Let’s make York a ‘frack-free’ zone

Let’s make York a ‘frack-free’ zone

Let’s make York a ‘frack-free’ zone

First published in Letters by

OVER the past few months, members and supporters of Frack-Free York have collected more than 1,200 signatures on a petition asking that City of York Council does not allow unconventional gas extraction (“fracking” and coal seam gas) in its area.

Of these, 860 were local York people; the rest were visiting the city and also don’t want the York area to suffer from this industry.

At the same time, an identically worded online petition collected more than 800 signatures, of which 700-plus were local.

This level of concern has triggered a debate at today’s full council meeting and several parties are going to exercise their democratic right to speak in favour of the petition.

There will be a demonstration of support in St Helen’s Square from 5pm, and then at 6.30pm, members of the public are allowed to witness what our elected councillors say about the issues in the Guildhall.

Frack-Free York welcomes anyone to attend these gatherings.

Fracking has the potential to pollute our water supplies, industrialise our countryside, fill lanes with thousands of lorry movements, and add to the already serious threat of climate chaos.

York must ban fracking.

John Cossham, Frack-Free York, Hull Road, York.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:03pm Thu 17 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Over months less than 0.5% of York residents have signed up for the anti Fracking campaign? Judging by Lendal Bridge then that should mean that York council will automatically assume that 99.5% support fracking.

Would it not be fair to say that if we do not take the opportunity presented to us by fracking that we are simply signing up for greater dependence on foreign gas imports (with all the implications that has for the world looking at the Ukraine) and even higher fuel bills? Will this not lead to even more people in our country being unable to afford to heat their homes?

I am not saying there are no risks but do believe that those risks will be small compared to the overall benefit. How many people have actually been confirmed as being harmed by Fracking? This will of course be difficult to quantify as I am sure, due to the hysteria being whipped up by campaigners, that the ambulance chasers are writing to or phoning people anywhere near any of this activity asking them if they have had a headache or nose bleed recently and making claims on their behalf attributing this to the Fracking activity?

Our Government estimates that there were 31,000 excess winter deaths in Engalnd and Wales in winter 2012/13. Their data suggests a direct correlation between lower temperatures and deaths. So is it not also fair to suggest that your campaign will stop us having affordable energy and in supporting your campaign we will be risking condemning to death many more of the older less well off generation in our country by making it impossible for them to afford to heat their homes?

So how do we balance these risks? One we know about, people are dying of the effects of cold because they cannot afford heat their homes, the other which is speculation about what may happen. I do hope that the council are not foolish enough to fall for yet another minority campaign without looking at both sides of the story.
Over months less than 0.5% of York residents have signed up for the anti Fracking campaign? Judging by Lendal Bridge then that should mean that York council will automatically assume that 99.5% support fracking. Would it not be fair to say that if we do not take the opportunity presented to us by fracking that we are simply signing up for greater dependence on foreign gas imports (with all the implications that has for the world looking at the Ukraine) and even higher fuel bills? Will this not lead to even more people in our country being unable to afford to heat their homes? I am not saying there are no risks but do believe that those risks will be small compared to the overall benefit. How many people have actually been confirmed as being harmed by Fracking? This will of course be difficult to quantify as I am sure, due to the hysteria being whipped up by campaigners, that the ambulance chasers are writing to or phoning people anywhere near any of this activity asking them if they have had a headache or nose bleed recently and making claims on their behalf attributing this to the Fracking activity? Our Government estimates that there were 31,000 excess winter deaths in Engalnd and Wales in winter 2012/13. Their data suggests a direct correlation between lower temperatures and deaths. So is it not also fair to suggest that your campaign will stop us having affordable energy and in supporting your campaign we will be risking condemning to death many more of the older less well off generation in our country by making it impossible for them to afford to heat their homes? So how do we balance these risks? One we know about, people are dying of the effects of cold because they cannot afford heat their homes, the other which is speculation about what may happen. I do hope that the council are not foolish enough to fall for yet another minority campaign without looking at both sides of the story. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 14

1:20pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Dave Ruddock says...

can we have one place For Fracking, its Station Rise, enough gas comes out of there.

Just had to say that.
can we have one place For Fracking, its Station Rise, enough gas comes out of there. Just had to say that. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 1

1:58pm Thu 17 Jul 14

John Cossham says...

