I'm very saddened to see you make this post.
The planet is in a dire way.
No matter how much science is presented climate change deniers will continue.
The same press relations company that successful delayed action on the harmful effect of tobacco was hired by big oil to delay action on this very important issue.
The rise in CO2 levels and temperatures, the forest fires the melting of the Arctic Ice, Greenland exposed coastline, the huge caving of the icefield in the Antarctic, the melting glaciers, the release of frozen methane etc.. are all real. You may be Ok but millions are starving and dying from droughts and desertification. The Pacific Ocean is acid (carbolic acid from the CO2 combing with the seawater) and vast sections are dead zones. Coral island fish nurseries are dissolving. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/06/13/losing-our-coral-reefs/ Now mining companies have a drastically shortened window to get supplies in on ice roads in the Arctic and some have to use artificial ice fortification for there roads. Californian has had terrible forest fires many years in a row, BC has as well. France had the worst forest fires about 3 years ago in hundreds of years.
California is having a bad drought this year.
A friend gave me a link of a fellow who follows this closely.
There are numerous scientific articles referenced.
More directly to fracking - France has banned fracking until long term studies can be done. Given the ground water pollution a very sensible idea. Sadly in BC Canada, with that xx Christy Clarke is pushing ahead anything for big business and for the Chinese govt. Natural gas is at a multi-year low and more cheap natural gas isn't needed. Wind power is less expensive than coal since 2012 (and the coal industry in the US receives billions of dollars of subsidies each year) and wind is still cheaper - and no that is not with subsidies which the US govt has ended.
Good trading to everyone.
Last edited by aquarian1; September 14th, 2014 at 12:37 AM.
The following user says Thank You to aquarian1 for this post:
If anybody actually looked at the real science they would see that none at all was used for the Global Warning issue, and by the way in the 70's it used to be 'Cooling', and now that we know 'Warming' isn't working it's become 'Change'. I guess you've chosen to forget East Angliagate then.
The Carbon emission cycle follows, not leads, the temperature curves, an Inconvenient Truth indeed, so best not mentioned in those hallowed circles. As is the fact that the earth was many degrees warmer in the Middle Ages (now where did they hide all the cars and power grids then?) and at many other times in the five and ten thousand year cycles. Bugger, where did I leave that hockey stick graph.
As regards the state of the planet, that man is the filthiest, dirtiest virus on it I have no doubt, but don't confuse pollution and misuse of resources with nonsensical unscientific claptrap. Climate change has always been about the sun and always will be about the sun. A couple of good volcanoes and all the power stations, cars and cow-farts will be put right back into perspective. Even the Chinese one-a-week ones that make fracking look like table football.
The following 5 users say Thank You to ratfink for this post:
This is true...it is more of a literature search on the subject, I agree. However the five pages of references at the end of the paper seem to be a cut above the usual.
One thing that attracted my attention was that Fracking has been lumped as a single process but in fact it varies with the type of media being fracked...something I didn't think about before.
I am with you on the subject of global warming...I doubt very much that it is a man-made phenomenon...there has been too much evidence of temperature of the Earth rising and falling over the history of this planet to place the blame on current practices.
Fracking on the other hand is entirely a man-made problem of water mismanagement and waste generation/disposal. That is my problem with Fracking.
The following 3 users say Thank You to Underexposed for this post:
This is a school book economist statement (no offense) and I dont want to go into topics like productivity or efficiency.
(I assume thats the angle you are coming from).
Energy consumption (of cheap, competitively prized energy) is directly correlated to prosperity of mankind.
Energy consumption that leads to increased development, increased prosperity and so on is also correlated to environment friendliness.
This last point is completely ignored by the eco-hippie side (offense intended) ( for ideology reasons and economic incompetence - I assume).
This often leads - besides other misconceptions - wrongly to the attack: "How dare those pesky Chinese or Africans use so much dirty energy" or "only the capitalist Satan America dares to undergo fracking"
(Their views - NOT mine !)
I will hide behind the following people, since they
If you look at coverage of the crisis in the Ukraine by Russian Television, you will certainly discover that the coverage is biased. The free press in Russia has been systematically eliminated, some unwanted journalists were simply shot. The remaining TV broadcasting services and newspapers are used by the ruling class to defend their opinion and increase their political powers. Russia has become a fascist state, a military empire based on lies. Russia has invaded Ukraine and calls the Ukrainian army fascists. Doublespeak (Orwell) ?
How to identify a serious source of information
A serious organization or a serious newspaper should uncover arguments in favor of and against a case that is being debated. I do not know anything that is either black or white, nearly all subjects can be seen from different angles. If I want to inform myself about something, I only accept sources that come with arguments in favor and against the case.
Now let us have a look at the 3rd source you recommended, GWPF. I am just reading through the press releases. There is no release in favour of action against global warming. The German "scientist" who recently joined the board, was a member on the board of directors of both the oil company Shell Deutschland and RWE, the second largest utility company. Of course this does not disqualify him for the work. But it is obvious that the foundation only admits believers of their case, and that the purpose of the organization is to defend the religion. Let us say it is similar to a church. You are only admitted, if you believe in that particular (non-) truth.
Of course, environmental organizations work in a similar way. Their goal is to ban fracking altogether, everything which is published by them must serve the holy goal.
If I want to understand evolution, I will probably not read any stuff written by creationists or (pure) darwinists. In a similar way to get an opinion about fracking I will certainly not rely on information gathered by environmentalists or such biased organizations as GWPF. Nobody needs organizations who put their beliefs over the truth.
The following 5 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post: