Is shale gas a good thing?

[amateur51]

See The Inspector's post # 89.

Seems to me that MrGG has covered those points in his post, Beefy. That the snow is in retreat is not contested.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Seems to me that MrGG has covered those points in his post, Beefy. That the snow is in retreat is not contested.

Yes, well done, that's the observed phenomenon. What's not understood is the cause.

[amateur51]

Yes, well done, that's the observed phenomenon. What's not understood is the cause.

At a guess it would be warming. The exact cause is difficult to establish, obviously. Thus every step that can be taken to address potential causes of warming should be tried, no? We may not have time to be exact.

[Richard Barrett]

At a guess it would be warming

And not just a guess, really. A_I_C's position seems to be that since there is uncertainty as to the causes of climate change we should essentially disregard the possibility that they are connected with carbon emissions. This strikes me as a highly risky way to look at things, as I said before; it seems to me that if there's uncertainty (and there's a lot less uncertainty than the deniers would have us believe of course), we should embrace the possibility of those connections and do something about it, because by the time there's a result to satisfy the hardline sceptics it could well be too late, even if it's future generations that will really pay the price.

[ahinton]

And not just a guess, really. A_I_C's position seems to be that since there is uncertainty as to the causes of climate change we should essentially disregard the possibility that they are connected with carbon emissions. This strikes me as a highly risky way to look at things, as I said before; it seems to me that if there's uncertainty (and there's a lot less uncertainty than the deniers would have us believe of course), we should embrace the possibility of those connections and do something about it, because by the time there's a result to satisfy the hardline sceptics it could well be too late, even if it's future generations that will really pay the price.

Indeed - and, in any case, as I've noted previously, serious investment in development, distribution and use of renewables/sustainables will have the welcome effect of reducing drastically the environmental air pollution that is an inevitable consequence of most fossil fuel burning so, even if it is ultimately discovered beyond question that carbon emissions have played only a small part in climate change, the far more widespread use of renewables/sustainables will still have been environmentally and societally beneficial - so what not to like about proceeding with this?

[amateur51]

And not just a guess, really. A_I_C's position seems to be that since there is uncertainty as to the causes of climate change we should essentially disregard the possibility that they are connected with carbon emissions. This strikes me as a highly risky way to look at things, as I said before; it seems to me that if there's uncertainty (and there's a lot less uncertainty than the deniers would have us believe of course), we should embrace the possibility of those connections and do something about it, because by the time there's a result to satisfy the hardline sceptics it could well be too late, even if it's future generations that will really pay the price.

I was being ironic RB and shiould have made it 'At a guess it would be warming' :winkeye:

You are absolutely right of course and what you propose may not happen because of the cost involved when the outcome is not certain for each action. But keeping the planet as safe for human habitation and its supporting ecosystem as possible has to be the goal, regardless of the cost. Time for the rich folks to stump up I reckon :smiley:

[Beef Oven]

And not just a guess, really. A_I_C's position seems to be that since there is uncertainty as to the causes of climate change we should essentially disregard the possibility that they are connected with carbon emissions. This strikes me as a highly risky way to look at things, as I said before; it seems to me that if there's uncertainty (and there's a lot less uncertainty than the deniers would have us believe of course), we should embrace the possibility of those connections and do something about it, because by the time there's a result to satisfy the hardline sceptics it could well be too late, even if it's future generations that will really pay the price.

Common sense tells as that carbon emission is probably not a good thing and measures should be taken to reduce it over a sensible period.

What it's got to do with changes in the Earth's atmospheric temperature is a mystery at the moment.

The Earth's temperature has varied, from time to time, for almost innumerable years and the connection between the two things remains an emotional one, IMHO.

[ahinton]

Common sense tells as that carbon emission is probably not a good thing and measures should be taken to reduce it over a sensible period.

What it's got to do with changes in the Earth's atmospheric temperature is a mystery at the moment.

The Earth's temperature has varied, from time to time, for almost innumerable years and the connection between the two things remains an emotional one, IMHO.

I don't think that anyone here is denying (a) that there is climate change), (b) that there has always been climate change and (c) that undue carbon emissions are almost certainly not a good thing; that said, one concern even among the more pragmatic climate change thinkers is the sheer extent and speed of recent climate change which is widely perceived to be far greater than it has ever been previously, so it is therefore perhaps inevitable that this prompts the thought that there may be factors involved that are additional to those that have occurred naturally in the past.

[amateur51]

I don't think that anyone here is denying (a) that there is climate change), (b) that there has always been climate change and (c) that undue carbon emissions are almost certainly not a good thing; that said, one concern even among the more pragmatic climate change thinkers is the sheer extent and speed of recent climate change which is widely perceived to be far greater than it has ever been previously, so it is therefore perhaps inevitable that this prompts the thought that there may be factors involved that are additional to those that have occurred naturally in the past.