I appreciate that the number of signatures (now 1400) is small compared to the total citizenship of York, but actually, it's a pretty good indication that there *is* a considerable strength of feeling AGAINST extracting this chemical in this way. Where's the petition FOR fracking? Why have you not joined 'Please Let's Frack York'?

There are plenty of incidents where real people have suffered real harm from this.... but actually, we don't need to wait until there's an even bigger 'list of the harmed' to know that if we use the precautionary principle, YOU have to prove that unconventional gas extraction is *not* harmful.

And here's what you'd have to address:
Will all the lorry movements to get water and chemicals (average 6 million gallons per fracking cycle) have no negative impact on the communities they drive through?
Will the extraction of that water from rivers, surface water and aquifers have an impact on wildlife and human needs for clean water?
Is there ANY RISK that the fracking fluids injected under extremely high pressure will get into the aquifers the bore goes through? (even Dart Energy, who have the licence to frack under West York, admit they cannot be 100% sure of zero casing failures)
What is the risk that the millions of gallons of 'produced water' (water with added chemicals and radioactive elements from underground) will not be able to be cleaned up adequately before being dumped in our waterways or seas?
What is the long term risk of fugitive emissions of methane, which are up to 9% of total extracted gas in one well site in the US, to our climate?
What is the risk posed by climate change exacerbated by all the fossil CO2 released from burning yet more fossil fuels?
What is the risk that investing all this money into the 'dash for gas' will divert attention and funding from energy demand reduction and investment in renewables?


Your other point shows you haven't been reading around the subject. UK produced methane will NOT reduce our energy bills significantly (even admitted by the industry) because our energy bills are tied into global prices.

The ONLY benefit that I can possibly see is that UK produced gas will be taxed here, generating revenues within the UK rather than abroad. However, the government is SO keen to get this moneymaker on the go that it has slashed the tax regime to half that of UK-based oil and coal extraction.

So. please answer all my 'potential risks' before you can prove fracking will be safe. Thank you.
I appreciate that the number of signatures (now 1400) is small compared to the total citizenship of York, but actually, it's a pretty good indication that there *is* a considerable strength of feeling AGAINST extracting this chemical in this way. Where's the petition FOR fracking? Why have you not joined 'Please Let's Frack York'? There are plenty of incidents where real people have suffered real harm from this.... but actually, we don't need to wait until there's an even bigger 'list of the harmed' to know that if we use the precautionary principle, YOU have to prove that unconventional gas extraction is *not* harmful. And here's what you'd have to address: Will all the lorry movements to get water and chemicals (average 6 million gallons per fracking cycle) have no negative impact on the communities they drive through? Will the extraction of that water from rivers, surface water and aquifers have an impact on wildlife and human needs for clean water? Is there ANY RISK that the fracking fluids injected under extremely high pressure will get into the aquifers the bore goes through? (even Dart Energy, who have the licence to frack under West York, admit they cannot be 100% sure of zero casing failures) What is the risk that the millions of gallons of 'produced water' (water with added chemicals and radioactive elements from underground) will not be able to be cleaned up adequately before being dumped in our waterways or seas? What is the long term risk of fugitive emissions of methane, which are up to 9% of total extracted gas in one well site in the US, to our climate? What is the risk posed by climate change exacerbated by all the fossil CO2 released from burning yet more fossil fuels? What is the risk that investing all this money into the 'dash for gas' will divert attention and funding from energy demand reduction and investment in renewables? Your other point shows you haven't been reading around the subject. UK produced methane will NOT reduce our energy bills significantly (even admitted by the industry) because our energy bills are tied into global prices. The ONLY benefit that I can possibly see is that UK produced gas will be taxed here, generating revenues within the UK rather than abroad. However, the government is SO keen to get this moneymaker on the go that it has slashed the tax regime to half that of UK-based oil and coal extraction. So. please answer all my 'potential risks' before you can prove fracking will be safe. Thank you. John Cossham
  • Score: -12

3:28pm Thu 17 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

John

I have already said that I would not say there were no risks but neither I or you can say how big these risks are. What I have argued is that the benefits may outweigh the risks and I believe, given the evidence I have seen, they most defiantly will. If we did not do anything until we were sure there was no risk, or as you would like to see it even "potential risk" we would do nothing ever.

