http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy

Some of the "facts" might need checking.

On 17/04/2014 08:33, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy

Some of the "facts" might need checking.


So which facts do you think are wrong, harry?

It wouldn't be the bit where the Greens are blamed for stopping nuclear
development so we need to burn stuff to keep warm and see what we're
doing, would it?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 17/04/14 08:45, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 08:33, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy


Some of the "facts" might need checking.


So which facts do you think are wrong, harry?

It wouldn't be the bit where the Greens are blamed for stopping nuclear
development so we need to burn stuff to keep warm and see what we're
doing, would it?


I learnt about the 'Athabasca Tar Sands' at age 14 IIRC in Geography,
because they contained the worlds largest reserves of petroleum.

But, as the geography master pointed out, they were too expensive to
extract.

They still are, 40 years later.

Did you know that 30% of the Guardians circulation goes to the BBC?

I am surprised that harry is only 40 years behind the times. Usually its
150.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Well the environmentalists have been making a nuisance of themselves in
Canada for a while now about this dirty business.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harryagain" wrote in message
...
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy

Some of the "facts" might need checking.

On 17/04/2014 08:45, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 08:33, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy


Some of the "facts" might need checking.


So which facts do you think are wrong, harry?

It wouldn't be the bit where the Greens are blamed for stopping nuclear
development so we need to burn stuff to keep warm and see what we're
doing, would it?


I assumed he meant the claims by the IPCC.

Colin Bignell

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 08:33:44 UTC+1, harry wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy


"If you can be sure of one thing, it's that oil companies didn't get the
United Nations' latest memo on climate change: the world must urgently
switch to clean, renewable energy"

That single, first sentence tells you everything about that writer's
grasp of science and timescales.

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 16:20:44 UTC+1, Huge wrote:

It's the Guardian, what did you expect?

A few more spelling mistakes :-)

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/14 08:45, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 08:33, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy


Some of the "facts" might need checking.


So which facts do you think are wrong, harry?

It wouldn't be the bit where the Greens are blamed for stopping nuclear
development so we need to burn stuff to keep warm and see what we're
doing, would it?


I learnt about the 'Athabasca Tar Sands' at age 14 IIRC in Geography,
because they contained the worlds largest reserves of petroleum.

But, as the geography master pointed out, they were too expensive to
extract.

They still are, 40 years later.

Out of date and out of touch as usual I see.
If you'd read the article you'd see they have been exploiting them for
years.

But you live in Lala land.

On 17/04/2014 18:15, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/14 08:45, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 08:33, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy


Some of the "facts" might need checking.


So which facts do you think are wrong, harry?

It wouldn't be the bit where the Greens are blamed for stopping nuclear
development so we need to burn stuff to keep warm and see what we're
doing, would it?


I learnt about the 'Athabasca Tar Sands' at age 14 IIRC in Geography,
because they contained the worlds largest reserves of petroleum.

But, as the geography master pointed out, they were too expensive to
extract.

They still are, 40 years later.

Out of date and out of touch as usual I see.
If you'd read the article you'd see they have been exploiting them for
years.

But you live in Lala land.


I note that you still haven't told us which of the facts in the article
you think are wrong.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 April 2014 08:33:44 UTC+1, harry wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy


"If you can be sure of one thing, it's that oil companies didn't get the
United Nations' latest memo on climate change: the world must urgently
switch to clean, renewable energy"

That single, first sentence tells you everything about that writer's
grasp of science and timescales.

Yeah well. Selective quotation can "demonstrate" just about anything.

Had you gone on to quote his next sentence, his meaning would have
clear.

" Over the next few decades, the UN report shows that a shift from
fossil fuel extraction is the only way to prevent a complete
destabilization of the planet - of which raging storms, droughts,
and extreme weather are a taste of things to come."

I.O.W., according to the writer's interpretation of this UN report at
least, if the importance of switching from fossil fuels the next few
decades isn't given "urgent" consideration right now, then this might
cause a complete destabilization of the planet.


michael adams

....

On 17/04/14 18:19, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 18:15, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/14 08:45, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 08:33, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy



Some of the "facts" might need checking.


So which facts do you think are wrong, harry?

