Jump to content

 

 

Fracking Schmacking


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Or an open mind, God forbid anyone has one of those.

Do you have an open mind? It seems like you're pretty determined to ignore the balance of probabilities (and to do so from a position of limited expertise).

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thinker said:

Do you have an open mind? It seems like you're pretty determined to ignore the balance of probabilities (and to do so from a position of limited expertise).

Balance of probabilities but not beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

Hope I'm never in front of a jury on which you serve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Thinker said:

If the point you're trying to make is that scientists occasionally get it wrong; well, yes they do - but rarely do ninety-odd % of them buy into the wrong theory at the same time.

I'm not sure that it is rare.

 

Think about all the theories that have been superseded by other theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Balance of probabilities but not beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

Hope I'm never in front of a jury on which you serve.

The evidence does support climate change beyond any reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt, clearly - but then, you're under no obligation to be reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Business Insider called for comment from Thomas Gernon because of this scientific paper

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6381/1251.abstract

 

In it he confirms my point, above, that seismicity in Oklahoma is largely a function of poorly planned disposal of wastewater. Wastewater disposal isn't fracking. It is entirely possible to dispose of wastewater safely and regulations now call for disposal injection to avoid major faults that can lubricated and triggered as is the case in parts of Oklahoma. Even better is the more costly alternative of treating wastewater and returning it to nature or re-using for future fracking operations, thus avoiding the problem altogether. Like many new activities, initial efforts were often rushed and conducted in ignorance but lessons can and are being learned. There is a very real problem in Oklahoma that's a legacy of what's now known to be improper practice. That is largely irrelevant in any debate about fracking taking place today where there is proper planning and compliance management. 

 

Quoting this paper by this particular author confirms to me that many people should avoid getting out of their depth but are probably too opinionated to do so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Thinker said:

The evidence does support climate change beyond any reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt, clearly - but then, you're under no obligation to be reasonable.

So it is in fact you that has a closed mind not me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another classic, Bill.

 

http://theconversation.com/earthquakes-from-the-oil-and-gas-industry-are-plaguing-oklahoma-heres-a-way-to-reduce-them-91044

 

That'll be the same Thomaa Gernon who said that "the science of saltwater disposal can provide some practicable solutions, and our study is just the first step. We need the support of researchers, operators and regulators, to ensure this approach has a lasting impact on reducing man-made earthquakes." In relation to commentary around ways to reduce the impact of fracking and the established link to earthquakes in Oklahoma. 

 

 

Surely the operative argument here is that this has arisen due to fracking.  I don't need to be a scientist to draw that conclusion.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, forlanssister said:

So it is in fact you that has a closed mind not me?

Nope. As I said, the evidence doesn't support climate change beyond all doubt.

 

But what motive could you possibly have for choosing to disregard the opinion of 97% of scientists, on a scientific question, when you yourself aren't a scientist - other than a desire for the unpleasant implications of what they're saying not to be true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thinker said:

Nope. As I said, the evidence doesn't support climate change beyond all doubt.

 

But what motive could you possibly have for choosing to disregard the opinion of 97% of scientists, on a scientific question, when you yourself aren't a scientist - other than a desire for the unpleasant implications of what they're saying not to be true?

I wish it weren't true but given the concensus I have to accept that it is. That's a massive concensus rarely seen in any field. There's more agreement on this than on our current theory of gravity yet I don't see every Tom, Dick and Harry non scientist thinking they're qualified to pontifcate on gravity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.