"Leaving aside the earthquake and water contamination problems, the main argument against shalegas is that it is uneconomic.
Sep 2, 2018 at 8:49 PM | Entropic man"

Where is your evidence?

Is it ok with you, if we assume an extra thousand deaths a week in cold weather because people can't afford their heating bills, as a result of the Climate Change Act 2008?

Tomo

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918301764

Abstract
The UK is in the early stages of developing a shale gas industry and to date six test wells have been drilled but none yet exploited commercially. Some argue that shale gas could reduce energy prices and improve national energy security. However, the costs of bringing commercial-size wells into operation are uncertain and the impact shale gas could have on the UK energy market is currently unknown. Therefore, this paper evaluates the economic viability of developing a UK shale gas industry and the impacts it could have on the UK gas and electricity markets and consumer energy bills up to 2030. The estimated life cycle (levelised) costs of shale gas production range from 0.47 to 56.74 pence/MJ (0.61–73 US$ cents/MJ), with an average value of 4.64 pence/MJ. The break-even price at which shale gas can be sold varies between 0.95 and 114.44 pence/MJ, averaging at 9.47 pence/MJ, depending on the volume of gas produced by a shale gas well. The latter is two times higher than imported liquefied natural gas, around 30% more expensive than UK natural gas and three times greater than the price of US shale gas. Electricity from shale gas is on average 17% more expensive than from domestic conventional gas but still more competitive than most other electricity options, including coal and renewables. However, the impact of shale gas on the energy market would be limited across the expected range of shale gas penetration into the gas and electricity mixes, suggesting that it would have little effect on energy prices. This is reflected in an almost negligible impact on consumer energy bills. The potential of shale gas to boost the UK economy is also limited, contributing 0.017–0.033% to the GDP. This is an order of magnitude lower than the contribution of US shale gas to its GDP (0.2%), indicating that the economic success of shale gas in the US may not be replicated in the UK. These findings will be of interest to shale gas developers and policy makers not only in the UK but in other countries considering exploitation of shale gas resources.

Tomo

"a geophysicist with decades of relevant experience who says it's mostly benign and entirely manageable with little in the way of downsides...."

Leaving aside the earthquake and water contamination problems, the main argument against shalegas is that it is uneconomic.

The only ones to profit are the exploration companies.

Business model:-

Borrow money.

Explore shale gas play.

Sell production rights.

Repay loan.

Pocket profit.

The production company then loses money trying to sell expensive shale gas in a cheap gas market dominated by big gas producers such as Quatar.

golf charlie, now we move onto different territory. I have been wondering for a while what to make of the Labour anti-semitism stories. I suspect they're being played up by the Labour old guard who want to get rid of Corbyn, but equally that Corbyn is too stupid or arrogant to recognise what is going on and to stamp on the whole thing by making some absolutely unequivocal statement to put it to bed (but see my final comment below).

I'm not sure, however, that I agree with the pressure to adopt the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial definition of anti-semitism. While broadly agreeing with its terms, there are a couple of aspects that cause me some concern:

Describing as anti-semitic "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" goes too far in my mind. What if the Israeli state does adopt such policies? Is it to have a free pass by shouting anti-Semite at anyone who (perhaps legitimately) makes a comparison between its polices and those of the Nazis? The Nazis had many unpleasant policies other than the gas chambers - if Israel adopts any of them, does this proposed international definition give them a free ride?

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations." Surely it might be possible for this to be true in some isolated cases? If it is, why would one not be allowed to point it out without being accused of anti-semitism?

"...claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor". If one feels that there is racist discrimination by the state of Israel in favour of Jews against non-Jewish Israelis,should one not be allowed to suggest as much without being accused of anti-semitism?

Whilst agreeing with the sentiment behind the definition, and also agreeing with much that is contained in the definition and the examples suggested, I do think in places it goes too far. Why, then, is there much reporting of the need for Labour to adopt this definition, without actually discussing what the definition entails?

FWIW I suspect that Corbyn has simply made a crude political calculation - UK Muslims are more likely to vote Labour than are UK Jews, and since there are 10 times as many of the former as the latter, and since he almost certainly cannot win a general election without the votes of the former, the fuss is worth it and he won't do anything to alienate an important sector of the community as a potential source of a considerable number of votes.