It wouldn't be the bit where the Greens are blamed for stopping nuclear
development so we need to burn stuff to keep warm and see what we're
doing, would it?


I learnt about the 'Athabasca Tar Sands' at age 14 IIRC in Geography,
because they contained the worlds largest reserves of petroleum.

But, as the geography master pointed out, they were too expensive to
extract.

They still are, 40 years later.

Out of date and out of touch as usual I see.
If you'd read the article you'd see they have been exploiting them for
years.

But you live in Lala land.


I note that you still haven't told us which of the facts in the article
you think are wrong.


I didn't bother to read it: the default assumption with the guardian is
that it will average between 90 and 95% wrong, or else it represents a
selected 5% of the real facts with the utterly crucial 95% left out to
spin it in the politicallly correct direction.

Guardian-spik is of the 'England's cricket team has been rubbish ever
since Labour lost power, therefore left politics cause better cricket.

Hoever iof you want them listed

Lie 1. "oil companies didnt get the United Nations latest memo on
climate change". I am quite sure they did.

Lie 2. ": the world must urgently switch to clean, renewable energy." No
it must not.

Lie 3. "Over the next few decades, the UN report shows that a shift from
fossil fuel extraction is the only way to prevent a complete
destabilization of the planet €“ of which raging storms, droughts, and
extreme weather are a taste of things to come."

Actually it shows exactly the opposite. There is no evidence whatsoever
linking extreme weather and global climate change. There is in fact
unlikely to be a major impact from climate change, and the most
appropriate way to tackle it is by adapting to it. All that IS in the
IPCC report.

FIRST REASDONABLY FACTUAL STATEMENT
"But as conventional oil reserves have dwindled, oil companies have done
the opposite of embracing this shift: theyve doubled-down on their
business model by seeking out remote, more polluting fossil fuels, in
harder-to-extract places."

WEll everybody knows the 'green' shift is bunk so they have behaved
sensibly in rejecting it.

Lie 4. "Places like Albertas tar sands, a source of oil so dirty that
renown ex-NASA climatologist James Hansen has described it as a €œcarbon
bomb€� whose full exploitation would spell €œgame over€� for the climate. "

James Hansen may have described it like that, but then he would,
wouldn't he? But it certainly wouldn't be 'game over' fr the climate.

Lie 5. "Oil shale is different from the shale gas that is extracted
through fracking. It is geologically un-evolved oil: the remnants of
organic matter buried underground for millions of years but never sunk
deep enough, nor long enough, to be transformed into petroleum"

Er no, it IS petroleum it just hasnt been strained by pressure.

Lie 6. "Mined or heated underground, shale rock is cooked at extremely
high temperatures, usually with natural gas, to separate out the solid
organic matter that contains the hydrocarbons. The process releases five
times more emissions than conventional oil extraction, more even than
the tar sands €“ making oil shale the worlds dirtiest energy source."

Only if you think carbon dioxide is dirty. Otherwise its just a rather
low EROI way to get oil, which is why - as my geography master said
'most of it will never be extracted'. Of course you COULD do te refining
with nuclear power instead of burning fossil fuel.

Lie 7/. "In Estonia, which has been extracting oil shale longer than
anyone, the industry consumes a staggering 90 percent of all the water
used in the country." Firstly that's because if its true, which I can
find no reference for, Estonia has a LOT of water. But 'using' water is
a strange concept. I mean what happens to water after its 'used' In
California they are drinking refined ****..

Lie 8. " Its not simply about dumping enough carbon into the atmosphere
to fry the planet, though that is one of its least pleasant features."

Fisrtly even if the IPPCC is right its certainly not enough to fry the
planet.

Secondly all the evidence is that CO2 has at best (worst) a marginal
influence on climate. Evidence of the last few thousand years shows
absolutely no real coupling between temperatures and CO2, WE managed
several warmer periods than today and a little ice age or two without
CO2 varying an inch from anything.


Lie 8. "If Albertas reserves are a carbon bomb, this global expansion
of tar sands and oil shale exploitation amounts to an escalating
emissions arms race, the unlocking of a subterranean cache of weapons of
mass ecological destruction."

Alberta's reserves are not a carbon bomb whatever that is, and the rest
is just emotional twaddle.

