Mail and not a site such as the Guardian, for example.
The super rich are sitting on trillions and trillions of dollars. Just a fraction of that money could be used to feed every person on the planet. They could develop irrigation and infrastructure and technology to help all the people of the world.
But they don't want to do that. They want to keep the riches to themselves. So they spread the story that it is the human population who are depleting their resources and who are harming the planet by growth, progress and industrialisation and by breathing out carbon dioxide and by eating meat from cows whose methane, they say, is harming the "planet".
I agree with you on that part, claig
I agree with you on that part, claig
You're confused and incoherent again, claig.
It is written by Nigel Lawson, enough said.
I don't buy your theory claig. It doesn't serve the rich to curb population growth or industrialisation.
What does serve the rich though is to put out the idea that it is individual workers and consumers who are to blame for the destruction of the environment, rather than big business serving its own interests.
Lolz at the idea that Nigel Lawson represents anything but the elite.
Lawson founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank that relies on donations from wealthy individuals.
Claig, you seem to be ignorant to the fact that these elites you talk about are not all one and the same, they are individuals. They have different agendas and interests. So whilst one capitalist or corporation will be funding research that concludes that we have global warming and we must use extortion to raise revenue using the green rhetoric. Another corporation or individual will be funding Lawson and chums to trash the research because green technologies or taxes to clean up pollution will have cost implications for their business and so it goes on.
I have just has a look Global Warming Policy Foundation website.
"The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled"
and yet if you go to their book shop on this site, all of the books are from climate change deniers and sceptics. So it is clear they are highly biased and doing the work of the wealthy stake holders on whose money they rely.
Well it would seem that although the issue is not yet settled, their agenda is.
Maria, there is great injustice in the world and a concentration of super wealth in the hands of a very few and suffering of billions and austerity for billions.
The super rich elite know that as the population increases, the injustice and the poverty and the wealth gap will only increase. They know that that the poor will demand water and food and resources and education and wealth, and tehy know that they themselves will have to relinquish a lot of their wealth in order to assuage the masses.
They could help the poor rise and help them grow in prosperity or they could try to curb and control the power of the people. Helping the poor to rise will create a bigger bourgeoisie with ever higher demands and expectations. I don't think that they want that, because it will eventually lead to a lessening of their wealth. They prefer the people to be held back under austerity with no growth or low growth, with expensive fuel and heat, and high costs of travel and movement. They want gas bills, electricty bills and water bills to rise and rise to keep the people down. They want deindustrialisation, closure of factories and manufacturing and mining and steel production. They want the people to have a service economy in a deindustrialised low-growth world. Then, when jobs are scarce and pay little, they can institute workfare schemes, and they can even put forward the idea that workers' rights should be reduced, that the minimum wage should be lowered, and that workers should be able to be sacked more easily.
The rich elite are pursuing a policy of neo-feudalism.
Big businesses will not suffer, they never do. It is only people who will suffer. The mega corporations may offer to pay a bit more tax out of the millions they turn over, but it will be the public who pay hundreds of pounds extra per year for the carbon taxes and who pay double-digit increases per year in fuel bills and rail travel bills.
The corporations will prosper and the people will endure austerity and low growth in the neo-feudal elitist world of teh mega rich and their trust funds, charitable foundations, think tanks and lobby groups.
the price of energy for the world's poor will still be excessive. Nothing is going to change that .
'Lolz at the idea that Nigel Lawson represents anything but the elite.'
Nigel Lawson is a great man standing up for the people and for truth. On this issue he is an outsider, an outlier. The BBC don't invite him on often to speak about these topics, because this issue does not fit into the BBC's master's script. The elite and their servants do not want people like Nigel Lawson to get too much of a hearing, because they know that the public will believe Nigel and not them and their puppets and servants.
But luckily we have Paul Dacre and Nigel Lawson
handing out the tinfoil hats standing up selflessly for the interests of the word's poor
Yes, Himalaya, you are right uckily we have the Daily Mail!
'the price of energy for the world's poor will still be excessive'
lljkk, not necessarily. As Lawson so rightly says
''The green lobby, of course, is terrified that, despite the promotion of expensive and heavily subsidised wind power .... the emergence of large supplies of cheap gas will make this policy unsustainable'
Energy prices have already fallen in the USA. There will be competitive pricing of energy and the rich elite will not be able to explain to the public why they don't offer the same to the public in other countries. All of their think tanks and spin doctors and charitable trusts will have a hard time explaining to the public why they are not lowering energy prices. All the talk of tidal waves and monsoons and '50 days to save the planet' won't wash with the public.
Claig, if the media and politicians are all puppets of the uber wealthy elite, there must be some sort of organisation to this. Surely these elites must bring people together from the banking sector, business, energy companies, media and governments??????There must be shared thinking between these individuals rather than competition. There is only one example I can think of and Mr Lawson has attended twice, so does his agenda meet with their approval?
The BBC kept the avile thing quiet until after he died, but they won't be able to keep the lid on the elite's energy scams quiet while energy prices are falling in the United States. People like Nigel Lawson and Paul Dacre will make sure of that!
'Mr Lawson has attended twice, so does his agenda meet with their approval?'
I don't think it does, which is why the BBC don't invite him on their publicly funded TV shows often to discuss his views, whereas they fund lots of programmes (out of the public purse) on polar bears.
The rich elite are pursuing a policy of neo-feudalism
But who are they claig? are they different to bankers? Are they Rockefellas or are they just plain old McHappy D's, or are they Beatrice or even green creatures? or even shock horror related to the queen?
I love polar bears. Hmm.......the ice is melting, will you adopt a polar bear claig?
The current IEA forecasts upon which the article in the DM was based expect OECD oil demand to go down from its peak in 2005-8 until the forecast date of 2035.
Benefits for large families are being cut, extra charges for an extra room in council accomodation will be introduced. The poor are suffering cuts, while the big multinational corporations pay a few million in tax, and have to be persuaded to chip in a bit by "people pressure".
The growth of the public is being curbed by financial constraints and their standard of living is declining. It is not an accident, it is ideological.
' will you adopt a polar bear claig? '
You've got to be kidding! So I can fund 6 figure salaries for the charity-type bosses who run these appeals?
'OECD oil demand to go down from its peak in 2005-8 until the forecast date of 2035.'
is that due to their decades of austerity and low growth?
Do you know that if they wanted so desperately to turn the light out or to cull us they already have many tried and tested ways to do this. Wars cost money.........ubers get wealthy when governments borrow. Just one example.
Or is that these ubers like the game and actually no one will ultimately win because they haven't decided amongst themselves what their game strategy is. If that is the case, we are left with plain old boring old capitalism.
Mini, it's not a clockwork world. The think tanks predict what will happen, but they can't be sure. They evaluate scenarios, but there is always risk involved.
The Soviets and the Ceaucescu's probably planned well ahead into the future, but things didn't turn out as they planned.
The future is a blank page, we don't know what it will hold, and nor do the rich elites.
Some think tanks told us we had passed the "tipping point" and that we only had "50 days to save the planet" and they predicted that teh public would believe them. But they didn't count on Nigel Lawson, Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail!
Lawson says that his think tank is unbiased, that climate change science has not proven anything beyond doubt. That is the key.......doubt. Plus on that website it says that they prefer to rely on observation and not on the predictions of the scientists using data.
He has an agenda, it is short term. (silly old fool is due to croak soon)
There is plenty of evidence that fracking causes environmental damage. If oil is a finite resource as we know it is, then finding other sources doesn't make it less finite it just puts off the inevitable.
'Lawson says that his think tank is unbiased'
That just goes to prove that there are some good think tanks out there.
'If oil is a finite resource as we know it is, then finding other sources doesn't make it less finite it just puts off the inevitable.'
Life is finite and the life of the planet is finite, but that doesn't mean that we have passed the "tipping point" and have to live in a low-growth climate of doom.
Lawson's article shows that new sources of gas have been found that will power the planet for the next century at least.
Future generations of the billions of people on this planet will make new discoveries and find and create brand new sources of energy. We only discovered electricity just over 100 years ago. Who knows what teh people of teh world will discover in the next 100 years.
The question will be, will the rich elite try to prevent the ingenuity and growth of the world population of the next 100 years in order to maintain their control of the planet.
In a free democractic world, the people will prosper and the rich elite will have to go with the public.
Peak oil has always been a deeply flawed theory.
The reason it is flawed is because in the entire history of mankind there has never been any instance of humankind running out of a fuel.
As a fuel becomes scare it becomes more expensive and thus more economic to exploit another fuel. First it was wood, then it was coal, then oil and now it is natural gas. In the future it might be renewables, it might be nuclear fusion.
The bonkers rush to install hugely expensive 'renewables' now when there is a vast vast untapped resource of cheap natural gas in every country in the World is just plain mad.
The age of oil is coming to an end for sure but not because we are running out of it but because peak demand for will soon be reached.
Natural gas will take over from oil as a transportation fuel just as it has already taken over from oil and coal in much of the electricty generation. Combined Cycle Gas Turbines burn gas very efficiently in power stations across the World and internal combustion engines (with a very small amount of low tech modification) already burn natural gas in road vehicles.
'According to the U.S. government, oil shale deposits in an area called the Green River Formation in the western United States are estimated to contain up to 3 trillion barrels of oil three times more than the whole world has consumed in the past 100 years.
The shale revolution means the earth can now provide us with about 250 years' worth of gas supplies
The economic and political repercussions of such discoveries cannot be understated. The cheap energy brought about by the shale gas revolution, for example, is already boosting the U.S. economy.
Indeed, sections of U.S. manufacturing are even repatriating their activities from China.'
This is incredibly good news and yet we hardly hear about the momentous consequences on the BBC news channels, who still show us reports on "ethical man" riding a bicycle to "save the planet" and the plight of the polar bear.
None of the think tanks who told us all about the "tipping point" ever predicted this huge new energy revolution beneath our feet, and they are still pretty silent about it now. I wonder why.
This cheap gas and oil are real assets, not funny money digits on bankers' deriavtives' books.
This cheap energy could lead to a boom in production as we harness power and energy to create new goods and upgrade crumbling infrastructure. This could spell the end of the imposed financial austerity and lead to productivity on a scale we haven't witnessed in decades.
That's probably why the elites and their media haven't spread the word yet.
But the truth is out, they can't put the lid back on it - the gas beneath our feet will gush up for humanity's service.
and all of this is good for the environment?
Yes it's good for the environemnt and also it is not nuclear so doesn't pose those risks.
'As a result, instead of benefiting from cheap shale gas, new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs, Europe is constraining itself with self-imposed green limits to growth.
This is despite the fact that gas-fired power stations emit roughly half the carbon dioxide that coal-fired power stations do, which is why the U.S. is the only country to have significantly reduced its CO2 emissions in recent years.
But don't expect most of the media to tell you anything about it. They will still be pushing taxpayer subsidies to rich landowners for windfarms that push up fuel prices for the poorest people in the land by about £100 per year, which prolongs the austerity and cuts growth.
'self-imposed green limits to growth'
green limits to growth is the key phrase. Remember that the Club of Rome document in the 70s, I think it was, was actually called 'Limits to Growth', and the green mantra is the same after all these years.
The elites and their think tanks want 'limits to growth', I think they want austerity too, so that ordinary people will be limited in their growth.
But this energy revolution might turn the tide on the tidal wave of 'climate change' and 'global warming' and deliver the end of austerity for the people of the world and lead to an age of growth the like we haven't seen since the industrial revolution.
There are a few people and some think tanks who criticise our Chancellor, George Osborne. But they may well soon be singing his praises because he may the person who delivers this hope and bright future to teh people of this land.
'In his Autumn Statement on Wednesday, Chancellor George Osborne announced a new gas strategy designed to promote the fastest practicable exploitation of the UKs shale gas deposits.
He explained: I dont want British families to be left behind as gas prices tumble on the other side of the Atlantic.
In years to come, this may well be seen as a major turning point for the UK economy, when everything else in this years Autumn Statement has long been forgotten.
super wealth in the hands of a very few
Windsors - Huis van Oranje (NL)......
The two that most come to mind.
Keep the people dumb with their permanent soap operas too.....
Here is a wikipedia article on the original elite-commissioned 1972 Club of Rome book called 'The Limits of Growth'.
