149 replies to this topic

[jblueep]

http://www.torontosu...22/green-drivel

I found his comments comparing the "green religion" to the "christian religion" were interesting.

[Babylonian Dream]

I think he's switching from the Green Religion to the Blackgold Religion. To be honest though, I think fracking is bad. Instead of banning it outright, I'd let those impacted by it sue the crap out of the companies that do it. And the money they'll be having to fork over will prove it to not be a very profitable means of extraction. Just saying.

As for Global Warming, it's quite clear what the climates doing. Its changing. Is it getting warmer? The climate always changes. It always has and always will. There are reasons to suggest that we're making it worse. There aren't very many reasons to suggest that we're the cause.

[TrueFreedom]

Wow--that was unexpected... Time to do some more global warming research.

[florduh]

Don't listen to him! It's a trick of the devil!!!

[jblueep]

I think he's switching from the Green Religion to the Blackgold Religion. To be honest though, I think fracking is bad. Instead of banning it outright, I'd let those impacted by it sue the crap out of the companies that do it. And the money they'll be having to fork over will prove it to not be a very profitable means of extraction. Just saying.

I have seen that there a couple of examples of fracking gone bad (in the early days), but honestly I don't understand the hysteria I see about it. Most water tables are a few to several hundred feet down. Most fracking is many thousands of feet down. My understanding is that the true risk is that they have to go through the aquifers to get to the gas, therefore if the well casing fails, then the fracking chemicals/gas would get into the water supply. From what I've read, the casing these days is multi-layer and surrounded by concrete, etc. There's no evidence that I am aware of that any large aquifers have been affected, even ones where many thousands of wells have been drilled through it.

That being said, we all know that many large companies have a history of abuse if they are not watched closely. On the other hand, regulation can kill progress. It's a balancing act this country is going to have to figure out.

As for Global Warming, it's quite clear what the climates doing. Its changing. Is it getting warmer? The climate always changes. It always has and always will. There are reasons to suggest that we're making it worse. There aren't very many reasons to suggest that we're the cause.

I think that's pretty much my stance as well

[Babylonian Dream]

I think he's switching from the Green Religion to the Blackgold Religion. To be honest though, I think fracking is bad. Instead of banning it outright, I'd let those impacted by it sue the crap out of the companies that do it. And the money they'll be having to fork over will prove it to not be a very profitable means of extraction. Just saying.

I have seen that there a couple of examples of fracking gone bad (in the early days), but honestly I don't understand the hysteria I see about it. Most water tables are a few to several hundred feet down. Most fracking is many thousands of feet down. My understanding is that the true risk is that they have to go through the aquifers to get to the gas, therefore if the well casing fails, then the fracking chemicals/gas would get into the water supply. From what I've read, the casing these days is multi-layer and surrounded by concrete, etc. There's no evidence that I am aware of that any large aquifers have been affected, even ones where many thousands of wells have been drilled through it.

That being said, we all know that many large companies have a history of abuse if they are not watched closely. On the other hand, regulation can kill progress. It's a balancing act this country is going to have to figure out.

Which is why I say sue the shit out of them (have everyone affected bring up individual lawsuits to sue for any and all damages) if something goes wrong. Keep them on their toes making sure nothing goes wrong, or make them deem it unprofitable.

I think its the best way because it keeps them away from "rights" arguements.

[Burnedout]

This just confirms what I have said on this site....Global Warming/Climate Change is a RELIGION....pure and simple and some people are stupid enough to fall for it lock, stock, and barrel.

[Ro-bear]

This just confirms what I have said on this site....Global Warming/Climate Change is a RELIGION....pure and simple and some people are stupid enough to fall for it lock, stock, and barrel.

That may be true. But if so the denial of it is a religion as well. For many people, oddly nearly all conservative, it is an article of faith that climate change either does not exist or is not caused by human activity.

[Legion]

[florduh]

It's like the 2A arguments. The usual suspects dutifully line up on their respective sides, quote the statistics that fit their belief, and swear the other side is a religion.

I can understand how the abortion debate could get emotional, but things like this I don't get. Why do people reflexively jump to the conclusions their politics dictate? Why do they get so emotionally vested in the debate? Climatology can't predict anything with certainty, and it definitely can't provide a timetable for any changes that may be in the offing. No scientist or politician has The Answer, and data is constantly in flux and subject to reinterpretation. Religion isn't comfortable with not having a definitive answer either, so I see the similarity.

If my choices are 1) there is no such thing as a warming climate trend OR 2) evil humans, especially Americans, are killing the polar bears, I'll take none of the above. The truth is probably somewhere in between, we may never really know, and I won't be wringing my hands in despair over my evil "carbon footprint."

[Rank Stranger]

It's like the 2A arguments. The usual suspects dutifully line up on their respective sides, quote the statistics that fit their belief, and swear the other side is a religion.

I can understand how the abortion debate could get emotional, but things like this I don't get. Why do people reflexively jump to the conclusions their politics dictate? Why do they get so emotionally vested in the debate? Climatology can't predict anything with certainty, and it definitely can't provide a timetable for any changes that may be in the offing. No scientist or politician has The Answer, and data is constantly in flux and subject to reinterpretation. Religion isn't comfortable with not having a definitive answer either, so I see the similarity.