Lie 9. "A transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy is possible
and within reach,"

No, its not possible and its not within reach.

Lie 10. Well less a lie than a throughly undemocratic and illegal
proposition. "We need, simultaneously, a disarmament movement geared to
this age of climate crisis €“ a movement that deprives oil corporations
of their legitimacy, strips of them of their investments, and blocks
their industrial infrastructure. That, too, is underway, on campuses and
in regions across the globe."

In short the left will take all the money and wreck whole industries,
put the money in its pockets and destroy civilisation.

Stupid statement 10.

"The good news is also that, so far, none of the new tar sands and oil
shale projects outside of Venezuela and Estonia have been commercialized
on a large-scale."

WE4ell I already told you why. Venezuealan tar sands produce at about
$110/barrel. Athabasca would be a lot more. Its simply not economic. It
may never be economic. At worst I can see it being acgived using nuclear
energy to make hydrocarbon fuel with no extra emissions being involved
40-60 years up te timeline. Canada has plenty of nuclear power and water.


What that article does, is to take unjustified assumptions that even the
IPCC doesn't believe in any more, couple them to a geographical area
whose oil shales will probably never be exploited and spin it into green
scare to justify direct action seizing oil company assets and shutting
down the oil business.

It is pure communist style agitprop.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 17/04/2014 20:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Snip
*I* know that, you know that, but I'd like to have a laugh at harry's
view of it.

So far, I an unamused.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 17/04/14 18:47, michael adams wrote:
"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 April 2014 08:33:44 UTC+1, harry wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy


"If you can be sure of one thing, it's that oil companies didn't get the
United Nations' latest memo on climate change: the world must urgently
switch to clean, renewable energy"

That single, first sentence tells you everything about that writer's
grasp of science and timescales.

Yeah well. Selective quotation can "demonstrate" just about anything.

Had you gone on to quote his next sentence, his meaning would have
clear.

" Over the next few decades, the UN report shows that a shift from
fossil fuel extraction is the only way to prevent a complete
destabilization of the planet - of which raging storms, droughts,
and extreme weather are a taste of things to come."

I.O.W., according to the writer's interpretation of this UN report at
least, if the importance of switching from fossil fuels the next few
decades isn't given "urgent" consideration right now, then this might
cause a complete destabilization of the planet.



Not might, he makes it clear it WOULD.

The IPCC actually is far far milder.

The guy is a climate commie: climate is the excuse for state control
over capital .

michael adams

...







--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 17/04/14 21:01, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 20:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Snip
*I* know that, you know that, but I'd like to have a laugh at harry's
view of it.

So far, I an unamused.


Harry makes a living out of Solar Panel Installation and Vending (SPIV)

He will always try and find stuff that makes him out to be other than
the thieving immoral antisocial **** that he secretly knows he is.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 18:47:57 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

Yeah well. Selective quotation can "demonstrate" just about anything.

Had you gone on to quote his next sentence, his meaning would have
clear.

" Over the next few decades, the UN report shows that a shift from
fossil fuel extraction is the only way to prevent a complete
destabilization of the planet - of which raging storms, droughts,
and extreme weather are a taste of things to come."

I.O.W., according to the writer's interpretation of this UN report at
least, if the importance of switching from fossil fuels the next few
decades isn't given "urgent" consideration right now, then this might
cause a complete destabilization of the planet.

I say this dispassionately: None of what you write has any negative effect
on what I wrote.

I have no doubt that humans are causing damage to the environment. It isn't
limited to "warming", or climate change. What humans do with pollution in
general is far worse. And sadly, people who like to rant on about how bad 'nuclear waste' is miss the point that most nuclear waste ISN'T waste, and
that the total amount of polluted land or waters from nuclear activity
doesn't come close to the shere volume of other ****e pumped out by various
human activities. The climate change stories are simply politically
convenient to raise taxes. You may say I am lazily cynical, I don't care.

Climate change is a perfect bogeyman. It is essentially unseen, and works
over long timescales which humans by and large have difficulty understanding.

