Good news - peak oil theory seems to be untrue

[claig]

'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?

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2244822/Thought-running-fossil-fuels-New-technology-means-Britain-U-S-tap-undreamed-reserves-gas-oil.html

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!

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2073519/Wind-turbines-burning-issue.html

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"

his figures had been faked by his sources.

look at it 9 minutes in.