That same thread runs through to today.
suburbophobe, you are right.
Kepp the people in the dark about Savile et al. for decades, and even knight him, and feed the people false information, and divide and rule the people, and tell them to get on their bikes to "save the planet", while the super rich own fleets of Ferraris and Maseratis and Bentleys and private jets.
I am unconvinced by the Peak Oil claims.
I used to know some petro-geologists who worked in E&P, they told me that there is only ever about 20 years of proven expolitable reserves, because if you've got less than 20 years-worth, you go and look for more; and if you've got more than 20 years-worth, you don't go looking for more. Therefore you probably won't find any.
That said, the "Global warming is not agreed" claim is a load lof bllcks. It is agreed by all climatoligists and weather experts throughout the world. The data is uncontrovertible. There are still a few nutters and non-scientists or people who work in other fields that still argue with it. A bit like saying "the germ theory is not universally accepted" or "evolution is just a theory, and no more valid than the view that the world is flat and stands on the back of a giant tortoise"
I am always unconvinced by the idea that some politician will deliver hope and a bright future to the people of this (or any other) land
'I am always unconvinced by the idea that some politician will deliver hope and a bright future to the people of this (or any other) land'
Piglet, I think you are being a bit harsh on politicians there. But I would not disagree with you if you qualified that statement with 'New Labour politician'!
'I am always unconvinced by the idea that some politician will deliver hope and a bright future to the people of this (or any other) land'
especially a New Conservative one.
Are there still more old-Etonians in the Cabinet than there are women?
Good point. I agree that there are too many people from the same background. We need diversity of thought and experience and background in order to inject new thinking into policy making, so that novel ideas can surface. More of the "same old, same old" won't get us out of the rut.
Erm, you do understand what oil actually IS don't you? And that it cannot possibly be replenished as fast as we use it?
Therefore it MUST run out. That's not a theory. It's logic.
When it might become uneconomical to extract it depends on both economics and technology but it IS a finite resource.
Yes it is finite but so is the planet itself. One day it too will disappear. But by the time oil really disappears we will have discovered many other forms of energy. Many things are finite, but human ingenuity may not be one of them.
Has anyone denied that resources will eventually run out if we don't stop using them? Apart from the fishing industry, obviously.
The Peak Oil theory is (was) that by now we have already passed the point of maximum production, so were already on the descent into poverty and deindustrialisation.
No doubt the Peak Oil theory can be rewritten to put the "peak" date at some indedinable future date. However it then loses its impact.
Did we run out of coal in the UK?
No of coourse we didnt. There are millions and milions of tonnes of it still underground. Its just not worth digging it up.
Same principle applies with oil.
In a time of austerity when benefits are being cut for millions of people and when banks are still being asked to try and lend more to businesses and people, it is good to see that some of our public money is being spent wisely.
'Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said: After an Autumn Statement where people are making significant cuts, to have a £2.9 billion budget for a random collection of projects which have questions hanging over them as to whether or not they are corrupt is just an extraordinary waste of money.
The Government does not exist to make charitable donations thats something people should do privately. Were looking for a further £10 billion of cuts and this seems to me the easiest place to start.
To be fair, not all of the super-rich are evil and intent on grinding the faces of the poor. Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet spring to mind. The rest of 'em, though...
Future generations of the billions of people on this planet will make new discoveries and find and create brand new sources of energy
but we already have.
Carbon fuels are finite, as we populate more of the planet and build, the conditions for the formation of fuels is diminished plus we use at a faster rate than nature can replenish. Global warming...hmm, hasn't the earth cooled for the last 6 or 7 years?
"Global warming...hmm, hasn't the earth cooled for the last 6 or 7 years"
Are you suggesting that Climate Change is not happening?
'Are you suggesting that Climate Change is not happening?'
Only a think tank or charitable trust would suggest such a thing. The climate changes every day and from winter to summer.
But if you are talking about what they call "anthropogenic" climate change caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels, then that is an entirely different matter.
Mini, building towns and cities for humans to live in doesn't affect the fossil fuels buried miles underneath the earth, formed over millenia. There is no replenishment. But 'peak oil' is a scare tactic used to frighten the public into accepting slower and lower growth and higher costs of energy in order to slow down human progress, prosperity and industrialisation.
In centuries to come we will discover energy from many other sources (and not inefficent windfarms which require subsidies from the poor to rich landowners).
"Hasn't the earth cooled for the last 6 or 7 years?"
And even if it had, that wouldn't disprove an underlying trend.
PigletJohn; yes, there are quite a few people on here who suggest climate change isn't happening. I try to stay off these types of threads as I find them cripplingly depressing.
And also the whole thing is so complex; saying, 'Some glaciers are getting bigger, therefore global warming IS A LIE, ha!' is a much better soundbite than trying to explain about glacier formation and warmer oceans and precipitation and yada yada.
Basically, a lot of people are happy to carry on fucking up the planet until we can distil the entire system of climate science, geology and ocean chemistry into a few catchy soundbites. And we can't, so we're fucked. How depressing is that?
I am no expert (although I am a student of the Daily Mail), but one expert is Piers Corbyn (brother of Labour MP, Jeremy Corbyn). He has interesting things to say on climate
Another Piers Corbyn debate on Sky News eith a man who is not a scientist and is from what I think is probably a lobby group called "Climate Against Climate Change".
There is the usual scare tactic talk of "tipping points", and while this frightens Guardian readers, it cuts no ice with a scientist like Dr. Piers Corbyn.
I don't agree with everything Piers says, especially when he says that "Gordon Brown is a genius on economics", but then again no one is right on everything.
sorry, Campaign Against Climate Change
Climate Change is NOT a 'settled' science at all.
It was only deemed as 'settled' when a group of scientists with Govt funded posts, Labour politicians and left wing activists decided to make a coordinated attempt to shut down legitimate scientific debate.
It is not settled and frankly the data is very shakey. I used to be closely involved in academic research in this area and we simply dont have a long enough history to know if the climate change we are seeing is a temporary cyclical phenomenon (ie like ice ages are known to be) or a real long term trend caused by human activity.
So, my case is that the issue is too complex to be reduced to soundbites, and you link me to...some soundbites
On 'fair and balanced' Fox, and their little brother Sky.
