Wednesday
Jul222015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Light work
Jul 22, 2015 Blogs I'm away for a few days and so blogging will be light or non-existent (although the mod may add the odd post for readers to discuss).
Jul 22, 2015 Blogs
Reader Comments (9)
Enjoy the break.
Agree, enjoy!
Yes. And enjoy any curlews and cuckoos you may meet along the way, before the BBC drives them extinct with global warming (though I have recently observed an alarming local increase in Kingfishers, from zero to one.)
Enjoy your break Bish
Open thread .
President Obama sold out U S National Surcurity to an Iranian Dictatorship.Lets see if he sell out the the U S Economy in Paris then declares its a great victory.
'Light work', Your Grace..?
Under current government policies, lights WON'T work..!
While you are away Bish the BBC continues
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33612293
New report says fracking didn't reduce CO2.
Only one person interviewed - the author of the report. No one interviewed to comment or put the opposing view.
Matt Mcgrath is a rubbish journalist.
I would like comment on a BBC article that suggests that our CO2 from burning fossil fuels is of a kind that is seriously disrupting radio carbon dating so that dates given could be 1,000 years out. First I've heard of this and it sounds unlikely.
Any takers?
@Margaret Smith: Yes. The amounts we as Humans emit form Human activity are so small when compared by natural emissions, it would seem highly unlikely to be so, beside if it was true, it would have been spotted ages ago I would have thought. The UNIPCC has been issuing estimates of natural emission for over 20 years!
"fracking didn't reduce CO2"
According to your link, the spastic says ""What we can show is that the main driver has been the level of consumption, GDP per capita. The decrease in this was the main driver. Gas was a driver but a very minor one."
Surely overall GDP matters, not GDP per capita?
Me thinks he sees correlation, not causation. After all, it clearly says:
- Coal dropped from producing half of US electricity in 2007 to 37% by 2012. [Surely falling GDP implies less power consumption, so the % fall in coal burnt is even more dramatic?]
- Scientists and commentators immediately linked the curb on emissions to shale gas. [Perhaps even 97% made this link]
- Even official government documents such as the US Third National Climate Assessment highlighted the move as being "largely due to shift from coal to less CO2-intensive natural gas."
The idiot also says:
"What happens with the coal that the gas displaces - if you take it out of the ground, it's going to be used somewhere"
Prof Klaus Hubacek, University of Maryland [But it WASN'T taken out of the ground: http://marketrealist.com/2014/07/overview-coal-industry-us/ .]
This is definitely written to be used (a) in the fight against shale overseas (and maybe even internally), and (b) to help fight gas as an "alternative" power source to coal. After all, the squeals from greenies when you point out the co2-reducing benefit of shale gas over coal shows that the science doesn't matter, but the ideology does.