I think we're all singing off the same song sheet here

[Flosshilde]

Go the Bishop Hill site, open the relevant page, click on the picture. Magbify the image all you like, it's very high definition. I can find 6 of the shale sites.

I did; it's not the shale wells I was referring to.

It's Saxony, so the same plane that extends all the way to Cambridgeshire.

& the CAmbridgeshire landscape is almost as industrialised.

We manage to do a better job of ruining the landscape in Britain:

http://www.visitscotland-windfarms.com/southern-upland-way-hods-hill/

Anyone for the Southern Upland Way?

& in that context wind farms do spoil the view; in the flat industrialised landscapes of eastern England & central Europe there's not much view to spoil.

[MrGongGong]

& in that context wind farms do spoil the view; in the flat industrialised landscapes of eastern England & central Europe there's not much view to spoil.

That, really, is a huge matter of opinion ..... or maybe part of the "everything's better in Scotland" script ? :JOKE:
The Scottish landscape is in many ways as man made as London is , just in a different way

Personally , I don't think wind turbines "spoil the view" any more than conifer forests or ruined abbeys or iron age hill forts etc etc

There was a hilarious letter in the Lincolnshire echo last year from someone who was ranting about how the offshore wind farm was "destroying the sea view" at Skegness, fishing boats, it would seem are OK as are Donkeys BUT NOT windmills

[ahinton]

That, really, is a huge matter of opinion ..... or maybe part of the "everything's better in Scotland" script ? :JOKE:
The Scottish landscape is in many ways as man made as London is , just in a different way

Personally , I don't think wind turbines "spoil the view" any more than conifer forests or ruined abbeys or iron age hill forts etc etc

There was a hilarious letter in the Lincolnshire echo last year from someone who was ranting about how the offshore wind farm was "destroying the sea view" at Skegness, fishing boats, it would seem are OK as are Donkeys BUT NOT windmills

It is indeed purely a matter of personal opinion; I happen to find them to be eyesores and others don't.

As to hilarity, though, even your Lincolnshire Echo piece is, to my mind, no match for the one in a source that sadly I cannot now recall about a wind turbine that blew down in a windstorm, writing off both itself and the car on which it collapsed in the process...

[Dave2002]

I think we're all singing off the same song sheet here

I don't.

[Dave2002]

That, really, is a huge matter of opinion ..... or maybe part of the "everything's better in Scotland" script ? :JOKE:
The Scottish landscape is in many ways as man made as London is , just in a different way

Personally , I don't think wind turbines "spoil the view" any more than conifer forests or ruined abbeys or iron age hill forts etc etc

There was a hilarious letter in the Lincolnshire echo last year from someone who was ranting about how the offshore wind farm was "destroying the sea view" at Skegness, fishing boats, it would seem are OK as are Donkeys BUT NOT windmills

Perhaps they never had oil tankers or off shore oil rigs anywhere nearby at Skegness, and heaven forbid, a marina!

[Dave2002]

Common sense tells as that carbon emission is probably not a good thing and measures should be taken to reduce it over a sensible period.

I think it depends on what you mean by carbon emission and common sense. In China there are cities which emit so much filth, including coal dust, that "common sense" would immediately lead almost anyone to believe your statement. In the 1950s (and earlier) there was smog in large cities such as London, and the smog of 1952 killed many people. Again "common sense" would support your arguments.

If by carbon emissions you mean emissions of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide then some people might not understand.

Direct experience of pollution is still possible in cities such as London, but although some of the pollution is carbon related, quite a lot isn't. Such pollution can affect breathing, and also make clothes dirty, though I have to say that compared with the dirt which appeared on white shirts when I was young, I haven't noticed much in recent years. My claim is that direct evidence that carbon emission is bad is unlikely to be experienced by many nowadays in the UK.

Carbon monoxide is toxic.

Nowadays it is less obvious that anything related to carbon emissions is a bad thing. As I recall CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas. Even at atmospheric levels of 400 ppm that is still only 0.04% of the total atmosphere, so I submit it is not obvious at all by use of "common sense". I haven't personally been up to the higher levels of atmosphere, and even if I did, I would not have the tools to measure the percentage of CO2. I rely on others, including engineers and scientists, to tell me the levels, which are currently about 400ppm.

If by "common sense" you mean the form of logic and analysis which can be applied by those who are knowledgeable, and read, and have access to data, some of which is reliable, then you are probably restricting the term in unusual ways. On the other hand "common sense" may be held by those who read the Daily Mail, The Times and other newspapers, or watch TV news or listen to radio news and current affairs programmes, where many simply adopt the view taken by the views which are thrust upon them.