Boulevard, did you listen to the non-scientist, John Ackers, in debate against the scientist Dr Piers Corbyn?
They don't give Piers much media access on the BBC etc. but the global warmers, "ethical men" and bicycle riding non-scientific campaigners warning of "catastrophe" and "tipping points" are never off the public's TV screens.
I'm guessing you accept, then, MoreBeta, that CO2/CH4/H2O in the atmosphere cause more heat from the sun to be retained; and your debate would be more around the response of planetary systems to increasing levels of said gases?
"Climate Change is NOT a 'settled' science at all."
As a matter of science it is settled that (1) it exists and (2) is caused by human activity.
There is no reputable scientific body in the world of national or international repute that says otherwise.
There are, however, plenty of people in the
fish-wrapping newspaper and media industries willing to stir up argument, and plenty of cranks or oil-industry supporters with an axe to grind.
The fact that research continues to better understand the causes and potentia remedies does not affect that.
'So, my case is that the issue is too complex'
It's not complex at all. Listen to Dr Piers Corbyn challenge Mr Ackers to come up with any scientific proff that carbon dioxide has ever driven climate. Mr Ackers says "I am not a scientist", so Piers says then bring a scientists from your camp.
I don't know what happened, but my guess is that Piers is still waiting to see the scientific proof.
an entertainment show set up by a media company to generate argument
and they chose not to invite a reputable scientist on the show to put forward the evidence.
What do you suppose was the purpose of the show?
There is a difference between climate changes and global warming though. Of course we have climate change but do we have warming. I actually agree with you on this point claig. We have had global warming, ice ages and the golf stream has switched off before, long before man starting running cars!
Well said, Mini.
It's hard to accept that we are subject to spin, it's hard to believe that we might be lied to by spin doctors and think tanks and charitable trusts and foundations and political lobby groups for political purposes.
We want to believe that we are told the truth. But we have witnessed years of spinners politically lying to us without a care.
Dr Piers Corbyn says in that video that carbon dioxide has increased in the last decade and yet temperatures have dropped.
Go Piers, "viva il popolo, il popolo vincera"
Mr Ackers says to Piers something like if it were true what you say, then why are there no groups of uou to argue so that you could be listened to, you are all individiuals and elsewhere he uses the term "maverick scientists".
But truth is not based on your belonging to a lobby group, a charitable trust or a political think tank. Just because donors fund lobby groups and think tanks doesn't mean that they are right.
Ask yourself why there are no lobby groups to oppose the catastrophic climate change crew, ask yourself why oil companies and industry don't fund such lobby groups (since they have more money than even governments).
There aren't any because they don't want them on the public's TV screens. They are not funded and promoted and given publicity because they are not what they want the people to know.
It's a long hard road to justice, but in the end "il popolo vincera".
You've found one crank, now show us the army of reputable scientists and independent organisations who have reviewed his theory and support it.
"There aren't any because..."
...because it's not true.
There were probably times in the history of the earth when we had higher levels of Co2 in the atmosphere from volcanic activity.
'"There aren't any because..."
...because it's not true.'
But that implies that truth only lies in the hands of those who fund lobby groups and charitable trusts and political think tanks. The people who pay for the researchers and staff on those lobby groups.
Surely, we no longer believe that. Surely we no longer believe that the rich and the powerful and the influential and the press barons and the spinners have our best interests at heart and always tell the truth. Surely we don't believe that they never engage in coverups of the truth and that they never lie to the public for political purposes.
Surely we have seen to much and been through to much to believe everything they say, especially when they use words like "catastrophe", "cataclysm", "doom", "destruction of the planet", "deluges".
Surely they have taught us the arts of spin.
scientific truth is not determined by the wealth or poverty of the person who says it, nor by whether or not you approve of the person who says it, nor by whether it suits your beliefs..
It is determined by testing hypotheses against evidence, and examining them to find if they can be proved to be wrong.
If your crank will explain his hypothesis and the evidence to support it, it will be examined and either accepted or rejected. That's how it works.
Claig, thanks for this interesting discussion. I had read Nigel Lawson's piece and thought it was very interesting indeed. There has never been any doubt in my mind that the BBC has an agenda RE climate change - it is SO blatant it's almost funny.
Wind farms are a complete red herring I agree and a total waste of taxpayers' money, but fracking may not be the straightforward answer. It is also a very, very unpopular concept. Suggestions that fracking takes place in an area where I live have been met with strong opposition.
'explain his hypothesis and the evidence to support it, it will be examined and either accepted or rejected. That's how it works.'
Is that how the '45 minute dossier' worked? Is everything examined before important decisions are made?
Who do you think funds scientific projects? It is not the scientists - the people who give the go ahead are the powerful people who hold the purse strings.
Do you think that the windfarms are created based on the 'evidence'?
The ones that catch fire when the wind blows too hard and the ones that don't turn when there is not enough wind and the ones that are rusting in fields in California, which were subsidised by government grants to rich landowners and corporations out of the public's pockets.
MamaMary, you are right. When I first heard about fracking on the BBC, it mentioned earthquakes etc. and I was worried and believed it, because I rely on BBC journalism.
But now that U have read Lawson's piece where he says that earthquakes caused by fracking are not true, I am beginning to have some doubts about it - particularly as the US is using it and if there were earthquakes caused by it in the US then I am 100% certain that the greens, the BBC, the lobby groups, the think tanks, the foundations, the charitable trusts and the puppets would be telling us all about it non-stop.
It definitely needs more looking into, but I am slowly beginning to doubt teh scare stories about fracking, just like I already disbelieve the scare stories about "tipping points" and "climate catastrophe".
Cheap energy will liberate humanity and provide a boom for ordinary people. I wouldn't put it past the mega rich to want to prevent the prosperity of ordinary people.
'Suggestions that fracking takes place in an area where I live have been met with strong opposition.'
Human ingenuity is limitless. We must find a way to extract the gas safely. We can do it if there is enough funding. Our scientists are capable of doing it.
There will be many scares and many lobby groups, think tanks, charitable trusts and foiundations will be set up and paid for to try to stop development and progress that will provide cheap energy for the masses. They may be right, but they may also be being funded by people with political agendas. Time will tell.
