Bishop Hill ECC committee on shale gas
Apr 26, 2013 Energy: gas The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee has issued its report on shale gas, concluding that exploration should be encouraged.
...if companies can demonstrate that they can meet the required standards the Government should encourage exploratory shale gas operations to proceed in order to improve current estimates, providing that public concern over environmental impacts is recognised and taken into account.
However, they also conclude that various market-fixing mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that gas is not too successful and note that regulation should be so tight as to prevent any nasty shale gas revolution taking place here (or words to that effect).
I can't see this as doing much to stop the delays within government. Ed Davey seems determined to keep things moving forward as slowly as possible, if at all. He has even chosen to sit on the British Geological Survey report on shale resources, which was due to be published months ago. What possible interest could he have in withholding it we wonder?
Meanwhile the rest of the world moves on, leaving the UK floundering in last place. As an indictment of the UK's rapid descent into banana republic territory, this quote from Nick Grealy quite took the biscuit:
US investors I know who were enthusiastic about [shale gas in] the UK last year recently told me that after all the dither in the UK they’re putting their money in Argentina, where government regulation is considered to be more stable.
Reader Comments (123)
[deleted redundant entry]
[deleted even more redundant entry]
Apr 27, 2013 at 8:18 PM | Mike Jackson
+ 10
Part of this thread has been hijacked by cantankerous old Will Carlin's. Get to grips people.
Bit Bucket have you downloaded" Ding Dong the Witch is Dead"?
Bit Bucket Maggies only been dead 3 weeks and shes haunting the Political Agenda already
UKIP Nutters are Maggies Heirs and her new children now.
LocaL Elections UKIP (despite a predictibly desperatly smear campaign) will wipe the floor with the Wet Gutless established Tories and Labour
Maggies death triggered an 80s cultural revival .This time you only got DSS Public Sector Jeremy Kyle Fodder Bennefit Claiments to support, instead of proud Working Class Miners.Notice the word "Working".
Bit Bucket soon be cutting down Wind Mills for Scrap Metal.
Scraping Green Deal Loans for Loft Insulation at 16% APR.Remove VAT on building materials instead.
Graphine Batteries /Solar Panels and Bladeless Turbines keep up the research.Gas and Nuclear the only way for the forseeabal.
As we get to the end of this debate, it's useful to summarise. The renewables' industry was based on an alliance between the Mafia and their politicians in the last government, and the Fabians who, acting as a cover for Trots and other Marxists, want to impose Totalitarian Government, ostensibly for Good but in reality to provide jobs for the bureaucratic elite in government and subsidised Corporations, a new version of Mussolini's fascism..
This plan was entirely feasible whilst borrowed money was cheap and wage costs could be kept under control by immigration from poor to rich Europe. There is of course no fossil fuel saving from the windmills etc and the science claiming CAGW is total bunkum because CO2 is part of the system which maintains absolute control of climate on a water planet over a very wide range of CO2 concentration.
So, we get to the final act: the cheap money has dried up; the Fabians and their elite mates are desperately trying to keep control of governments; the troughers are coming out of the woodwork; the Mafia are calling their hired men into keep the subsidies going. We have now seen the ultimate collapse of integrity of the Trotskyite-controlled Royal Society which is for five years subsidising Lewandowsky in a job at Bristol presumably because the University of Western Australia has got sick of his pretence at scholarship.
Now we have appliances which turn themselves off to keep the windmill plan intact: we truly live in interesting times.
Harold W: thanks for providing that link.
(Must borrow someone's smart 5-year old one day to show me how to do this techie stuff!)
AlecM describe how the Political Elite describe Climate Change in less than 5 words
"You Cant Have And Do As Your Told Or Else"
And our One Word answer B...OCKS.
PS sorry that was 10 words
You refuse to address the subject matter, claim that you know what is going on my mind as a justification for that refusal, misinterpret what I write and then when I finally lose patience you trot out the usual puerile rubbish about losing the argument.
My only mistake was using the word 'prat'. 'Brat' would have been more appropriate.
Bonjour Mike Jackson (I'm practising, we go to France next Friday, pretty much until the end of July), Bievenue au club, I decided some weeks ago there was something terribly juvenile about bitty. Ill informed, dogmatic, argumentative, assigns motives, and indeed, arguments to others, makes statements without evidence. I've had five children and recognise adolescence when I see it. I've ceased to engage, which was how I got through the five adolescents passing through the period in there lives when with little to no knowledge of the world, nature plays the trick on you of making you believe you know everything there is to know.
Mike Jackson, there, there, never mind. Has that horrible bully BitBucket been chasing you again. Did you lose fall down and graze your knee? Let mummy kiss it better. There... now go out and play with your friends and stay away from the big boys.
Apr 28, 2013 at 11:21 AM | Mike Jackson
Spot on, judging by the response.
jamspid:You said 5 eord:-
Ve turn off refrigerators; Blitzkrieg.
DaveS
Precisely! I rest my case.
geronimo
See the post under yours. 'Nuff said.
geronimo et al
12 year old mentality no matter how old the body. I recognised it when given a e references and "good googling" comment rather than him reading the references and giving a counter argument. When unable to respond play the man.
As I said last time.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!