If we don't give a **** about pollution (and lets face it, our demonstrable
behaviour shows we don't), then why the **** would we care about a warming
of 2 degrees celcius? Yeah, well, I personally find it difficult to be arsed
in the slightest, and I actually understand some of the the issues! *some*
being very important there, most people are almost perfectly disinterested
and it's difficult to get them to even pay lip-service. So how do you do something about a possible danger to which essentially no one cares?
Repetedly tell them it's a long term problem, and use financial carrot &
stick games. But as we are finding out, these don't work either. We are a
lazy species, and have become very used to comfortable warm homes, easy
journeys in cars, availability of food which 150 years ago would be seen
as fantasy, etc etc.

Now my point is that the writer for the guardian is either a clueless, or
a disingenuous ****. If the subject is serious, you don't treat everyone
like a child, especially when the paper is supposed to be read by "smart"
people. No one listens to anything if they are being condescended to.

This is NOT helped by using that childish title of "renewable" energy. We
are not children, and names like that are frankly misleading. Renewable has
essentially become a sysnonym for environmentally freindly, when all the
available evidence points to them being anything but.

So feel free to berate me, but please understand that I shall hold contempt
for similar newspaper articles due to the complete uselessness, linguisticaly
incorrect, blase approach to the subject, as well as entirely missing the
point about pollution.

I'm tired, so appologies if this isn't the most coherent thing you've ever
read.

On Thursday, 17 April 2014 20:56:37 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

James Hansen may have described it like that, but then he would,
wouldn't he? But it certainly wouldn't be 'game over' fr the climate.

From what I can tell, when people talk about 'climate' what they actually mean is 'a climate agreeable to humans'. Life carries on. It adapts. If the worst predictions came true for climate change, humans (and a lot of other mammals) might get wiped out, but life would carry on, the world would NOT be 'ruined'. Humans might, but not the world.

Also, if people REALLY were concerned about the environment, they be fighting tooth and nail to save the oceans. But they are not. Because they either don't understand how important the oceans are, or they are just not arsed. (Which do you think is most likely?! How would a government institute a taxation on ocean use??)

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 April 2014 18:47:57 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

Yeah well. Selective quotation can "demonstrate" just about anything.

Had you gone on to quote his next sentence, his meaning would have
clear.

" Over the next few decades, the UN report shows that a shift from
fossil fuel extraction is the only way to prevent a complete
destabilization of the planet - of which raging storms, droughts,
and extreme weather are a taste of things to come."

I.O.W., according to the writer's interpretation of this UN report at
least, if the importance of switching from fossil fuels the next few
decades isn't given "urgent" consideration right now, then this might
cause a complete destabilization of the planet.

I say this dispassionately: None of what you write has any negative effect
on what I wrote.


Which is presumably why you've snipped what you wrote.

"David Paste" wrote in message
...

"If you can be sure of one thing, it's that oil companies didn't get the
United Nations' latest memo on climate change: the world must urgently
switch to clean, renewable energy"

That single, first sentence tells you everything about that writer's
grasp of science and timescales.

....

Which by selectively quoting him, implied that he had no conception
of the timescale involved. Which is clearly incorrect.

I'm not sure why you think that re-iterating your own position
on the matter at great length, interesting though this no doubt
is, has any relevance to this point.


snippedy snip snip snip

michael adams

....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The guy is a climate commie: climate is the excuse for state control over capital .

I'll see your commie, and raise you two Enrons.


michael adams

....

On 18/04/14 00:25, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The guy is a climate commie: climate is the excuse for state control over capital .

I'll see your commie, and raise you two Enrons.


Indeed. The company has gone, but their creation, Global wanking,. lives on.

michael adams

...




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2014 18:15, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/14 08:45, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 08:33, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy


Some of the "facts" might need checking.


So which facts do you think are wrong, harry?

It wouldn't be the bit where the Greens are blamed for stopping nuclear
development so we need to burn stuff to keep warm and see what we're
doing, would it?


I learnt about the 'Athabasca Tar Sands' at age 14 IIRC in Geography,
because they contained the worlds largest reserves of petroleum.

But, as the geography master pointed out, they were too expensive to
extract.

They still are, 40 years later.

Out of date and out of touch as usual I see.
If you'd read the article you'd see they have been exploiting them for
years.

But you live in Lala land.