What we do know is that tens of thousands die each year because they cannot heat their homes and that this situation is worsening. These are generally older less well off more vulnerable people. If what you are saying is that we should accept these many thousands of deaths each year just in case one person might get a headache as a result of Fracking then I cannot agree.

How many people have died as a direct result of the effects of Fracking? It has been going on since 1947, over 60 years, there must be some statistics available that you can quote? I can only find reference to a few people who have felt a bit queasy and a load that look like they have jumped on the claims bandwagon. Even on campaigning sites against Fracking the only deaths I can see reported are those of a small number of Chickens, Dogs, Cows and Cats and even these may or may not have been as a result of the effects of Fracking. How do you justify this against 31000 excess human deaths in one year in England and Wales which do happen and the Government seems to think are a direct result of people being cold in winter.

Maybe you do believe this is a price worth paying as you go on to mention the burning of fossil fuels and the fact that energy prices are tied in to world prices. Would that be yet another policy introduced following Green campaigning and one of the reasons why our older folk are subject to freezing to death in their own homes?

I for one find it simply appalling that we just brush all of this misery and death under the carpet in the name of Green and would welcome anything that may reverse this trend even Fracking.
John I have already said that I would not say there were no risks but neither I or you can say how big these risks are. What I have argued is that the benefits may outweigh the risks and I believe, given the evidence I have seen, they most defiantly will. If we did not do anything until we were sure there was no risk, or as you would like to see it even "potential risk" we would do nothing ever. What we do know is that tens of thousands die each year because they cannot heat their homes and that this situation is worsening. These are generally older less well off more vulnerable people. If what you are saying is that we should accept these many thousands of deaths each year just in case one person might get a headache as a result of Fracking then I cannot agree. How many people have died as a direct result of the effects of Fracking? It has been going on since 1947, over 60 years, there must be some statistics available that you can quote? I can only find reference to a few people who have felt a bit queasy and a load that look like they have jumped on the claims bandwagon. Even on campaigning sites against Fracking the only deaths I can see reported are those of a small number of Chickens, Dogs, Cows and Cats and even these may or may not have been as a result of the effects of Fracking. How do you justify this against 31000 excess human deaths in one year in England and Wales which do happen and the Government seems to think are a direct result of people being cold in winter. Maybe you do believe this is a price worth paying as you go on to mention the burning of fossil fuels and the fact that energy prices are tied in to world prices. Would that be yet another policy introduced following Green campaigning and one of the reasons why our older folk are subject to freezing to death in their own homes? I for one find it simply appalling that we just brush all of this misery and death under the carpet in the name of Green and would welcome anything that may reverse this trend even Fracking. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 17

6:50pm Thu 17 Jul 14

gwen4me says...

So far the "Green" revolution has been anything but. Many turbines have been replaced already, thus doubling their carbon footprint, and we have all seen how they sit around in weather like this barely turning. The attempts at producing energy from waves has suffered an even worse fate, the sea has a way of disposing of projects like these. The upshot of all this is that energy prices have gone through the roof to support these wasteful schemes, and many gas stations are now uneconomic because they only come on line when there is no wind. The government is having to offer compensation to gas generators to persuade them to stand by to fire up. It`s economic nonsense.

There is only one sustainable way of producing reliable power, and that is from tidal barrages. Not stupid propellors stuck in tide races, or nodding ducks, or any other Heath Robinson crackpot scheme, but dams across the estuaries with locks for ships and turbines that will produce energy in rotation 24 hours a day. It could have been done by now.
Who would object to this idea? The bird lobby.
So far the "Green" revolution has been anything but. Many turbines have been replaced already, thus doubling their carbon footprint, and we have all seen how they sit around in weather like this barely turning. The attempts at producing energy from waves has suffered an even worse fate, the sea has a way of disposing of projects like these. The upshot of all this is that energy prices have gone through the roof to support these wasteful schemes, and many gas stations are now uneconomic because they only come on line when there is no wind. The government is having to offer compensation to gas generators to persuade them to stand by to fire up. It`s economic nonsense. There is only one sustainable way of producing reliable power, and that is from tidal barrages. Not stupid propellors stuck in tide races, or nodding ducks, or any other Heath Robinson crackpot scheme, but dams across the estuaries with locks for ships and turbines that will produce energy in rotation 24 hours a day. It could have been done by now. Who would object to this idea? The bird lobby. gwen4me
  • Score: 18