Fracking not as bad as first thought says EPA.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/t/story/epa-methane-report-divides-fracking-camps-19061318?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfracking%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D12%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CFAQFjAL%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnews.go.com%252FTechnology%252FwireStory%252Fepa-methane-report-divides-fracking-camps-19061318%26ei%3Dmm99UYftJbOp0AXcn4DQCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNEAUwVPzLk-9puhidyo4qUMQ-yIXQ%26sig2%3Dmhu7RgNgtJktGN5fBqxwvw
Joe Public:
I noticed in your link to the BBC that Jenny Banks, of WWF-UK, raises the figure of 2°C; this seems to be a figure that we need to fear. Could someone tell me why an increase of 2°C would cause such devastation as is forecast (without, oddly, any specifications as to what devastation) to this planet?
Also, from what point is this 2°C measured from – now, or at some point in the past which was, or nearly was, 2°C cooler than now, or even some point in the future that is warmer (by an unknown amount) than now?
Finally, could it be possible that this 2°C actually be of benefit to our life on this planet? Is it possible that those trumpeting our doom with this figure are actually talking complete and utter b…(due to the shortage of space, this post has been truncated)
Radical Rodent,
Good luck with finding a scientific basis for the magical 2°C limit, you won't find one, whether it's from the Little Ice Age, 1900, 1850, or any date you can conjure. It's simply warmist propaganda. One more of the little fear induction schemes that makes them so endearing.
Apr 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM | Alecm
re your comment -
"We have now seen the ultimate collapse of integrity of the Trotskyite-controlled Royal Society which is for five years subsidising Lewandowsky in a job at Bristol presumably because the University of Western Australia has got sick of his pretence at scholarship."
where did you get this info from ?
cheers dougieh
2 °C? There is no support for that from science because the atmosphere controls itself to ensure CO2-AGW = 0 K. The feedback process is demonstrated by the 'faint Sun paradox'; liquid water at the equator when the Sun's output was 70% of now. The claim that this was because 0f CO2-AGW is ludicrous.....
This paper,[ 1981_Hansen_etal.pdd ] from GISS, the first of Hansen's major modelling papers, assumed that CO2 blocked transmission of IR in the 7 - 14 µm range, the 'atmospheric window'. There is no significant absorption in that range. They made a mistake.
The present explanation from Pierrehumbert, that it's the widening of the 15 µm band, is better, but it assumes there is no frequency conversion from IR absorption by clouds.
doughieh: it's here - http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2013/9330.html
He has just moved to Bristol: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/28/stephan-lewandowsky-flees-australia-in-wake-of-investigations/
'I know of at least two, possibly more, professional complaints that are in progress against Lewdandowsy (and his sidekick, Skeptical Science’ s John Cook) at the University of Western Australia for his data fabrication and his questionable science composed of outlandish made-up claims designed to smear climate skeptics worldwide.
His most recent skeptic smear paper has been taken down, pending investigation.
No announcement or reason for the move was made that I (or others) can find so far. UWA still has his page in place here and there’s a new page at Bristol University here. Neither page says anything about this move or status, and at his blog Shaping Tomorrow’s World there’s no mention of this change in his bio page. The last update was by John Cook on March 22nd.
It will be interesting to see how Lewandowsky’s furtive exit will affect UWA’s handling of the various complaints.'
Do we have an example of political protection of a person who was abusing his academic position to further the Trotskyite cause? Or is this just happenstance?
Nurse was /is a former Trot.
Science is different to engineering. People may be intelligent and produce theories but people rarely die or large sums of money lost. Engineers design objects which if they fail , people may die /or lose money. Therefore engineers tend to be far more influenced by reality - measure twice , cut once. In general engineers /applied scientists who have to produce objects which work tend to more sceptical about global warming.
Scientists which have pushed global warming tend to be biologists/environmental scientists and those with poor mathematical/stats skills who are not responsible for designs, which if go wrong ,can kill..Hansen has spent his time at NASA worrying about temperature, not designing rockets carrying humans which if fail will kill them. Those NASA engineers who were responsible for designing rockets have been critical of Hansen. Probably, the last time anyone with the Met Office had any life or death decisions to make were those associated with deciding whether The Airborne assault on Arnhem should proceed.
Over the last 50 years there has been a massive increase in state funding of science . The problem is that much poor quality science with poor maths/statistical analysis has developed. The major investment in science is in physics, chemistry and cell biology( discipline where Nobel Prizes can be won) : areas of climate science,environmental science and earth science has traditionally been the poor relations and attracted lower quality scientists.
The issue of AGW has provided the second rate scientists working in backwaters the ability to obtain more research funds. If one goes back to the late 60s /early 70s the pay of a senior lecturer/professor in many universities provided a reasonable quality of life, compared to many lawyers, middle ranking business executives , chartered engineers but this is not the case nowadays. Many engineers and/or lawyers working at universities can earn large consultancy fees and those in the arts can write well received books. However, how do environmental scientists earn extra money?
How much of the AGW is due to environmental scientists with poor maths/stats skills at minor universities trying to justify there existence ? There are environmental problems lack of clean water and poor sewage treatment in large cities, lack of good quality farmland for a growing population, over- fishing of oceans, fuel becoming expensive for the poor , food becoming more expensive, but these problems require engineers to solve and most environmental scientists lack the skills to produce practical and cost-effective solutions.