Anything of a technical nature reported by run of the mill journalists is a
bit suspect and needs to be verified elsewhere.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/14 21:01, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 20:56, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Snip
*I* know that, you know that, but I'd like to have a laugh at harry's
view of it.

So far, I an unamused.


Harry makes a living out of Solar Panel Installation and Vending (SPIV)

He will always try and find stuff that makes him out to be other than the
thieving immoral antisocial **** that he secretly knows he is.

Ah I see your dementia is troubling you again.
As your drivel is exposed frowhat it is, you become more agitated.
You are the lone barking mad loony who cna't get it out of your head that
hings have to change and are therefore in a state of denial.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/14 18:19, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 18:15, harryagain wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/14 08:45, John Williamson wrote:
On 17/04/2014 08:33, harryagain wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...l-shale-frenzy



Some of the "facts" might need checking.


So which facts do you think are wrong, harry?

It wouldn't be the bit where the Greens are blamed for stopping
nuclear
development so we need to burn stuff to keep warm and see what we're
doing, would it?


I learnt about the 'Athabasca Tar Sands' at age 14 IIRC in Geography,
because they contained the worlds largest reserves of petroleum.

But, as the geography master pointed out, they were too expensive to
extract.

They still are, 40 years later.

Out of date and out of touch as usual I see.
If you'd read the article you'd see they have been exploiting them for
years.

But you live in Lala land.


I note that you still haven't told us which of the facts in the article
you think are wrong.


I didn't bother to read it: the default assumption with the guardian is
that it will average between 90 and 95% wrong, or else it represents a
selected 5% of the real facts with the utterly crucial 95% left out to
spin it in the politicallly correct direction.

Guardian-spik is of the 'England's cricket team has been rubbish ever
since Labour lost power, therefore left politics cause better cricket.

Hoever iof you want them listed

Lie 1. "oil companies didn't get the United Nations' latest memo on
climate change". I am quite sure they did.

Lie 2. ": the world must urgently switch to clean, renewable energy." No
it must not.

Lie 3. "Over the next few decades, the UN report shows that a shift from
fossil fuel extraction is the only way to prevent a complete
destabilization of the planet - of which raging storms, droughts, and
extreme weather are a taste of things to come."

Actually it shows exactly the opposite. There is no evidence whatsoever
linking extreme weather and global climate change. There is in fact
unlikely to be a major impact from climate change, and the most
appropriate way to tackle it is by adapting to it. All that IS in the IPCC
report.

FIRST REASDONABLY FACTUAL STATEMENT
"But as conventional oil reserves have dwindled, oil companies have done
the opposite of embracing this shift: they've doubled-down on their
business model by seeking out remote, more polluting fossil fuels, in
harder-to-extract places."

WEll everybody knows the 'green' shift is bunk so they have behaved
sensibly in rejecting it.

Lie 4. "Places like Alberta's tar sands, a source of oil so dirty that
renown ex-NASA climatologist James Hansen has described it as a "carbon
bomb" whose full exploitation would spell "game over" for the climate. "

James Hansen may have described it like that, but then he would, wouldn't
he? But it certainly wouldn't be 'game over' fr the climate.

Lie 5. "Oil shale is different from the shale gas that is extracted
through fracking. It is geologically un-evolved oil: the remnants of
organic matter buried underground for millions of years but never sunk
deep enough, nor long enough, to be transformed into petroleum"

Er no, it IS petroleum it just hasnt been strained by pressure.

Lie 6. "Mined or heated underground, shale rock is cooked at extremely
high temperatures, usually with natural gas, to separate out the solid
organic matter that contains the hydrocarbons. The process releases five
times more emissions than conventional oil extraction, more even than the
tar sands - making oil shale the world's dirtiest energy source."

Only if you think carbon dioxide is dirty. Otherwise its just a rather low
EROI way to get oil, which is why - as my geography master said 'most of
it will never be extracted'. Of course you COULD do te refining with
nuclear power instead of burning fossil fuel.

Lie 7/. "In Estonia, which has been extracting oil shale longer than
anyone, the industry consumes a staggering 90 percent of all the water
used in the country." Firstly that's because if its true, which I can find
no reference for, Estonia has a LOT of water. But 'using' water is a
strange concept. I mean what happens to water after its 'used' In
California they are drinking refined ****..

