A Rational Look at the "Settled Science"

[On Guard for Thee]

O my. What nonsense. Just what is the acceptable level of harm for you people? You seem to be living in the modern world, most of which was made possible by oil, so as you write your decree's you are harming the environment. So some level of environmental impact seems to be ok with you. The real bottom line problem is that most of you are anti science, and anti fact left leaning individuals who will simply accept no reality outside of your broken ideology. Prove me wrong and stop participating in this fossil fuel driven world. Stop posting from your made mostly from oil computer, find a nice cave, or mud dwelling, etc. Major earthquakes? If you knew anything about science, geology, or plate tectonics you would be embarrassed for having written that.

Oh my what nonsense. Try reading the science that doesn't just address the concerns of big oil.

[PrimeNumber]

O my. What nonsense. Just what is the acceptable level of harm for you people? You seem to be living in the modern world, most of which was made possible by oil, so as you write your decree's you are harming the environment. So some level of environmental impact seems to be ok with you. The real bottom line problem is that most of you are anti science, and anti fact left leaning individuals who will simply accept no reality outside of your broken ideology. Prove me wrong and stop participating in this fossil fuel driven world. Stop posting from your made mostly from oil computer, find a nice cave, or mud dwelling, etc. Major earthquakes? If you knew anything about science, geology, or plate tectonics you would be embarrassed for having written that.

So what you are saying is that to be against a society that uses oil we must exile ourselves from said society? Did you get the point at all of what I'm saying? I didn't say fracking would cause major earthquakes, but the fact of the matter is in Alberta it has caused seismic activity, in fact a women is taking the Alberta government to court because of that fact. My point is that Tim would not be convinced of the problems associated with fracking unless a major earthquake occurs, never once did I say it would. How about you read the whole conversation before spouting your drivel? You anti-science, anti-fact, anti-earth right leaning individuals find no fault in fossil fuels. You're pathetic and illogical argument that we must abandon society in order to be taken seriously about not using fossil fuels is absolutely ridiculous and is just so typical of Conservatives when they know they have lost the argument. You argument is a fallacy and if this were a debate you would be laughed off of the stage,

[On Guard for Thee]

Quite simply put, if we left it to "some" people we would be looking pretty stupid when we finally sucked that last barrel out of the ground and then had no idea what to do next. Luckily there are some better informed, more forward looking thinkers thinkers working on the problems.

[TimG]

Quite simply put, if we left it to "some" people we would be looking pretty stupid when we finally sucked that last barrel out of the ground and then had no idea what to do next.

If you have not already figured out: there is plenty of oil out there to be found. The only question is how much does it cost to get at. Eventually someone will come up with a replacement that is cheaper/better than oil but this solution will be driven by market economics. It will not come about because some politician waves a magic wand and declared that we should stop using oil.

And BTW: when the replacement for oil is found and deployed widely: environmentalists will be whining about the negative effects and telling us we are destroying our children's future because we insist on using an "unsustainable" energy source. The only difference between this power source of the future and oil will be a different set of equally bad negative effects.

Edited December 23, 2014 by TimG

[poochy]

Quite simply put, if we left it to "some" people we would be looking pretty stupid when we finally sucked that last barrel out of the ground and then had no idea what to do next. Luckily there are some better informed, more forward looking thinkers thinkers working on the problems.

That's nice, unfortunately your hate for 'big oil' doesn't have much to do with the fact that fracking doesn't and will not cause "major earthquakes". The real problem here is that you and your brethren can't fight with facts and when caught making things up, you deflect, you bring out the 'we're gonna run out of oil anyway' or the 'big oil' card. It's a script i've been reading since before most of you heard of global warming

So what you are saying is that to be against a society that uses oil we must exile ourselves from said society? Did you get the point at all of what I'm saying? I didn't say fracking would cause major earthquakes, but the fact of the matter is in Alberta it has caused seismic activity, in fact a women is taking the Alberta government to court because of that fact. My point is that Tim would not be convinced of the problems associated with fracking unless a major earthquake occurs, never once did I say it would. How about you read the whole conversation before spouting your drivel? You anti-science, anti-fact, anti-earth right leaning individuals find no fault in fossil fuels. You're pathetic and illogical argument that we must abandon society in order to be taken seriously about not using fossil fuels is absolutely ridiculous and is just so typical of Conservatives when they know they have lost the argument. You argument is a fallacy and if this were a debate you would be laughed off of the stage,

O look, you went from telling us about the major earthquakes to a philosophical opinion generated argument, well you are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to fact. There is zero evidence that fracking can or could produce a "major earthquake", you have what is called a credibility gap, you make things up, then you deflect. There is no one more anti science than a true believer, and you're proving that over and over.

