Fracking - for or against?

[Altobelli]

Evening Alto!
Practically all the scientific evidence says it is. Yes, I realise that it is in vogue to go against the opinions of "experts" but the evidence is overwhelming.

Evening 59_60, you put down a good argument although I'd disagree with your overwhelming evidence, for as many Scientists that say climate change is man made, there are one's which rubbish it.

Its only my own opinion, that we had years of the ice age and so on and so forth, now we have 4 season's, some good summers/winters and so on, I believe its the Earth doing its own thing and nothing can stop the force of nature.

[sinkov]

Practically all the scientific evidence says it is. Yes, I realise that it is in vogue to go against the opinions of "experts" but the evidence is overwhelming.

The latest IPCC reports says it is 95% certain that the increase is man made. Seems conclusive, but I'd like to play devil's advocate here 59-60.

You are taking your family to Blackpool tomorrow, you had intended to take them to the top of the Tower, but there have been reports that a serious structural defect has been discovered which could lead to the Tower collapsing. However, experts have inspected the Tower and report that there is only a 5% chance of the Tower falling down, they are 95% certain it is safe.

Would you take your family up the Tower tomorrow ?

[sinkov]

And can anyone tell me where all this money combating climate change goes ?

Ha, ha, very good question Alto, remember Air Passenger Duty, another Labour Stealth tax, they doubled the rate in 2007 on the pretext that it discourages air travel thus reducing CO2 emissions. Of course it does no such thing, the rich, the political classes and the establishment don't even notice it as they jet around the world at our expense, but it makes a difference to an ordinary family when they want a week in the sun. As always with this green crap, the government rakes in the money and it's the poorest amongst us that pays for it, higher air fares, higher energy bills, jobs lost, and none of it makes the slightest difference to global warming, but it makes the virtue signalling politicians feel better about themselves, as they can pretend they're making a difference.

[1959_60]

Well, I'm glad you lot are not running the world economy!

Another view, and from a better source.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-as-costs-fall

[sinkov]

Another spin on it here Sinkov.

China are in transition and still have a way to go but they are certainly changing their ways.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...nergy-trump-us

Rather than being late converts to the dubious virtues of renewable energy, I wonder how much the slow down in the Chinese economy has to do with their claimed reduction, or reduction in the rate of increase, of their Co2 emissions ? But whatever, when you read the piece I put up and your link 59-60, the capacity for China to pollute. with it's current and future Co2 emissions is frightening. And so I ask again, given the rate at which coal fired power stations are still being built around the world, mainly by the Chinese, what is the point of artificially inflating our energy prices so that our heavy industry is devastated, our industrial base is unable to compete in the world markets, and the poorest in our society are forced into fuel poverty ? How is this not lunacy ?

And when we're finished with China, start reading up on India next 59-60, another signatory to the Paris Accord, with around 370 new coal fired power plants either under construction or in the planning stage. Sooner or later it may begin to dawn on you what a scam this Paris Accord is, as the country leading the way in reducing Co2 emissions hasn't even signed up to it. And the reason the USA has drastically reduced emissions is because of fracking, which the environmental lobby (that better ?) wish to see banned in the UK.

Alice in effing Wonderland or what ?

[1959_60]

Some interesting, but frightening, facts on here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[oldcolner]

Yes but this is not a debate about global warming but about how we get the gas that we need to fill the energy gap.
We either import fracked gas or we frack it ourself.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

We should have simply used nuclear generated fuel to fill the gap until we became self sufficient with renewable energy.

We all know we have the technology to harness enough solar energy to fuel the earth's demands thrice over but where's the profit for the global MNC's in that?

The more you look and research, the greater is the bollox you find...!

Attachment 6771

[oldcolner]

BT
But we didn’t want nuclear - that’s anti green too and we cannot store solar powered electricity apart from a couple of hydro electric schemes . We even pay wind generating companies to stop producing it on very windy days. So do we frack and save money or import it and spend money.

The push for electric cars may actually require more energy and we don’t know what to do with the batteries after the life of the car. The batteries require rare metals so may deplete our resources and they cost a lot of energy to mine them.
Ultimately the eco benefit depends on what is used to produce electricity.

A German take on this. Interesting they still produce electricity from coal!

http://www.dw.com/en/how-eco-friendl...ars/a-19441437

There is a lot of unjointed up thinking in the green lobby. Remember the push to diesel. They will have us all on bikes, that’s maybe ok in flat countries but not much use if you are an old person living in hilly country with a hip replacement or angina.
I’m not antigreen but their plans need to be realistic and practical and not crusading.

[sinkov]

More on the great renewables scam,

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...t-you-to-know/