Lie 8. " It's not simply about dumping enough carbon into the atmosphere
to fry the planet, though that is one of its least pleasant features."

Fisrtly even if the IPPCC is right its certainly not enough to fry the
planet.

Secondly all the evidence is that CO2 has at best (worst) a marginal
influence on climate. Evidence of the last few thousand years shows
absolutely no real coupling between temperatures and CO2, WE managed
several warmer periods than today and a little ice age or two without CO2
varying an inch from anything.


Lie 8. "If Alberta's reserves are a carbon bomb, this global expansion of
tar sands and oil shale exploitation amounts to an escalating emissions
arms race, the unlocking of a subterranean cache of weapons of mass
ecological destruction."

Alberta's reserves are not a carbon bomb whatever that is, and the rest is
just emotional twaddle.

Lie 9. "A transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy is possible
and within reach,"

No, its not possible and its not within reach.

Lie 10. Well less a lie than a throughly undemocratic and illegal
proposition. "We need, simultaneously, a disarmament movement geared to
this age of climate crisis - a movement that deprives oil corporations of
their legitimacy, strips of them of their investments, and blocks their
industrial infrastructure. That, too, is underway, on campuses and in
regions across the globe."

In short the left will take all the money and wreck whole industries, put
the money in its pockets and destroy civilisation.

Stupid statement 10.

"The good news is also that, so far, none of the new tar sands and oil
shale projects outside of Venezuela and Estonia have been commercialized
on a large-scale."

WE4ell I already told you why. Venezuealan tar sands produce at about
$110/barrel. Athabasca would be a lot more. Its simply not economic. It
may never be economic. At worst I can see it being acgived using nuclear
energy to make hydrocarbon fuel with no extra emissions being involved
40-60 years up te timeline. Canada has plenty of nuclear power and water.


What that article does, is to take unjustified assumptions that even the
IPCC doesn't believe in any more, couple them to a geographical area whose
oil shales will probably never be exploited and spin it into green scare
to justify direct action seizing oil company assets and shutting down the
oil business.

It is pure communist style agitprop.


You don't bother to read anything do you? You have the little fantasies in
yout head.
From denying that that tar sands were being exploited, you have suddenly
gone to being a world expert on the topic.
How very peculiar.

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 April 2014 20:56:37 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

James Hansen may have described it like that, but then he would,
wouldn't he? But it certainly wouldn't be 'game over' fr the climate.

From what I can tell, when people talk about 'climate' what they actually
mean is 'a climate agreeable to humans'. Life carries on. It adapts. If the
worst predictions came true for climate change, humans (and a lot of other
mammals) might get wiped out, but life would carry on, the world would NOT
be 'ruined'. Humans might, but not the world.

Also, if people REALLY were concerned about the environment, they be
fighting tooth and nail to save the oceans. But they are not. Because they
either don't understand how important the oceans are, or they are just not
arsed. (Which do you think is most likely?! How would a government institute
a taxation on ocean use??)

You are quite right, most pollution ultimately ends up in the oceans.
Even a small change in climate would render uninhabitable/ unfarmable many
areas of the world.
Many people have tha falacious belief that we can carry on as we are.


Half wits like TurNiP believe the propagands put out by the oil and nuclear
industry.
This is the sort of crap they put out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lph5wDTt_g

"David Paste" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 17 April 2014 18:47:57 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

Yeah well. Selective quotation can "demonstrate" just about anything.

Had you gone on to quote his next sentence, his meaning would have
clear.

" Over the next few decades, the UN report shows that a shift from
fossil fuel extraction is the only way to prevent a complete
destabilization of the planet - of which raging storms, droughts,
and extreme weather are a taste of things to come."

I.O.W., according to the writer's interpretation of this UN report at
least, if the importance of switching from fossil fuels the next few
decades isn't given "urgent" consideration right now, then this might
cause a complete destabilization of the planet.

I say this dispassionately: None of what you write has any negative effect
on what I wrote.