But having read Lawson's article, I am hopeful that this really is a boon to humanity, and it is already have huge effects in the States where fuel prices have fallen and jobs have returned to the United States from China.
''Suggestions that fracking takes place in an area where I live have been met with strong opposition.'
There is stong opposition to nuclear and I can fully understand why. No company should be allowed to frack if it is unsafe. We must have regulation and not 'light touch regulation', but real regulation. We cannot allow companies toi make a fast buck at human expense. But we must do everything we can to find a way to extract the energy safely and do all the tests that are necessary.
I certainly don't rely on the BBC for all my info, but getting at the truth can be very difficult.
Just seen a really disturbing ad from Danske Bank. I had seen this on TV but never watched it closely. Then I saw it on this website. I am by no means into conspiracy theories, but this ad is creepy. Banks have so much power.
Danske Bank ad
Is this whole thread just a wind up, OP?
Why do half of DM readers think that they know better than 99% of climate change scientists?
Vast sums of money have been put into the attempt to disprove the existence of man made climate change, and to damage the reputations of climate change scientists. When the President of the United States (Bush) bases his policies on disbelieving man made climate change, you can be sure that the argument is being well funded. Even he eventually backed down in the face of the overwhelming evidence.
Would you be insisting that man made climate change doesn't exist if that wasn't to your advantage? I think not.
And what makes you so sure that human ingenuity will find new and harmless ways of producing energy in the future? Are you psychic, or maybe just looking for another stupid excuse for wasting as much energy as you can as quickly as possible?
Yes, banks have power because they have money. We as a country are billions in debt and we are paying someone the interest. Who?
They hold the purse strings and whoever controls the money dictates policy, and their policies may not be to the interest of ordinary people in their billions.
Will google the Danske bank advert.
'Even he eventually backed down in the face of the overwhelming evidence.'
Dromedary, Bush is not really against climate change - it's the old good cop, bad cop routine to fool the public. Cameron won't give the people a referendum on Europe either, however much he says the EU have too much power. One side plays good cop, the other plays bad cop, so that teh public believe that there is such a thing as oposition, but in reality they're all in it together and that is true of climate change too, where they are all greens now, even though the majority of the people that they represent don't believe in it.
"The ones that catch fire when the wind blows too hard "
Claig, can you point to some recent examples?
'Would you be insisting that man made climate change doesn't exist if that wasn't to your advantage?'
How do you really know what is to BVush's advantage? You don't believe what he says to the public do you?
Didn't we lean that from Blair? - they don't always practise what they preach.
"The ones that catch fire when the wind blows too hard "
Claig, can you point to some recent examples?
WARNING! DAILY MAIL LINK!
Oh, you mean the November 2011 one.
When you said "The ones that catch fire when the wind blows too hard" I got the impression it was happening all the time, all over the place. There are many thousands of them, after all.
I've seen cars and houses on fire. Should cars and houses be banned?
'Should cars and houses be banned?'
Certainly not. We need to build more homes and people need their cars and cheap fuel - whatever the greens and lobby groups and think tanks may say.
As the legendary science presenter, David Bellamy, says on New Zealamnd TV (unfortunately he is no longer a regular face on the BBC, I don't know why, but some people do say it may be due to the fact that he doesn't believe in climate change and says so), many of the politicians who promote climate catastrophe don't really believe in it either.
You mean "David Bellamy the populist TV presenter" not "David Bellamy the acclaimed climatologist"
David Bellamy being humiliated by George Monbiot over climate change
his figures had been faked by his sources.
'Would you be insisting that man made climate change doesn't exist if that wasn't to your advantage?'
I was talking about you, Claig.
Wouldn't it be great if we could just carry on as we are - rich western lifestyle spreading worldwide? Well we can, in the very short term, and then it'll all come crashing down. You'll be there when it happens, Claig (it's already started), and your children will have the full, life-long experience. Bet they'll love you for your contribution.
"There were probably times in the history of the earth when we had higher levels of Co2 in the atmosphere from volcanic activity. "
Indeed. And what % of the earth's surface was being used for agriculture then?
Was the earth supporting a population of 7 billion?
There was most likely a time when there was no oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, and there was life on the planetthen. It doesn't mean it's a situation we should to recreate.
PigletJohn, interesting video and Monbiot unearthed the fact that the data was false. It looks like Bellamy believed the data without thoroughly checking it out. 1 - 0 to Monbiot.
But, Bellamy asks Monbiot for some evidence that carbon produces climate change. Monbiot says that there is a staggering amount of evidence, literally tens of thousands of scientific papers etc. etc. - but what is telling is that he doesn't mention a single one of these tens of thousands of papers - no look at the paper by X and Y published in th Z on such and such a date.
Final score : Draw
Unfortunately, the only way you can prove climate change in an absolute sense, is to take two identical planets, and keep the CO2 level constant on one while raising it on the other one.
We don't have that luxury.
So what you have to decide, is how certain you need to be. And given the consequences of getting it wrong, surely the sensible thing to do is err on the side of caution?
In this, it is kind of like evolution. Until we develop the ability to wind back time, it's 'only a theory', and every wacko with a blog wants to have an opinion on why it's wrong.
Oh, on the plus side, the Mail accepts evolution, doesn't it? That's a bit of a bonus.
"Final score : Draw"
The session was set up to discuss Bellamy's claims. Which turned out to be made up, unsubstantiated nonsense.
Having been shown to be a complete arse he chucked in an irrelevant claim that he'd never seen evidence of CO2 implication. In the same way that you might be shown to be wrong about solar power, and chuck in that you've never seen evidence that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. The only way you've never seen it is if you've taken care to never look.
'Wouldn't it be great if we could just carry on as we are - rich western lifestyle spreading worldwide? Well we can, in the very short term, and then it'll all come crashing down.'
Can't you see that that is the message that teh super wealthy rich elite's lobby groups, think tanks, charitable trusts, foundations and puppets are constantly selling to the people? Without evidence. They told us fossil fuels would run out and we had to cut back. But shale gas has put a major spanner in their works. They are going to need all their spinners to remove that spanner.
