Is shale gas a good thing?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

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.

As usual Barrett, you deliberately distort what I've said on one matter to create a false impression of my beliefs.

My position on the snow losses of Kilimanjaro are that have been analysed in the scientific journals - peer-review to boot - and have been attributed variously to climate change and tree felling. I might add that elsewhere the snow loss has also been attributed to ablation.

My position on CO2 cannot be construed as you describe it. I have referenced the IPCC TAR reports and pointed out "Leaks of TAR5 indicate that once again climate sensitivity will be reduced, perhaps as low as 1.7 C for a doubling of CO2 - a far cry from the days of 6 C." Strangely you have made no use of the IPCC reports to counter my points.

I have said nothing whatsoever about mitigation policies other than (elsewhere, but current threads) that (a) the present options on renewable energy technology all fail miserably on levels of production, reliability, compliance with usual grid practises, and cost; therefore they should be sent back to the lab. for development, diverting the present subsidies to support that work and (b) since hydro power is well established, is very reliable, has a huge production lifetime, is cost effective in the long run and therefore we should consider the Severn Barrage. Given point (a) it seems fruitless to continue with the blind hope of installing more and more of our present renewable dross in the hope that it might just cut our emissions.

[MrGongGong]

Lack of wind in East Anglia? Have you left your customary (JOKE) off the end of that comment?

East Anglia isn't around London even though Stansted is described as a "London" airport
and the "flatlands" aren't in the South East they are in the East Midlands which is a different place all together
(there are large wind turbines near Sutton Bridge which is in the flatlands)

[Richard Barrett]

As usual Barrett, you deliberately distort what I've said

I do aim at consistency.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Indeed. Methane seems to be being consistently left out in the carbon emissions equation at the moment on this thread. Wonder why.................

See #2 and #22. From the latter:
"There's certainly no sign of this [methane concentration in atmosphere rising] happening if we examine the data that dave2002 linked in

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis...gases/ch4.html

which shows US methane emissions declining during the period when they've been increasing their fracing activities on a huge scale.

The NOAA graph of methane levels in the atmosphere:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Met...%3B2728%3B1971

shows little variation - at most 10 ppb against a background 1,800 ppb (i.e. less than 0.5 % and almost certainly less than the data error).
"

[teamsaint]

The people of Sussex don't seem to realise what a great idea this new fangled fracking is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sleepy-balcombe-wakes-up-with-a-roar-over-prospect-of-fracking-8731117.html

The fracking Tzar is Chairman of Cuadrilla.

What a disgustingly corrupt country this is now.
Stilll, who cares as long as the tax breaks keep coming?

[Dave2002]

See #2 and #22. From the latter:
"There's certainly no sign of this [methane concentration in atmosphere rising] happening if we examine the data that dave2002 linked in

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemis...gases/ch4.html

which shows US methane emissions declining during the period when they've been increasing their fracing activities on a huge scale.

Unfortunately the link has now changed due to a revamp of the EPA site. I haven't yet tracked down the same or similar pages to the one originally linked to.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The fracking Tzar is Chairman of Cuadrilla.

What a disgustingly corrupt country this is now.

And the recently departed chairman of the MET Office was:
Chairman of the Green Fiscal Trust
Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation
a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project
a director of the Carbon Group
Chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund UK
and also a member of the Green Alliance.

Baroness Worthington is/was FoE.

What a disgustingly corrupt country this is.

[teamsaint]

If there was something in post #548 that gives a really good reason why the vested interests of shale gas drilling companies should be so closely, (and dubiously) represented at such a high level of government, it escapes me.

Still, as long as enough people really believe that our government is acting in our best interests, and not those of oil companies, banks, the city, and so on, then we will continue to get dumped on.

AIC, if you want to answer the point, then answer the point.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

If there was something in post #128 that explains why the vested interests of environmentalists should be so closely, (and dubiously) represented at the MET Office, it escapes me.

Still, as long as enough people really believe that the MET Office reports on climate matters impartially, then we will continue to get dumped on.

[teamsaint]

and there I was thinking I asked a question about fracking and gas industry interests.

Any comment on Lord John Browne, AIC?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Any comment on Lord John Browne, AIC?

Not specifically. If you haven't understood, I'm pointing out that the corruption apparently cuts both ways.

[teamsaint]

but in the case of Shale gas we know for certain that there is money involved, and who is likely to benefit from that money.Influence in the climate change field is less clear cut, and while I accept you point that industry influence is everywhere, I think your points re the met office are part of a rather different argument.

FWIW, those with interests in carbon trading are probably keen to have climate change orthodoxies well represented in place like the Met office.

But that is a distraction from discussion about LJB's conflicts of interest.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

They seem rather less than Lord Debden's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9498568/The-tangled-tale-of-Lord-Deben-and-a-dodgy-Severn-barrage.html

[teamsaint]

well that is interesting, and worrying article.
Corruption isn't just in the shale gas industry. Where there's brass (and subsidy) there's muck.
Kind of reinforces my "corruption" point !
I still think that LJB's position in government ought to be untenable.

[eighthobstruction]

I'm amazed that no-one has flagged up George Osbournes father in laws gaff ref fracking for gas Upt'north.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23510479