So what you're saying is you won't be against fracking until a few thousand people die, a couple hundred lakes used as drinking water become contaminated and a few major earthquakes occur because of it?

Yea, you didn't say it...Hey maybe i should comment on your thousands of dead people caused by fracking and how ridicuoous that is, but i bet you didn't say that either, and of course by not saying those things you didn't prove that your opinion is pretty much irrelevant.

[PrimeNumber]

O look, you went from telling us about the major earthquakes to a philosophical opinion generated argument, well you are entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to fact. There is zero evidence that fracking can or could produce a "major earthquake", you have what is called a credibility gap, you make things up, then you deflect. There is no one more anti science than a true believer, and you're proving that over and over.

Yea, you didn't say it...Hey maybe i should comment on your thousands of dead people caused by fracking and how ridicuoous that is, but i bet you didn't say that either, and of course by not saying those things you didn't prove that your opinion is pretty much irrelevant.

hahaha you obviously didn't the comment you quoted in full or you would have seen that I was referring to Tim that he would not be convinced unless one of these things happen. I never once said any of them WOULD.

So what you're saying is you won't be against fracking until a few thousand people die, a couple hundred lakes used as drinking water become contaminated and a few major earthquakes occur because of it?

Where in this sentance does it say "Fracking will cause major earthquakes?" where does it say "Thousands of people will die from fracking?" I don't see it, how about a any Mods of the forum? Do you see me referencing that fracking causes major earthquakes or kills thousands of people? I simply said Tim would not be convinced until one of these things happen. Which more or less was me saying, there is no convincing him...

But of course you're only argument is against an argument I'm not even making.

I'm not entitled to fact? What kind of argument is that? Am I not allowed to use facts? What does that even mean?

You're calling my opinion irrelevant when you haven't brought a single noteworthy comment to this entire discussion. Just a bunch of misquoting and assumptions. You remember what happens when you make assumptions poochy?

You call me anti-science? Well how about you bring to the table one shred of evidence that fracking has not harmed people and livesstock, caused seismic activity, however small or large it may be and contaminated drinking supplies? Let's see your "science" proving that none of this has happened. Considering there are legally documented cases of all of them in this country. Or are you just going to deflect the argument back to something I never said again. I eagerly await your informed response.

Edited December 23, 2014 by PrimeNumber

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes there's lots of oil around as Tim points out, which is why the markets are so jumpy as we enter into the "bust" part of that endless cycle. And yes there will always be the same "some" people whining about the other people who care about the quality of the environment which sustains us. Those "foreign funded radicals" as Joe Oliver liked to put it.

[Keepitsimple]

hahaha you obviously didn't the comment you quoted in full or you would have seen that I was referring to Tim that he would not be convinced unless one of these things happen. I never once said any of them WOULD.

Where in this sentance does it say "Fracking will cause major earthquakes?" where does it say "Thousands of people will die from fracking?" I don't see it, how about a any Mods of the forum? Do you see me referencing that fracking causes major earthquakes or kills thousands of people?

Sorry Prime - I read your post and it was clear to me - symantics aside - that you were saying those things could happen with fracking. A more realistic statement would be "eco-nuts won't be happy until millions upon millions of people are dying in cold winters because there is no oil and gas to heat their houses". More realistic because if the eco-nuts had their way - there would be no oil or gas or coal or wood to heat homes.

[On Guard for Thee]

I thought the word "rational" was somewhere in this threads title! Developing renewable energy sources does not involve freezing millions of people. At least not to rational people.

[PrimeNumber]

Sorry Prime - I read your post and it was clear to me - symantics aside - that you were saying those things could happen with fracking. A more realistic statement would be "eco-nuts won't be happy until millions upon millions of people are dying in cold winters because there is no oil and gas to heat their houses". More realistic because if the eco-nuts had their way - there would be no oil or gas or coal or wood to heat homes.