They want you to believe that you are causing the destruction of the planet due to your western lifestyle and that it has to end, that the good times are over, that you have to cut back and endure austerity to "save the planet". Low growth and even no growth is what greens want. But it won't affect teh mega rich on their yachts, in their Bentleys, helicopters and private jets. They will grow richer as you get poorer. They will buy jewellery and works of art that cost more than you will earn in a lifetime, and they will tell you to cut back your lighting and your heat and your water usage and they will charge you more and more for life's essentials.
They want you to believe that the party is over and they have parties that will sell it to you - think tanks, lobby groups, charitable trusts and anyone that money can buy.
For you , they say, the party is over, but for them it has just begun.
PigletJohn - at best I think you are being naive about how scientific research gets funded. No funding then no research.
Bottom line is that funding was systematically directed towards academic researchers that supported climate change theory. The sceptics were systematically starved of funds.
That is why the overwhelming output of research groups is now in support of climate change. Academic researchers know there is no funding for research that questions climate change. Only independently funded researchers can afford to question it.
you mean in the same way that there is not much funding for research to prove the world is flat?
George Bush and the Oil trade were very anxious to rubbish Climate Change. You think they were lacking in money and influence?
PigletJohn, the oil trade makes adverts about green energy. They aren't against the whole green agenda. They have more money than governments. They can buy as many lobbyists and cabs for hire as they want to. They are not lobbying against it. Their funds dwarf those of the greens and environmentalists, but they don't use them to oppose the elite green agenda.
This is bigger than 'opposing' parties - just like the EU is too. This is an agenda above their heads.
Bush plays bad cop and they then get the progressives to mock him and get people to fall into line because they think they are opposing Bush.
Threads like this both amuse and dismay me, although the line "I am a student of the Daily Mail" did make me giggle.
What I want to know is, if the rich elite are so super organised that they control everything - why do they seem incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery in all other regards? I have the same question about 'government cover-ups' like the death of Diana, and the WTC.
'why do they seem incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery'
Have you been to one of their brewery's lately? I can asuure you that they know how to organise a piss up, especially if the public pays for it!
Ok then, a bunfight in a bakery. Or do you need me to explain the metaphor?
The rich elite don't control everything. They use media to influence the public and change their perceptions. They do not use force, they use influence. But oif course they do pay for lots of puppets and puppet organisations to help influence the people.
Have you been to one of their bakeries lately? You might find that they have cooked the books and let the cakes burn, just as Alfred did before them!
Glad to see that we are finally in agreement.
No, it was intended as an interjection. Perhaps I should have said 'hmmm' instead. I was waiting to see whether you were going to explain the evidence for any of your wild theories but if you're desperate enough for approbation to take that as agreement then go ahead.
'Perhaps I should have said 'hmmm'
I would have taken that to mean that you were giving my statement due consideration and pondering further on the issue.
'going to explain the evidence for any of your wild theories'
But I have already said that I do not believe in 'anthropogenic' climate catastrophe and its associated 'tipping points'.
So what you have to decide, is how certain you need to be. And given the consequences of getting it wrong, surely the sensible thing to do is err on the side of caution? absolutely agree. Whilst I don't think we are going through a cycle of global warming (we have experienced global warming before but we have also been skating in the Thames at other times) we experience constant climatic change. Co2 must exist because plants require this, What level is optimal, is anyone's guess.
Fossil fuels are finite, it is right to look at other ways of meeting our energy requirements, other ways of living and growing food. Agriculture uses vast amounts of oil. Are we going to keep driving cars at the expense of growing food? or are we going to start investing (i know, claig !) in other sustainable energy and ways of feeding the world.
Who pays for research.....claig tells us it is the elites. If these elites pay for research they expect the scientists to tell them what they want to hear. That is due to capitalism and is driven by greed.
"food production is energy intensive. For example, approximately 2 000 litres per year in oil equivalents are required to supply food for each American, which accounts for about 19 per cent of the total energy used in the United States (Pimentel and others 2008)" na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=81
OP But I have already said that I do not believe in 'anthropogenic' climate catastrophe and its associated 'tipping points'.
The problem is that I couldn't care less what you (or anyone else) believes unless you can offer me sound evidence to support it. Which is why I was hoping you had evidence rather than just a profound belief in conspiracy theories.
Mini, they are building a huge solar farm somewhere near Cambridge. They are taking farm land and sticking lots of solar panels on it. There is osme local opposition, but apparently it seems that localism is not effective any more because councils can't object. A libereal Democrat on TV said that there is already enough food on earth to feed the planet and something to the effect of covering farmland with solar panels is good for our energy needs and doesn't affect our food needs.
The solar farm did look bad on TV. It did seem such a waste to use teh lad for solar panels. What about building homes for people to live in if we don't need it for food? Can't they stick the solar panels on structures out at sea like some of teh windfarms? Why use our land for that?
The reality is that there is enough land and food to feed the planet, but that resources, money and technology are not made available to the poorest people who need them most.
MoreBeta - honestly? You really think that if there was research with any chance of disproving anthropogenic change, there wouldn't be oil companies and right-wing think tanks galore lining up to fund it?
TBH, they don't need to bother, when a few well-placed media articles can 'disprove' huge swathes of science.
I mean, you must have seen the arguments on threads like this, about glaciers, ice in a gin and tonic, historical maxima and so on. You don't need to disprove anything; you need to provide the general population with a few soundbites and the impression that they know more than these panicky scientists who are only after research funding... and it's game over, boys.
My sister has a PhD in geology, and works for Shell's prospecting department. Now, if she'd gone into climate change research instead, do you think she'd have earned more or less?
'The problem is that I couldn't care less what you (or anyone else) believes unless you can offer me sound evidence to support it.'
Have you watched the video of Dr Piers Corbyn debating Mr John Ackers? Piers says that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last decade and yet temperatures have dropped.
'My sister has a PhD in geology, and works for Shell's prospecting department. Now, if she'd gone into climate change research instead, do you think she'd have earned more or less?'
Do you really think that she would have deserved more for that?
If they really believed that "climate catastrophe" is a bigger threat than World War II etc. and all the other hyperbole that they use, then they would be paying huge money to research what to do about it. But they don't, because it is not as serious as they tell the public.