I have no doubt that humans are causing damage to the environment. It
isn't
limited to "warming", or climate change. What humans do with pollution in
general is far worse. And sadly, people who like to rant on about how bad
'nuclear waste' is miss the point that most nuclear waste ISN'T waste, and
that the total amount of polluted land or waters from nuclear activity
doesn't come close to the shere volume of other ****e pumped out by
various
human activities. The climate change stories are simply politically
convenient to raise taxes. You may say I am lazily cynical, I don't care.

Climate change is a perfect bogeyman. It is essentially unseen, and works
over long timescales which humans by and large have difficulty
understanding.

If we don't give a **** about pollution (and lets face it, our
demonstrable
behaviour shows we don't), then why the **** would we care about a warming
of 2 degrees celcius? Yeah, well, I personally find it difficult to be
arsed
in the slightest, and I actually understand some of the the issues! *some*
being very important there, most people are almost perfectly disinterested
and it's difficult to get them to even pay lip-service. So how do you do
something about a possible danger to which essentially no one cares?
Repetedly tell them it's a long term problem, and use financial carrot &
stick games. But as we are finding out, these don't work either. We are a
lazy species, and have become very used to comfortable warm homes, easy
journeys in cars, availability of food which 150 years ago would be seen
as fantasy, etc etc.



Weather is driven by air temperature DIFFERENCES.
So a 2deg. change is huge.
When you think a hurricance may be driven by an air temperature difference
of 10deg.

On 17/04/2014 23:55, David Paste wrote:
On Thursday, 17 April 2014 20:56:37 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

James Hansen may have described it like that, but then he would,
wouldn't he? But it certainly wouldn't be 'game over' fr the
climate.

From what I can tell, when people talk about 'climate' what they
actually mean is 'a climate agreeable to humans'. Life carries on. It
adapts. If the worst predictions came true for climate change, humans
(and a lot of other mammals) might get wiped out, but life would
carry on, the world would NOT be 'ruined'. Humans might, but not the
world.

Also, if people REALLY were concerned about the environment, they be
fighting tooth and nail to save the oceans. But they are not. Because
they either don't understand how important the oceans are, or they
are just not arsed. (Which do you think is most likely?! How would a
government institute a taxation on ocean use??)


+1
A little cynical perhaps but good sense

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

If people talk/write cock, then can expect to have it treated so.

You seem to have missed the point.

The OP claimed that Lukacs had no grasp of timescales. He did this by selectively
quoting the first sentence of his article.

When in Lukacs' second sentence, it was clear that he did have a grasp of timescales.

So in this respect at least The OP lied. He misrepresented what Lukacs wrote.

As to the rest, whether Lukacs himself exaggerated the findings of the IPCC
report of not, I'm not in any position to say, as I've not read it. Unlike you
it would seem.

But then the OP didn't make this claim to start with, so that's not really
relevant to the matter at hand, is it ?

Which is the willingness of people to lie, and excuse the lies of others,
as you're attempting to do here, if the person they're lying about, happens to
hold a diametrically opposite point of view to theirs.


michael adams

....

On 18/04/2014 08:45, harryagain wrote:
Weather is driven by air temperature DIFFERENCES.
So a 2deg. change is huge.

If absolutely everything rises by 2 degrees, then the differences remain
identical.

(Of course, all sorts of things are affected by increased temperature
such as rates of evaporation. It isn't only differences that matter.)

--
Rod

On Friday, 18 April 2014 00:15:28 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

Which is presumably why you've snipped what you wrote.

I snip, the other material is still in the thread.

Which by selectively quoting him, implied that he had no conception
of the timescale involved. Which is clearly incorrect.

I quoted him. If the article isn't consistent throughout, why is that
my fault? If I highlight it, I highlight it. He's the pone who wrote a
load of ********.


I'm not sure why you think that re-iterating your own position
on the matter at great length, interesting though this no doubt
is, has any relevance to this point.

My point is that the journalist has no real demonstrable talent in
conveying a message rooted in scientific procedure and evidence. If he
did, he wouldn't write an introductory paragraph which set him as a
hollow word projector.

There is an episode of the Simpsons where the actor Rainier Wolfcastle
is in a scene where toxic waste ends up washing over him. Concerned
for his safety, he is given a pair of safety goggles which he assumes
will protect him. As the waves of waste wash over him, he proclaims "My
Eyes! The goggles do nothing!". A futile attempt at action in the face
of overwhelming adversity.