7:26pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

I'm sure the protesters are well meaning but if they were realistic they would know that no government cares a whit about their protests.
I've lived through "Ban the Bomb", "Save the Whales" etc and I must admit it has left me rather cynical.
I'm sure the protesters are well meaning but if they were realistic they would know that no government cares a whit about their protests. I've lived through "Ban the Bomb", "Save the Whales" etc and I must admit it has left me rather cynical. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 17

10:51pm Thu 17 Jul 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

strangebuttrue and gwen4me have left John C exposed. No I don't mean as a naked cyclist but rather by his weak argument.
Think about all of the HGV's required to bring in building materials in order to build the thousands of houses on York's Green belt. (Local Plan) And then where is all the energy going to come from to power up these new homes? Giant wind turbines require thousands of cubic metres of concrete for their bases and that not only takes up valuable soak and drainage capacity but concrete also needs to be transported by HGV's.
We need this shale gas to keep our people warm in the winter and also for energy security to power our remaining industry. According to you peak oil gloom merchants, conventional gas is running out. Well here is a fresh supply, let's not waste it.
Our energy prices are higher than they need be because of Green taxation (Or Green Cr*p, according to our PM)
Today, Australia abolished carbon taxes, meaning lower bills for homes and industry alike. This gives them a competitive edge.
We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 and there doesn't look like being any in the foreseeable future. John, you can give us all the scare stories of Could, might, possibly and even probably using biased computer generated models. The people are getting wise to you and your Ed Miliband 2008 Climate Change Act, the most costly Act of Parliament in UK history. How many more people will freeze to death, put into fuel povery or see their job exported before you Greenies realise you have been had?
As a result we have all been had (Politicians, Trade Unions, Teachers and the media) and better late than never to stop the rot!
strangebuttrue and gwen4me have left John C exposed. No I don't mean as a naked cyclist but rather by his weak argument. Think about all of the HGV's required to bring in building materials in order to build the thousands of houses on York's Green belt. (Local Plan) And then where is all the energy going to come from to power up these new homes? Giant wind turbines require thousands of cubic metres of concrete for their bases and that not only takes up valuable soak and drainage capacity but concrete also needs to be transported by HGV's. We need this shale gas to keep our people warm in the winter and also for energy security to power our remaining industry. According to you peak oil gloom merchants, conventional gas is running out. Well here is a fresh supply, let's not waste it. Our energy prices are higher than they need be because of Green taxation (Or Green Cr*p, according to our PM) Today, Australia abolished carbon taxes, meaning lower bills for homes and industry alike. This gives them a competitive edge. We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 and there doesn't look like being any in the foreseeable future. John, you can give us all the scare stories of Could, might, possibly and even probably using biased computer generated models. The people are getting wise to you and your Ed Miliband 2008 Climate Change Act, the most costly Act of Parliament in UK history. How many more people will freeze to death, put into fuel povery or see their job exported before you Greenies realise you have been had? As a result we have all been had (Politicians, Trade Unions, Teachers and the media) and better late than never to stop the rot! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 1

8:46am Fri 18 Jul 14

mgoodman says...

> We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997

can you prove that? Which data set are you using?

Cowton & Way show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .012C per decade.

is this not statistically significant?

and the use of '97 as a start point is cherry-picking due to the massive El Nino of 97-98 . Cherry-picking data undermines your argument.
> We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 can you prove that? Which data set are you using? Cowton & Way [2103} [ http://onlinelibrary .wiley.com/doi/10.10 02/qj.2297/abstract ] show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .012C per decade. is this not statistically significant? and the use of '97 as a start point is cherry-picking due to the massive El Nino of 97-98 [which dumps energy from the ocean into the atmosphere]. Cherry-picking data undermines your argument. mgoodman
  • Score: -4

9:16am Fri 18 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

mgoodman wrote:
> We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997

can you prove that? Which data set are you using?