Do we have enough land on which to grow food? Globally and even locally I would argue we do but our use of land is dictated by capitalism and the need to invest capital surpluses. We already import a huge amount of food that is grown in regions that use intensive farming with petro chemicals, we import food that has been grown and beef farmed in regions that have been deforested. In these regions huge harm is done to the environment by huge agro-corps. The local people in those regions are also being exploited to provide us with cheap food and deforestation is hugely damaging to the environment globally and locally. What is more it is totally unnecessary and it isn't feeding those indigenous populations. Brazil can feed brazil, always has without soil erosion. The American's have depleted their soil with their own greed so they look to exploit someone elses.
I agree, farm land should not be used for wind farms and solar factories. Should we build houses on this land ? (ttosca and Claig would agree we should) no we shouldn't be building houses.It is bad for the environment and there are better uses of fertile green land. We have empty houses, we have brown field sites, we have areas in cities that could be redeveloped not to make money for bankers and developers but to house people. The single most effective way of housing everyone is through wealth and property redistribution. The single best way of feeding people without using petro chemicals and fossil fuels is to use the land nearest to us. Hell, we would even be healthier if we ate food in season.
There are whole new blocks of flats in the centre of london that sit empty for half the year, owned by off shore companies based in tax havens and inhabited by wealthy tax dodgers. Just one example.
If less carbon fuels are used in agriculture, food processing and transport then we need less of them, we create less co2.
Mini, Dr Piers Corbyn says there is no evidence that C02 drives climate. In fact I think he says it is the other way around.
Why limit growth, increase costs for the poorest and hinder industrialisation and industry based on something which Piers say there is no evidence for?
Why isn't there an open debate on national TV with Piers and other scientists who don't believe a word of it against the scientists who claim it is real?
Why isn't there an inquiry to find out the facts before changing the lives and growth prospects of our entire society?
'Why isn't there an open debate on national TV with Piers and other scientists who don't believe a word of it against the scientists who claim it is real?'
The public would watch in their millions. TV comapnies would break all ratings and advertisers would mnake lots of money. But it won't happen, because there will only be one winner and it won't be the spinners.
Not the usual faces we see on TV - the lobbyists, action groups and think tanks - but real scientists head to head in real debate. Take teh best scientists from the climate atastrophe side and put them up against the best of the sceptics.
I think it would be no contest, it would be a slam dunk, like eating peas from a pod, and the public would be enlightened as never before.
Boulevard - big firms make money out of Govt largesse being handed out to fund renewable energy. I have just read the new Energy Bill and it is stuffed full of Govt intervention, picking winners and public money being funneled in to ensure that 'we get the green investment we need'.
Big firms just love Govt funded intervention - of course they dont argue against it. Nice guaranteed returns with all the risk and cost being pushed on to taxpayers/consumers.
We have seen this before with the push for nuclear power in the 1950s onward.
Yes, but you would see new roads being built, new housing, new factories, sofas etc.......there is no need what so ever for this other than the money-go-round.
If people can not meet their basic costs because those cost are rising be it housing costs or fuel, as you rightly point out, that is because capitalists are in competition with each other for the few spare coppers in your pocket. Who will fund the building of new housing, on whose land will they be built?
If we need more housing it is because we have a problem with immigration, caused by globalisation. The very thing that prevents us sustaining our own food security is the same thing that means we have to build more housing stock. And the answer is to put people into work building homes for immigrants? How long will that boom sustain itself. We have a capital absorption problem....historically property development has mopped this up and made huge profits whilst generating huge debt for others. Far better that land be made available for farming. Put people back on the land not petro chemicals.
In regards to Co2, there is evidence that it drives climatic change. I do agree with you that it doesn't appear to drive global "warming" (i'm sure i made that clear before) If it hadn't driven climatic "change" in the past then I guess that thousands of years ago when asteroids hit earth and volcanic activity was intense that no such change ever occurred. But it has, massive floods in Egypt, skating on the Thames, an ice age, Romans growing grapes in Yorkshire or wherever, the gulf stream switching off in the 18th century. Climate change happens, has always happened and is a largely natural phenomena. We have always had variable amounts of Co2. But carbon fuels are still finite.
I think it was you, morebeta, who made the point way up there ^ that we change from one energy source to another as technology moves on. But the change is usually associated with big upheavals in society, right?
So given that we're currently at/near the top of the global pecking order, I'd suggest we ought to try our damndest to be in at the start of the next energy party - which means green investment. We don't want to be missing out on the 21stC equivalent of the Industrial Revolution...
Well said Morebeta In fact Claig maybe right in one respect, that the big global corps fund research that will have governments in panic mode shovelling public money into investing in the latest capitalists expansion plans. They are running out of areas of investment......we now have fuel and green energy, welfare, education and health, can't think what else that floating capital can be invested in to make a return? neither can they which is why we are seeing floating surpluses sitting beside ever more impoverished states.
mini - yes, CO2 varies, but the evidence suggests it has never varied by this much in this short a space of time.
When human populations adapted to changing climate (eg Ice Age), they would have done so by migrating slowly (ie on foot!) and adapting gradually, because the temperature change was relatively slow.
The current change is happening quickly - it's just the blink of an eye in geologic time - and we have stuff like borders and visas that stop people moving any real distance.
Also, off the top of my head, I think it's too late to 'maintain' food security in the UK. Isn't the amount of land required to sustain London alone, bigger than the whole of the UK?
Governments should build new council houses on the land instead of covering it with solar panels. They can buy the land from the farmers. Developers can buy teh land too and build new towns with better accommodation so that the many people living in bedsits because there ar e not enough homes can be housed.
We can increase the quality of life of our people and put tens of thousands back to work in building new homes and infrastructure and hospitals for the public.
We can stop the nimbyism of the haves and provide a better life for the have-nots. We can stop the green limits to growth and grow once again in a prosperous, successful land. The greens won't like it, the elite won't too, but the people will love it as they are back in work with money on their pockets and are building a better Britain for all.
The more homes we build, the more the cost of housing will decline and the more of our young people will be able to afford homes.
Let's serve our people, not our elites. Let's not doff our caps to the elites who are holding back the progress and prosperity of the people.
Let's not fall prey to spinners who tell us yarns that lower our growth and empty our barns.
and if I didn't type so slowly, I might be responding to the last post, instead of the last but
claig, I'm just a person, you don't have to address me like a convention centre
'claig, I'm just a person, you don't have to address me like a convention centre '
Sorry, I didn't realise that. From the way that you posted, I thought you were a convention centre, which is why I addressed you in that fashion.