I never once stated that those things could happen it was directed at Tim when he said nothing major has ever happened because of fracking, in which my reply was you'll only be convinced if something major ever happens. It was completely sarcastic. i don't even know why I need to defend that statement. If you wish to attribute those things to me, be aware that I am not defending anything you're saying so it's a moot point.

I refuse to comment any more on the matter. I am still waiting for Tim and poochy's "science" to disprove the fact that hydraulic fracturing has not caused harm in humans and live stock, contaminated ground water and caused seismic activity.

[TimG]

I am still waiting for Tim and poochy's "science" to disprove the fact that hydraulic fracturing has not caused harm in humans and live stock, contaminated ground water and caused seismic activity.

And I am waiting for evidence that these harms cannot be eliminated by following proper procedures. Your logic is like saying we should never drive a car because sometimes they crash due to operator error. Edited December 23, 2014 by TimG

[PrimeNumber]

And I am waiting for evidence that these harms cannot be eliminated by following proper procedures. Your logic is like saying we should never drive a car because sometimes they crash due to operator error.

These harms continue to happen. When people fly through windshields during an accident we add seat belts. Nothing has been done in Canada in spite of the claims of harm and in fact the Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq just dismisses it every time its brought up, like she is instructed to do by the PMO. We can drive cars so long as the proper steps are taken to ensure all harm that is caused to people is within their own control. These people being harmed by fracking have no control over the regulations and suffice to say the government nor the energy industry do not care about them. When a car has a bad safety rating people may refuse to buy it for something else. Unfortunately we do not have that option with natural gas in certain Provinces.

Edited December 24, 2014 by PrimeNumber

[TimG]

These harms continue to happen.

Show me the evidence.

When a car has a bad safety rating people may refuse to buy it for something else. Unfortunately we do not have that option with natural gas in certain Provinces.

People have no control over cars that other people drive. They have no control over other drivers even though they are harmed by other drivers all of the time. We do not ban cars because of these risks. We try to minimize the problems. We also realize that the problems can never be entirely eliminated but that is a price we need to pay to have access to the benefits. When it comes to fracking the benefits are: reduced CO2 emissions, lower heating/electricity costs and reduced dependency on foreign sources of energy.

You have provided no evidence that the stated problems cannot be managed.

Edited December 24, 2014 by TimG

[PrimeNumber]

You have provided no evidence that the stated problems cannot be managed.

You have provided no evidence that they can and have been managed.

[TimG]

You have provided no evidence that they can and have been managed.

You are the one who made the claim "These harms continue to happen". I say BS. Show me the evidence to support your claim that such issues are a widespread problem. Edited December 24, 2014 by TimG

[poochy]

hahaha you obviously didn't the comment you quoted in full or you would have seen that I was referring to Tim that he would not be convinced unless one of these things happen. I never once said any of them WOULD.

Where in this sentance does it say "Fracking will cause major earthquakes?" where does it say "Thousands of people will die from fracking?" I don't see it, how about a any Mods of the forum? Do you see me referencing that fracking causes major earthquakes or kills thousands of people? I simply said Tim would not be convinced until one of these things happen. Which more or less was me saying, there is no convincing him...

But of course you're only argument is against an argument I'm not even making.

I'm not entitled to fact? What kind of argument is that? Am I not allowed to use facts? What does that even mean?

You're calling my opinion irrelevant when you haven't brought a single noteworthy comment to this entire discussion. Just a bunch of misquoting and assumptions. You remember what happens when you make assumptions poochy?

You call me anti-science? Well how about you bring to the table one shred of evidence that fracking has not harmed people and livesstock, caused seismic activity, however small or large it may be and contaminated drinking supplies? Let's see your "science" proving that none of this has happened. Considering there are legally documented cases of all of them in this country. Or are you just going to deflect the argument back to something I never said again. I eagerly await your informed response.

Look im sorry, but I can't account for what is an obvious deficiency in your understanding of your own writing. You obviously insinuated that fracking could eventually kill thousands, or cause major earthquakes, which of course is utterly ridiculous, which means your other beliefs on the subject have no credibility. These are your words and they are typical of the anti science, anti fact, anti carbon extremist, you have a head full of opinions and feelings about the subject but you simply do not have the knowledge required to discuss the topic rationally. I think that you have proven that all on your own, at least for those that are something less than completely biased, now you claim that i am the one deflecting? Honestly, you're out gunned.

FYi, of the tremors measured and suspected to have been caused by fracking, most are imperceptible to humans, those that are would be no more noticable than a large truck driving past your house. A major earthquake they are not, and could not ever be.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fracking-linked-to-alberta-earthquakes-study-indicates-1.2829484

"Since 1985, fewer than 15 earthquakes above a 3.0 magnitude have been recorded anywhere in Alberta, according to the Alberta Geological Survey's website. There has been an increase in earthquake activity since the 1960s, the organization says."

Fewer than 15 earthquakes that most people would feel ... since 1985, 29 years, but hey, they don't do much fracking in Alberta...no wait, thats not true. Anyway, i know i'm wasting my time because you don't care about whats real, you care about getting rid oil and gas, whcih leads you to say silly things. You are entitled to your belief, and desire for an oil free economy, but you aren't entitled to your own reality or your own facts.

Feel free to google images of "major earthquakes" for futher clarification, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake there is one Just as an example, affected a major metropolitan area and killed all of 63 people. That is 16 times stronger than the stronger than usual non fracking related 4.3 that occured in Alberta this past summer, are you getting it yet?

Edited December 24, 2014 by poochy

[jbg]

Dr. Steven Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

Here is an excerpt from the summary of Dr. Koonin's writing for the Wall Street Journal.......there is a lot of good, rational, additional information and I'd encourage reading it in it's entirety. Perhaps it will serve as a catalyst to begin a more open-minded debate......

Link: http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

Expecting an "open-minded debate" on this topic is, like a trice-divorced person marrying a fourth time, a triumph of hope over experience. AGW has become more a religion than a science. The alarmists do not debate; they screech.

As in RFK Jr.'s call for the execution imprisonment of "denialists."

[On Guard for Thee]

I expect you meant thrice, and I don't see the connection at all. Have we been around the GW "block" three times somehow? Just doesn't make sense.

[Keepitsimple]

Expecting an "open-minded debate" on this topic is, like a trice-divorced person marrying a fourth time, a triumph of hope over experience. AGW has become more a religion than a science. The alarmists do not debate; they screech.

As in RFK Jr.'s call for the execution imprisonment of "denialists."

They won't even read the Koonin article - one that is one of the best "balanced" articles out there that acknowledges the science but also summarizes the challenges - and the fact that key factors truly are "unsettled". Eco-nuts are the truedeniers.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well according to the UK, Japan and NOAA and NASA in the US, 2014 was the hottest year globally since records have been kept. It's been heading that way for some time though so no real surprise is it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2901776/It-s-official-2014-hottest-year-record-10-warmest-1998.html

[TimG]

Well according to the UK, Japan and NOAA and NASA in the US, 2014 was the hottest year globally since records have been kept. It's been heading that way for some time though so no real surprise is it?

So? Do you have any actual evidence that a warmer world will create problems that cannot be handled with technology/adaptation?

[On Guard for Thee]

So? Do you have any actual evidence that a warmer world will create problems that cannot be handled with technology/adaptation?

Quite simpoly we adapt away from fossil fuels with technology.

[TimG]

Quite simpoly we adapt away from fossil fuels with technology.

I should have said "technology that actually exists" - not stuff out of a science fiction fantasy.

[On Guard for Thee]

I should have said "technology that actually exists" - not stuff out of a science fiction fantasy.

It's not so much the lack of technology, we already have various types, we seem to be a little slow accepting the idea we need to adapt. Big oil will of coursed tell you we don't need to yet, lot's af peer reviewed actual science says otherwise.

[TimG]

It's not so much the lack of technology, we already have various types

There is a huge difference between being able to show that something can be done and deploying it at a massive scale. Most of the non-CO2 emitting technologies cannot be deployed at the scale required to make a difference. There is no conspiracy - the problem is often basic physics that limits the usefulness of alternatives.