Cowton & Way show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .012C per decade.

is this not statistically significant?

and the use of '97 as a start point is cherry-picking due to the massive El Nino of 97-98 . Cherry-picking data undermines your argument.
1997-2012 is 15 years ie 1.5 decades. Hardly a worthwhile sample?
Can you explain how 0.012C (one hundredth of one degree every TEN years) is significant , statistically or any other way?
[quote][p][bold]mgoodman[/bold] wrote: > We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 can you prove that? Which data set are you using? Cowton & Way [2103} [ http://onlinelibrary .wiley.com/doi/10.10 02/qj.2297/abstract ] show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .012C per decade. is this not statistically significant? and the use of '97 as a start point is cherry-picking due to the massive El Nino of 97-98 [which dumps energy from the ocean into the atmosphere]. Cherry-picking data undermines your argument.[/p][/quote]1997-2012 is 15 years ie 1.5 decades. Hardly a worthwhile sample? Can you explain how 0.012C (one hundredth of one degree every TEN years) is significant , statistically or any other way? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 5

9:34am Fri 18 Jul 14

mgoodman says...

well, if 15 years isnt a worthwhile sample then the original quote from CAC of

"We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 "

is also worthless... i'm more than happy to discuss global temerature changes over a much longer period.. how about 1700 to now?

> Can you explain how 0.012C (one hundredth of one degree every TEN years) is significant , statistically or any other way?

sorry, typo

i should have written "Cowton & Way show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .12C per decade."

apologies.

i agree that 15 years isnt particulalry valuable, the time frame was selected by CAC...
well, if 15 years isnt a worthwhile sample then the original quote from CAC of "We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 " is also worthless... i'm more than happy to discuss global temerature changes over a much longer period.. how about 1700 to now? > Can you explain how 0.012C (one hundredth of one degree every TEN years) is significant , statistically or any other way? sorry, typo [ as should be obvious from what i wrote] i should have written "Cowton & Way show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .12C per decade." apologies. i agree that 15 years isnt particulalry valuable, the time frame was selected by CAC... mgoodman
  • Score: -3

12:14pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

mgoodman wrote:
well, if 15 years isnt a worthwhile sample then the original quote from CAC of

"We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 "

is also worthless... i'm more than happy to discuss global temerature changes over a much longer period.. how about 1700 to now?

> Can you explain how 0.012C (one hundredth of one degree every TEN years) is significant , statistically or any other way?

sorry, typo

i should have written "Cowton & Way show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .12C per decade."

apologies.

i agree that 15 years isnt particulalry valuable, the time frame was selected by CAC...
So if your view differs from CAC then the only thing you differ on is whether the figure is "significant"?
Let's say the trend continues for 100 years at 0.11-0.12C every 10 years, that will mean the Earth's climate will be warmer by 1.1 - 1.2 degrees C ?
Both you and CAC both agree that it is a "statistic" although to be pedantic it is actually a "projection" since you can't gather statistics on something which hasn't happened yet.
In 100 years everybody here will be long dead and I would "guess" that both Oil and Shale Gas reserves will be exhausted.*
So why is the figure "significant"?
*Checked this and the IME estimates that we have 40 years left
http://www.imeche.or
g/knowledge/themes/e
nergy/energy-supply/
fossil-energy/when-w
ill-oil-run-out
[quote][p][bold]mgoodman[/bold] wrote: well, if 15 years isnt a worthwhile sample then the original quote from CAC of "We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 " is also worthless... i'm more than happy to discuss global temerature changes over a much longer period.. how about 1700 to now? > Can you explain how 0.012C (one hundredth of one degree every TEN years) is significant , statistically or any other way? sorry, typo [ as should be obvious from what i wrote] i should have written "Cowton & Way show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .12C per decade." apologies. i agree that 15 years isnt particulalry valuable, the time frame was selected by CAC...[/p][/quote]So if your view differs from CAC then the only thing you differ on is whether the figure is "significant"? Let's say the trend continues for 100 years at 0.11-0.12C every 10 years, that will mean the Earth's climate will be warmer by 1.1 - 1.2 degrees C ? Both you and CAC both agree that it is a "statistic" although to be pedantic it is actually a "projection" since you can't gather statistics on something which hasn't happened yet. In 100 years everybody here will be long dead and I would "guess" that both Oil and Shale Gas reserves will be exhausted.* So why is the figure "significant"? *Checked this and the IME estimates that we have 40 years left http://www.imeche.or g/knowledge/themes/e nergy/energy-supply/ fossil-energy/when-w ill-oil-run-out Pinza-C55
  • Score: 5

12:35pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

mgoodman wrote:
well, if 15 years isnt a worthwhile sample then the original quote from CAC of

"We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 "

is also worthless... i'm more than happy to discuss global temerature changes over a much longer period.. how about 1700 to now?