Sep 2, 2018 at 8:12 PM | Mark Hodgson

I think the advice now is to film/ record all dealings with journalists (not just the BBC), ESPECIALLY when they are filming/recording.

News Editors are not going to wade through an hour of tape if a journalist presents them with the preclipped 30 seconds that will prove the point that was required

BBC bias. I have not driven a huge distance, but have been in the car for much of the day with BBC Radio 2 on. The News was featuring Labour grandees calling on Corbyn to address anti-semitism within Labour. That is no longer the lead story.

I thought for a while that someone in the BBC had finally realised where the likes of Jeremy Corbyn (and Tribune/Militant/Momentum plus of course Ken Livingstone) learn about the Arab/Israeli issues.

http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/about/history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundism

It is weird that Radicalised Moslems and Communist Jews have so much to thank JC for.

Thanks, all, for continuing the debate about the BBC and the media, in my absence from the debate today. It is good that AK (Supertroll) and I can disagree amicably, while understanding and respecting each other's point of view.

FWIW, I don't think that the BBC generally actively and knowingly rigs the news (but see below); rather that the way it sees the world is reinforced by the type of people who it appoints to top posts in its own image, and who all see the world in the same way - someone who doesn't think like them just won't get appointed, with the result that the BBC becomes an echo-chamber, and its news reporting reflects that fact. Perhaps, most of the time, they don't do it consciously - it's just second nature.

Despite that, I do have a sneaking suspicion that they downplay or even refuse to report news (or at best bury it where it's not likely to be noticed) if it's something that they think it might be dangerous for the little people to know. The argument that this is stupid or pointless, given the internet and alternative sources of news, would be a good one were it not for a few things:

1. Much of the rest of the MSM (Channel 4, ITV and Sky News being cases in point) adopt the same approach, so that the mass of people who just rely on the standard media sources (whether on radio, TV or via their websites) will see or hear the censored reporting and nothing else - so that's the job largely done.

2. There is an increasing attack on alternative sources of news reporting. I think the reason for this is clear. They don't want us to have access to alternative news sources which might report on the things they don't want us to know.

3. Many people just aren't sufficiently interested or bothered to seek out alternative sources of news, or fact check what the BBC tells them. Rightly or wrongly the BBC is still regarded, I suspect, by most people as completely trustworthy, so that if the BBC tells them something, they assume it must be right; and if the BBC doesn't tell them, they either never find out about it all, or if they do, they assume it can't be important (because the BBC didn't think it was important enough to report).

To finish off, I would add that there are occasions when I believe the BBC (and other media) simply can't be trusted. Just look at the stuff that we do know about - the appalling treatment of Cliff Richard; the protection of Jimmy Savile etc. Notice also the number of times BBC investigative programmes featuring a negative story about some person or organisation say "we invited x to put up a spokesperson for interview, but nobody was available. Instead they sent us a statement." I used to think that was shocking - how dare these organisations not put up somebody for interview? What have they got to hide? How can they treat the viewing/listening public with such contempt? But one day, my brother told me a story (I will keep all concerned anonymous, as nobody affected has been approached for permission to re-tell it so publicly). An organisation he worked for many years ago was being given a bad time, unfairly, by the media (not just the BBC - there was a media feeding frenzy going on about it at the time). The CEO said he had been invited by the BBC to give an interview to put the record straight, and he was going to go on air to do just that. My brother advised him not to, as he felt that the last thing that was needed to give more publicity to a story which, although unfounded, was doing damage to the business. The CEO rejected his advice, gave the interview, and returned beaming at how well it had gone, fully vindicating his decision, he thought. That was until he heard the interview as finally broadcast - heavily edited and spliced, it gave a completely misleading impression as to what had been said.

The BBC cannot be trusted to play fair, and now I know why more savvy organisations don't send someone to be interviewed but send a short statement instead.

AK, you seem not to notice that the BBC has become a mouthpiece for any pressurew group that wants to put its narrative on the news. It's a press release recycler. And all we haters want is a little balance, to hear from the other side.

tomo. Pray tell me what NEWS (not opinion) supporting fracking has been buried by the BBC and which has appeared in other media? I don't know of any. Exploration companies will not release results for commercial reasons. Supporters don't stick their heads above the parapet for fear of being attacked by the Green Mob. The only real news the media can report are the outrageous rubbish spouted by anti-fracking organizations and celebrities and the stupidities they get up to. This commonly is newsworthy and so it gets reported.