If my choices are 1) there is no such thing as a warming climate trend OR 2) evil humans, especially Americans, are killing the polar bears, I'll take none of the above. The truth is probably somewhere in between, we may never really know, and I won't be wringing my hands in despair over my evil "carbon footprint."

I pretty much agree.

The "greenhouse gas" effect of CO2 is based on some pretty simple physics. It's well-documented and experimentally proven.

It's also a proven FACT that we're dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere- AND that the composition of the atmosphere has significantly changed over the past century or so. This is all well-documented.


That said, weather is extremely complex. We can't make accurate predictions much more than a week out. So who the hell knows what effect all this will have? And even if we DID take every precaution that's technologically feasible- it would be all for naught if China, India, and the like don't do the same.

So the way I see it, we're just going to have to wait and see what happens. We ARE affecting the atmosphere and likely the weather. But how much (and to what end) is anybody's guess. And I'm not about to jump on board with the alarmists.

[Thurisaz]

As far as I can tell, most AGW deniers act like their views are a religion. Actually most of them act like pure-bred morontheists (after all there are moderate believers too, in every religion).

I'm sure there are at least some on the "other side" who act religious too. In that sense, the truth may very well be somewhere inbetween, as is so very often the case.

But that said, I fully agree to Rank just above. We may not know with 100 % certainty (and we may never know actually) but we know of mechamisms that clearly can cause/amplify global warming and our batshit insane species does damn much to use one of those mechanisms to its fullest. Correlation does not equal causation but the basic AGW idea is very very plausible to me.

[Rank Stranger]

Explain the acidification of the oceans.....

Species survival is clearly subordinate to ideology....

Good Luck out there....methinks y'all gonna need it.

I don't necessarily disagree with you- assuming that by "species survival", you're talking about non-human species.

Problem is that there's a huge lag in the cause/effect relationship, and more than enough uncertainty to be exploited by people who want to make a buck and/or fear change.

So personally, to the extent that I think MMGW is happening, I'm pretty much resigned to it. We don't fully understand how it's gonna play out- and the political will to do anything about it on the scale required does NOT exist. So IMO, we're just along for the ride. I expect to be dead before it matters. And I don't expect to leave any descendants behind to deal with it.

You fuckers are on your own.

[BrotherJosh]

[OpheliaGinger]

Just to add a little bit of balance:
Skeptoid on Fracking

[Vigile]

Every amateur is suddenly an expert when they don't like the science.

http://www.pointofin...imate_research/

[Burnedout]

Since Vig has me on ignore, I suppose he won't see this, but I will say it anyway.

When the so called "experts" are so full of themselves that they can never be wrong, that kind of sets them up for a big fall. They kinda lose their so called "expert" qualifications now doesn't it.....

[LivingLife]

Back here in SA, we are currently build two new huge fossil fired power stations. The greenies were all out in the SUVs protesting the builds but these turds have no clue as to the lengths the power stations goto to control emissions. The alternative is nuclear which of course is clean apart from the very long life of the spent fuel and the added expense of disposing of it.

Fossil stations do emit noxious gases and CO₂ is taken care of by the photosynthesis cycle. Other gases meld with water droplets and fall back to earth as "acidic rain" but IMO this is small price to pay for the convenience of the flick of a switch light.

The same greenies offer wind turbines and tidal options but get pissed off when we start erecting them at coastal areas which fucks up their holiday destinations b/c that is doh where we get the most consistent wind and doh, tidal power you need the fucking sea dumbass.

That said, air pollution is not a good thing. I was in London in the 90's and on a bus tour noticed pre their Jubilee celebrations of cleaning up the city, there was on old brick building that had been pressure washed of soot up to a gutter downpipe where ownership of the building changed. London is a smoke free city so you cannot burn coal to heat. The building I mentioned, the evidence of pollution was very stark merely by comparing the façade of he building either side of the down pipe.

What is the alternative that the greenies would want? Everyone now burns coal in the city which has no scrubbers for exhaust gases OR leaving it to the power utilities that actually create less pollution per capita of coal burned compared to open fire hearths/coal stoves?

As to the OP of fracking, that is not something very big here in SA as we have a shitload of coal. Even the mines have to rehabilitate the spent mines which are mostly open cast, in this case, I support the greenies.

[Thurisaz]

Back here in SA, we are currently build two new huge fossil fired power stations. The greenies were all out in the SUVs protesting the builds but these turds have no clue as to the lengths the power stations goto to control emissions. [...]

Well strictly speaking few emissions are still worse than no emissions, that much is surely true. However... (see below)

The same greenies offer wind turbines and tidal options but get pissed off when we start erecting them at coastal areas which fucks up their holiday destinations b/c that is doh where we get the most consistent wind and doh, tidal power you need the fucking sea dumbass. [...]

...there are indeed many greenies as you call them who are experts at one thing, and that one thing only: Protesting. Whatever others suggest, they demonstrate against. Oh well you folks out there, how about you suggest how to do it right for a change?

Just the same with nuke power. They demand that no new reactors are built and the existing ones be shut down, I'm with them. We don't need nuke power if we have the political will to really make use of wind, water et cetera. But: The nuclear waste that our reactors have already produced has to go somewhere. Wherever someone plans to dump it, they protest against it. What are they suggesting what we should do with the obnoxious stuff - pray or meditate until it magically vanishes?