> Can you explain how 0.012C (one hundredth of one degree every TEN years) is significant , statistically or any other way?

sorry, typo

i should have written "Cowton & Way show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .12C per decade."

apologies.

i agree that 15 years isnt particulalry valuable, the time frame was selected by CAC...
I addition, this "green" energy site reckons that we have Oil till 2052, Gas till 2060 and "if Coal is used to fill the gap left by Oil and Gas" then we will have Coal until 2088.
Their figures.
So, talking about extrapolating back to 1700 is meaningless because if that Green advocacy site is correct then by 2088 we will have exhausted all fossil fuels and will be releasing little CO2 from that source.
According to your quoted study the Earth's climate will have warmed by about 0.8C then and our contribution to it will be more or less over unless we burn all the vegetation too?
So what is the significance of the trend?
https://www.ecotrici
ty.co.uk/our-green-e
nergy/energy-indepen
dence/the-end-of-fos
sil-fuels
[quote][p][bold]mgoodman[/bold] wrote: well, if 15 years isnt a worthwhile sample then the original quote from CAC of "We know very well that there has been no statistical significant global warming since 1997 " is also worthless... i'm more than happy to discuss global temerature changes over a much longer period.. how about 1700 to now? > Can you explain how 0.012C (one hundredth of one degree every TEN years) is significant , statistically or any other way? sorry, typo [ as should be obvious from what i wrote] i should have written "Cowton & Way show the trend from 1997-2012 is 0.11 to .12C per decade." apologies. i agree that 15 years isnt particulalry valuable, the time frame was selected by CAC...[/p][/quote]I addition, this "green" energy site reckons that we have Oil till 2052, Gas till 2060 and "if Coal is used to fill the gap left by Oil and Gas" then we will have Coal until 2088. Their figures. So, talking about extrapolating back to 1700 is meaningless because if that Green advocacy site is correct then by 2088 we will have exhausted all fossil fuels and will be releasing little CO2 from that source. According to your quoted study the Earth's climate will have warmed by about 0.8C then and our contribution to it will be more or less over unless we burn all the vegetation too? So what is the significance of the trend? https://www.ecotrici ty.co.uk/our-green-e nergy/energy-indepen dence/the-end-of-fos sil-fuels Pinza-C55
  • Score: 6

4:11pm Fri 18 Jul 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

No statistical significant global warming since 1997 was quoted by Philip Jones after published e-mails showed that the CRU had been corrupting raw data and prevented sceptical research papers from being peer reviewed. (Pal reviewed)

Why choose 1700 as a start date? Well into the little Ice Age. How about 1100.
No statistical significant global warming since 1997 was quoted by Philip Jones after published e-mails showed that the CRU had been corrupting raw data and prevented sceptical research papers from being peer reviewed. (Pal reviewed) Why choose 1700 as a start date? Well into the little Ice Age. How about 1100. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 5

8:20pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Deafening silence from mgoodman.
Deafening silence from mgoodman. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 5

11:26pm Fri 18 Jul 14

wallman says...

why do the so called 'greens' always think they are right
why do the so called 'greens' always think they are right wallman
  • Score: 5

12:19am Sat 19 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

wallman wrote:
why do the so called 'greens' always think they are right
Because it is popular to be green and other people tell them they are right.
When you point out to them that 0.12 C rise PER DECADE is a tiny, tiny amount and that according to their own figures we will have exhausted all fossil fuels by 2088, it isn't on their "script" so they don't know how to react.
There's a thread for "An Inconvenient Truth" on the Internet Movie Database and one of these people spoke at great length with great authority as if he was an expert on climate change. I asked him what his qualifications relative to climate change were and after some huffing and puffing he replied "I won't tell you here, I will PM you".
His qualifications were - he works in a park!
It really is as silly as that.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: why do the so called 'greens' always think they are right[/p][/quote]Because it is popular to be green and other people tell them they are right. When you point out to them that 0.12 C rise PER DECADE is a tiny, tiny amount and that according to their own figures we will have exhausted all fossil fuels by 2088, it isn't on their "script" so they don't know how to react. There's a thread for "An Inconvenient Truth" on the Internet Movie Database and one of these people spoke at great length with great authority as if he was an expert on climate change. I asked him what his qualifications relative to climate change were and after some huffing and puffing he replied "I won't tell you here, I will PM you". His qualifications were - he works in a park! It really is as silly as that. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 6

