31Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksthere's a climate change, eh, 'debate' thread.Originally Posted by Tea Party Patriot
go there.
if you dare!
there's a climate change, eh, 'debate' thread.
go there.
if you dare!
TECHNOCRACY NOW! If you really don't like Murdoch's methods, keep the dish but get rid of the Sky box
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
self install in 3 minutes.
Natural Gas is being touted in many quartes as a "clear energy" solution.
While it may reduce carbon dioxide emissions, is it as clean as we would like?
Shale Gas: Game Changer or Game Over? | Climate Central
RealClimate: Fracking methane
Which brings me to the responses to this story. The industry website Energy in Depth was quick off the mark with a response that feigned surprise and shock that the emission estimates were uncertain (somewhat hypocritically since it is the same industry that has resisted almost any improvement in reporting standards). They also try to imply that the Shindell et al study was somehow suspect because it was different to the earlier IPCC GWP numbers, without any apparent interest or knowledge of why that was. Again, the industry would be better advised to deal with fugitive emissions (which also impact air pollution) rather than attacking inconvenient science. (Funnier still are the contrarian responses, for instance from “Bishop Hill” who completely agrees with the industry (again without any actual knowledge of the issues), and who can’t resist using their criticism of Howarth to condemn a whole University (and by proxy, the whole scientific enterprise). I mean, why bother with independent scientists when the industry can tell you exactly what you are supposed to think?).
Another frequent framing is the false dichotomy. Apparently, natural gas must either be perfect solve-all or worse than useless (see for instance, Keith Kloor’s take). One would think that the overwhelming consensus that there are no panaceas for decarbonising our energy supply might have at least started to make a little impact on the media. Any real policy initiative will have complex effects, and while scientists can certainly help quantify them, nothing at the scale we require is going to be completely neutral in all particulars – and the media should stop expecting it to be so. Since there will always be people who can be portrayed as having taken a black/white position on some issue, it is all too easy to frame any new result as undermining some over-optimistic idealist, which unfortunately buries the conversation related to the nuances of real issues.
And in fact it does not reduce carbon dioxide. It may reduce other, more noxious chemicals ok. It is a more pure form of hdryocarbon than oil or coal. In that sense it is "cleaner". But hydrocarbon -> burn -> CO2 and H20. No getting around that.
If there is a future, it will be Green.
Some folks just don't get it.
Go and read the mountain of material, and also study some basic maths, statistics and physics before offering your "learned opinion" in a grownup website.
If there is a future, it will be Green.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfRrETpR83U]YouTube - Democracy Now, 18 April 2011, Dangerous Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Fracking[/ame]
For the "Tea Party Patriot"
(Source)
Last edited by SirCharles; 19th April 2011 at 05:34 AM.
"Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money."
+1,000,000
They're everywhere these moronic twerps. Always ready to defend big oil, greed, ignorance etc.... What's the answer?
BECAUSE SOME OF US DON'T THINK ABOUT FUTURE GENERATIONS, THEY WILL NEVER FORGET US!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Debunking.+1,000,000
They're everywhere these moronic twerps. Always ready to defend big oil, greed, ignorance etc.... What's the answer?
"Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money."
Math, physics and statistics shows that the planet is warming, and some of that is surely of human origin.
Lots of people really, really like that fact because it fits their political agenda.
But maths, physics and statistics also show things these people don't like. For example that:
(1) homeopathy is fraudulent bunkum
(2) nuclear power is statistically the safest ways of generating electric power
(3) wind power is a stupid waste of resources
etc.
The thing about science is that it is not an a la carte menu. You don't get to pick the stuff you like and dismiss the stuff you don't like.
Two out of three ain't bad. (3) has more to do with your own biases.Lots of people really, really like that fact because it fits their political agenda.
But maths, physics and statistics also show things these people don't like. For example that:
(1) homeopathy is fraudulent bunkum
(2) nuclear power is statistically the safest ways of generating electric power
(3) wind power is a stupid waste of resources
etc.
.
So i guess you believe in homeopathy then.
btw, on another thread people were discussing the merits of building wind farms in peat bogs from a climate change point of view.
Some people argued that peat bogs are natural carbon sequestration eco-systems and that they are also by far the most important terrestrial carbon store. Draining peat bogs for construction/roads causes oxidation of dissolved organic matter. These emissions continue for decades and may only cease when the bog has mineralised and disappeared.
Other people argued that habitat destruction and CO2 emissions don't matter because wind power is .. em .. sustainable. You see if something is "sustainable" you can stick your fingers in your ears and chant "Na-na-na" when anyone does maths or arithmetic which shows your preconcpetions are all wrong.
As one of the most robotic and fundamentalist posters on the subject of AGW, care to share your views on this issue?
Reply With Quote