Claig - if we build more homes the value of mine will decrease.
Redbindy, that is right. But we can't limit the life chances of our young people and our homeless and our poor just because it enriches some of us. There is a balance to be struck and we must offer growth and a good life for all our people.
We mustn't fall for divide and rule. We really are all in this together.
Few of us are millionaires, few of us receive astronomical bonus and threaten to leave the country if our bonuses are cut or if tighter regulation is imposed on us. We use public services and rely on quality service.
As Alexandre Dumas wrote "one for all and all for one".
I think he may have also penned the line "and don't let the buggers spin you and grind you down".
Claig- being rich (and I'm not) doesn't limit the life chances of others- socialism does. What wealth does is give people something to aim for.
Look where Keynes landed us we have claig ! You can build everyone a home and a few roads.......what then, knock it down and build another for lack of anything constructive and economically useful to do?
^ being rich (and I'm not) doesn't limit the life chances of others- socialism does. What wealth does is give people something to aim for^ now we have an American dreamer.
Trickle down economics doesn't work.......it's been tried since Thatcher gave birth to it 30 years ago. keynes doesn't work because it's been proven to end in tears.....socialism, well who knows because no one has yet experienced it.
'what then, knock it down and build another for lack of anything constructive and economically useful to do?'
Not at all. Build factories to create employment. Produce new gadgets that enhance people's lives and that make us more productive. Build more schools and employ more teachers so that class sizes are reduced in order that our population gets a better education so that we once again become teh creative engine of the world. Build cheap governemnt tablets and laptops and give them free to every child. Invest in our future. Repair the potholes in our roads, fix teh leaks in our water pipes so that we no longer have to pay such high water costs etc.
Don't talk the country down, don't talk the economy down, don't talk growth down, don't talk Britain down, don't talk the planet down. There is no climate catastrophe round the corner, stop the talk of doom and gloom and return to a boom that offers hope for all our people.
Think positive, stop the spin, let's have an attitude of can-do, and stop finding 100 reasons for can-don't.
Great thinking Claig - who's going to pay for all this?
'Claig- being rich (and I'm not) doesn't limit the life chances of others- socialism does.'
There is nothing wrong with being rich. It's great if you can be rich. But, being rich, does not give anyone the right to hinder the prospects of those who aren't. It's not right to stop others have homes just because the price of your might fall.
That is the whole ethos of teh super mega rich who don't want the population to grow and increase their prosperity and demands and expectations, because it will lead to less wealth for the elite. They don't want the plebs to rise above their station. We cannot let them stop progress.
'Great thinking Claig - who's going to pay for all this?'
Instead of giving billions in bail outs to bankers via quantitative easing and asking them nicely if they wouldn't mind lending it to small businesses, set up a national investment bank and start lending it out to the people and businesses of this country.
We created the industrial revolution, we created co-operatives, we are unlimited in our ability to create and innovate but we are starved of finance.
Instead of asking corporations if they can contribute more tax (at a level that small businesses and individuals pay), simplify the tax code and strengthen it so that corporations are not able to pay so little tax.
Use the vast quantities of shale gas beneath our feet to provide cheap energy to people and businesses so that we power up our economy and country and start growing like never before.
Claig you are sounding more and more like a democratic leftie, are you ok?
Where will be dispose of all the gadgets? ahhhh, maybe if we dig up some coal, create holes on the ground looking for oil and gas, we can infill it with useless gadgets past repair and use !
where will WE not be, sorry I had a fit of the giggles.
It is humiliating for a great country like ours to be asking corporations via "people power" to contribute more in tax out of teh money that they turn over in this country.
'Where will be dispose of all the gadgets?'
We can create them largely from recyclable components and we can also create incinerator technology that can burn waste products and produce energy for the country without needing landfill.
We've got the people and the brains.
'Claig you are sounding more and more like a democratic leftie, are you ok?'
It's not about right and left, it's about right and wrong.
There are good things on th left and good things on the right. We need to take both, not fall into the divide and rule con game that the elites hope we will fall for.
An interesting video of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones interviewed on Russia Today. The interviewer asks him "why are they doing this?" and he mentions our old friends, the bankers.
Alex Jones on Russia Today saying that oil companies are behind the peak oil scam to push up oil prices.
Wouldn't it make great TV for the BBC to film a debate between people like Jones versus the think tanks, the lobby groups, the Oxbridge PPEa and the puppets. I wonder why they don't do it.
Alex Jones, who left school at 16, could probably run rings around the PhDs and PPEs who work for the plutocrats.
How can that be? What value is there then in an Oxbridge PPE?
It's because truth defeats a lie, the spirit of the people will never die, like a bird freed from its cage it will always fly high.
"Viva il popolo, il popolo vincera"!
Sorry, I think that PPEs are only from Oxford, and not the great University of Cambridge.
Claig, I think everybody's gone now.
You're in danger of shouting at the pigeons.
PigletJohn, there are many lurkers who are learning about lies all the time, and pigeons already know the truth.
"Viva il pigeoni e viva il popolo sempre in unita"!
Lurkers know all about spin doctors and their lies, they know that their tales of "climate catastrophe" and "tipping points" are intended to frighten the pigeons.
But the people are wake, even the valleys have ears and the hills have eyes, we all know the plutocrats have their fingers in our pies.
I will have a look at the you tube vid, thanks Claig.
Another great debate with Dr Piers Corbyn, who explains one of the many agendas of the global warmers - to prevent the progress, growth and industrialisation of third world populations.
have you got anything from serious climatologists or respected institutons, or just more made-up stuff from that one eccentric Corbyn?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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.
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.'
'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?
so if we look at 120 years records, and see this do we deduce that the world is cooling?
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.
If Daily Mail readers believe that vaccination causes spontaneous combustion, does that make it true?
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?'
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!
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.
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.
I tried watching it claig, the man's a loon
Fracking in the new today
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Very good Channel 4 News video report about fracking. Debate with Caroline Lukas and a filmmaker about fracking starts at about 4.30
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.
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.
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".
Join the discussion
Please login first.