2:27pm Sat 19 Jul 14

mgoodman says...

youve all convinced me..

i'll stop worrying about arctic sea ice decline and the effects that has the jet stream and weather patterns, i wont worry about californian droughts, or the state of farming in the mid-west, or the unprecedented fires in NWT, or Siberia, or the floods in china, or serbia earlier in the year, or the long-term drought in northern syria and iraq.

i wont worry that we've had two once-in-a-decade typhoons 8 months apart, or that we recently witnessed the most energetic storm ever seen, i'm not going to worry about methane spikes over 2200ppb.

i'm certainly not going to worry about the future, who cares that we have another 20-30 years of warming just from the greenhouse gases that weve already put in the atmosphere, and who cares if we add more? if theres a problem, let our children sort it out.

only a fool would wonder about food production in 20 or 30 years, or political destabilisation caused by hunger, there's certainly no lessons to be learned from the arab spring or the rise of isis.

all the effects attributed to climate change are just weather variability. the science is wrong.

i'm off to the pub.
youve all convinced me.. i'll stop worrying about arctic sea ice decline and the effects that has the jet stream and weather patterns, i wont worry about californian droughts, or the state of farming in the mid-west, or the unprecedented fires in NWT, or Siberia, or the floods in china, or serbia earlier in the year, or the long-term drought in northern syria and iraq. i wont worry that we've had two once-in-a-decade typhoons 8 months apart, or that we recently witnessed the most energetic storm ever seen, i'm not going to worry about methane spikes over 2200ppb. i'm certainly not going to worry about the future, who cares that we have another 20-30 years of warming just from the greenhouse gases that weve already put in the atmosphere, and who cares if we add more? if theres a problem, let our children sort it out. only a fool would wonder about food production in 20 or 30 years, or political destabilisation caused by hunger, there's certainly no lessons to be learned from the arab spring or the rise of isis. all the effects attributed to climate change are just weather variability. the science is wrong. i'm off to the pub. mgoodman
  • Score: -4

5:52pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

mgoodman wrote:
youve all convinced me..

i'll stop worrying about arctic sea ice decline and the effects that has the jet stream and weather patterns, i wont worry about californian droughts, or the state of farming in the mid-west, or the unprecedented fires in NWT, or Siberia, or the floods in china, or serbia earlier in the year, or the long-term drought in northern syria and iraq.

i wont worry that we've had two once-in-a-decade typhoons 8 months apart, or that we recently witnessed the most energetic storm ever seen, i'm not going to worry about methane spikes over 2200ppb.

i'm certainly not going to worry about the future, who cares that we have another 20-30 years of warming just from the greenhouse gases that weve already put in the atmosphere, and who cares if we add more? if theres a problem, let our children sort it out.

only a fool would wonder about food production in 20 or 30 years, or political destabilisation caused by hunger, there's certainly no lessons to be learned from the arab spring or the rise of isis.

all the effects attributed to climate change are just weather variability. the science is wrong.