It is that sort of based-in-ignorance earnestness which articles like
the one above support. It may as well have said "Don't worry about
anything but carbon" whilst the greater problem carries on.

The article is nothing more than filler - it serves NO useful purpose
other than to fill column inches. It contains untruths. It is riddled
with the mistakes that someone who doesn't fully understand the issue
being reported makes when trying to report it.

Ask yourself: If you were to write an article about that subject, would
YOU write what he did? I wouldn't.

On Friday, 18 April 2014 08:48:18 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:

If people talk/write cock, then can expect to have it treated so.

Well quite. If somehow I'm persuaded that "we" must do something, and
then I consider altering my life-style, what do I find? That if I stop
buying home-heating oil, or dizzle for the car, I can completely ****
up my life-style and reduce CO2 by some 0.0000000001%, or other
similarly insignificant figure. Where's my motivation, eh?

It seems that you are able to convey my ideas more concisely than me. This
IS a running theme in my life ;-)

On Friday, 18 April 2014 12:04:11 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

Which is the willingness of people to lie, and excuse the lies of others,
as you're attempting to do here, if the person they're lying about, happens to
hold a diametrically opposite point of view to theirs.

I don't think the view is diametrically opposed. My point was that this
journalist can't write effectively and sets up contradictions in the
article which help NO ONE'S argument. All fence-sitting mouth and no
action-taking trousers.

But thanks for assuming that you know what my views are without asking.

"David Paste" wrote in message
...

But thanks for assuming that you know what my views are without asking.

Why the need to ask ?

Are you claiming that the following, which was posted yesterday
is the work of an impostor ?


quote

"David Paste" wrote in message
...

I have no doubt that humans are causing damage to the environment. It isn't
limited to "warming", or climate change. What humans do with pollution in
general is far worse. And sadly, people who like to rant on about how bad 'nuclear waste'
is miss the point that most nuclear waste ISN'T waste, and
that the total amount of polluted land or waters from nuclear activity
doesn't come close to the shere volume of other ****e pumped out by various
human activities. The climate change stories are simply politically
convenient to raise taxes. You may say I am lazily cynical, I don't care.

Climate change is a perfect bogeyman. It is essentially unseen, and works
over long timescales which humans by and large have difficulty understanding.

If we don't give a **** about pollution (and lets face it, our demonstrable
behaviour shows we don't), then why the **** would we care about a warming
of 2 degrees celcius? Yeah, well, I personally find it difficult to be arsed
in the slightest, and I actually understand some of the the issues! *some*
being very important there, most people are almost perfectly disinterested
and it's difficult to get them to even pay lip-service. So how do you do something about
a possible danger to which essentially no one cares?
Repetedly tell them it's a long term problem, and use financial carrot &
stick games. But as we are finding out, these don't work either. We are a
lazy species, and have become very used to comfortable warm homes, easy
journeys in cars, availability of food which 150 years ago would be seen
as fantasy, etc etc.

Now my point is that the writer for the guardian is either a clueless, or
a disingenuous ****. If the subject is serious, you don't treat everyone
like a child, especially when the paper is supposed to be read by "smart"
people. No one listens to anything if they are being condescended to.

This is NOT helped by using that childish title of "renewable" energy. We
are not children, and names like that are frankly misleading. Renewable has
essentially become a sysnonym for environmentally freindly, when all the
available evidence points to them being anything but.

So feel free to berate me, but please understand that I shall hold contempt
for similar newspaper articles due to the complete uselessness, linguisticaly
incorrect, blase approach to the subject, as well as entirely missing the
point about pollution.

I'm tired, so appologies if this isn't the most coherent thing you've ever
read.

/ quote


michael adams

....

In message ,
David Paste writes
All fence-sitting mouth and no
action-taking trousers.
Typical Grauniad
--
bert

On Friday, 18 April 2014 22:31:19 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:

You either can't follow a tread properly, or you are being disingenuous.

If you are not following the thread, then my previous statement about
assuming you know my views are in relation to you stating my views are
diametrically opposed to the journalists. You then quote my other post
which shows I am not diametrically opposed.

If you are being disingenuous, then I have no desire for further
interaction in this thread.