i'm off to the pub.
Welcome back mgoodman.
Personally I am not trying to convince you, simply asking questions. I've asked how 0.12 C temperature rise every 10 years is significant and not got an answer. I've pointed out that even global warming advocates say that by 2088 we will have no fossil fuels to burn and I have added that means that the human input to CO2 emissions will be at an end, and you have not replied. Fossil fuels are laid down on a scale of millions of years so after 2088 that will be it, for good.
As for the rest of your post it mainly concerns weather. If I say "it poured with rain all last year" they will reply "weather isn't the same as climate".
If I say "we had a really hot year last year" they will reply "ah, that's climate change".
"who cares that we have another 20-30 years of warming just from the greenhouse gases that we've already put in the atmosphere, and who cares if we add more?"
According to Cowton and Way (your figures) 30 years means 0.36 C temperature increase?
And in 74 years we'll be putting no more or little CO2 into the atmosphere?
"if theres a problem, let our children sort it out. only a fool would wonder about food production in 20 or 30 years, or political destabilisation caused by hunger"
I don't think I am a fool but I think it is futile to wonder what the political state of the world or it's food supply will be in 20-30 years.
" there's certainly no lessons to be learned from the arab spring or the rise of isis"
Wow.
What does middle eastern unrest and the rise of a jihadist political movement have to do with climate change? I'm all ears.
"i'm off to the pub."
Me too. I will wear a short sleeve shirt and take an umbrella so that whatever happens I can adapt to it.
Enjoy your pint.
[quote][p][bold]mgoodman[/bold] wrote: youve all convinced me.. i'll stop worrying about arctic sea ice decline and the effects that has the jet stream and weather patterns, i wont worry about californian droughts, or the state of farming in the mid-west, or the unprecedented fires in NWT, or Siberia, or the floods in china, or serbia earlier in the year, or the long-term drought in northern syria and iraq. i wont worry that we've had two once-in-a-decade typhoons 8 months apart, or that we recently witnessed the most energetic storm ever seen, i'm not going to worry about methane spikes over 2200ppb. i'm certainly not going to worry about the future, who cares that we have another 20-30 years of warming just from the greenhouse gases that weve already put in the atmosphere, and who cares if we add more? if theres a problem, let our children sort it out. only a fool would wonder about food production in 20 or 30 years, or political destabilisation caused by hunger, there's certainly no lessons to be learned from the arab spring or the rise of isis. all the effects attributed to climate change are just weather variability. the science is wrong. i'm off to the pub.[/p][/quote]Welcome back mgoodman. Personally I am not trying to convince you, simply asking questions. I've asked how 0.12 C temperature rise every 10 years is significant and not got an answer. I've pointed out that even global warming advocates say that by 2088 we will have no fossil fuels to burn and I have added that means that the human input to CO2 emissions will be at an end, and you have not replied. Fossil fuels are laid down on a scale of millions of years so after 2088 that will be it, for good. As for the rest of your post it mainly concerns weather. If I say "it poured with rain all last year" they will reply "weather isn't the same as climate". If I say "we had a really hot year last year" they will reply "ah, that's climate change". "who cares that we have another 20-30 years of warming just from the greenhouse gases that we've already put in the atmosphere, and who cares if we add more?" According to Cowton and Way (your figures) 30 years means 0.36 C temperature increase? And in 74 years we'll be putting no more or little CO2 into the atmosphere? "if theres a problem, let our children sort it out. only a fool would wonder about food production in 20 or 30 years, or political destabilisation caused by hunger" I don't think I am a fool but I think it is futile to wonder what the political state of the world or it's food supply will be in 20-30 years. " there's certainly no lessons to be learned from the arab spring or the rise of isis" Wow. What does middle eastern unrest and the rise of a jihadist political movement have to do with climate change? I'm all ears. "i'm off to the pub." Me too. I will wear a short sleeve shirt and take an umbrella so that whatever happens I can adapt to it. Enjoy your pint. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 2

11:46am Sun 20 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

If anybody is still interested this video (link below) is worth an hour of your day. Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist so can reasonably be expected to know what he is talking about. He is not funded by any oil company.

https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=-sHg3Zzt
DAw
If anybody is still interested this video (link below) is worth an hour of your day. Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist so can reasonably be expected to know what he is talking about. He is not funded by any oil company. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=-sHg3Zzt DAw Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

2:41pm Sun 20 Jul 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Just a quick point or two on mgoodman's last post.

Hunger and even starvation through lack of food is nothing much to do with a warming climate, if it happens. It is about over population. Lots more people, simple as that. The political destabilisation will come when the people find out just how much has been wasted on this warming scam.
As for crops in the US of A. Did you know that the 1930's were the US' hottest decade. Check out the Dust Bowl! But that was before Algore...
Just a quick point or two on mgoodman's last post. Hunger and even starvation through lack of food is nothing much to do with a warming climate, if it happens. It is about over population. Lots more people, simple as that. The political destabilisation will come when the people find out just how much has been wasted on this warming scam. As for crops in the US of A. Did you know that the 1930's were the US' hottest decade. Check out the Dust Bowl! But that was before Algore... ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 2

8:20pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Another interesting video where Tim Yeo (no scientific credentials whatsoever) tries to argue with an atmospheric physicist and comes unstuck.
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=HUT7hLtF
XIk
Another interesting video where Tim Yeo (no scientific credentials whatsoever) tries to argue with an atmospheric physicist and comes unstuck. https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=HUT7hLtF XIk Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree