Jump to content

 

 

Fracking Schmacking


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Bill said:

Purely in the interest of being able to gauge the credibility of the views you express with such authority, perhaps you could confirm to the board how much personal experience you have of the oil and gas industry in general and fracking operations in particular. For example, how many fracking operations have you actually planned or worked on? Or do you perhaps work in the environmental protection arena? Or perhaps your expertise lies in a more academic profile. From which university did you actually receive your degree or doctorate in geology or geophysics? It will be interesting to see how our relevant qualifications and experience stack up and I'm sure you're itching to show everyone how it is you know so much. Looking forward to it. ?

I don't need to be any of the above to challenge such weak defensive arguments from someone who does claim to have relevant experience.

 

Surely the real issue when talking about credibility of views is that despite your experience, you can't lay out a convincing argument, nor subsequently, when challenged, defend it. Instead and as Stewarty has pointed out, despite your experience, the predictable MO is to avoid substance and look to discredit/attack the individiual.

 

If only the wastewater was as transparent !!

 

Edited by buster.
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thinker said:

I think you've read something into the word "motive" that I didn't mean. Let's use a different word: rationale.

 

What's your rationale for choosing to disregard the opinion of 97% of scientists, on a scientific question, when you yourself aren't a scientist?

 

I assume you wouldn't typically (as a matter of course in your daily life) adopt such a sceptical stance when presented with a strongly supported expert opinion. Why have you chosen to do so in this instance? Are you being a contrarion? A conspiracy theorist? Or is it that you find the implications unpleasant and scepticism more comfortable? Whatever it is, I suggest you're being irrational.

 

 As I previously stated the world has heated up and cooled down and water levels have risen and fallen intermittently since it's creation and I don't believe we've been on this planet long enough to know if what's happening is part of the normal cycle or not.

 

I do on occasion reject the advice of "experts" in the course of my daily life, I once rejected the very expensive opinion of one of the country's most eminent QC's (he later became a well known judge and Lord) after he assured me I would not receive a higher settlement offer, I informed him I'd take my chances in court and low and behold a mere 2 hours after my decision I received a higher offer.

 

Expert scientists decreed Thalidomide a suitable drug to combat morning sickness, experts designed and built the Boeing 737 MAX yada yada yada.

 

I'm neither a contrarian nor conspiracy theorist but nor do I subscribe to groupthink or feel it necessary to always run with the herd.

 

You were born at the wrong time 1690's Salem, 1490's Spain or 1930's Germany would have been more suited to your thought process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, buster. said:

I'd obviously agree with you on the  "...in favour of dumping less shit in our atmosphere and in our seas..." and ideally expand on that.

I'd also agree with something else you said a few weeks ago when talking about capitalism, which was along the lines of...we'll end up exploiting ourselves out of existence...

 

I think we mostly want the same thing but the problem is how do we get to that point given all the uncertainties, confusion and how powerful and concentrated many of the vested interests have become in and around politics and the media. Are we on a course for more 21st century political leadership....'aw fcuk it, we'll deal with it when it happens, meanwhile we'll just be grossly irresponsible and carry on regardless'.

 

I think both the examples you quote of me are just basic common sense don't you ?

 

The thing with vested interests is that all sides have them, the hydrocarbon side theirs and the green side have theirs and I don't think the issue is as simple as all hyrocarbon = bad all green = good.

 

4 hours ago, buster. said:

If we are contributing to the current heating up the planet (of which there is little to no doubt) then surely it follows we should look to do something about it.

 

You say that you remain to be convinced, ok but wouldn't it be better to take timely and proportional action in case ?

 

Look I'm all for have cleaner air to breathe etc but it doesn't automatically follow that what we're being sold as being the solution actually is take a look at the utter and total farce of the greening of the Drax power station which has become a bigger carbon offender since switching from coal to biomass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, buster. said:

I don't need to be any of the above to challenge such weak defensive arguments from someone who does claim to have relevant experience.

True, but to challenge effectively and demonstrate the weakness  of Bill’s arguments you need more knowledge than I suspect you have.

 

It seems to me that if you howk down into the earth, set off explosions and scoosh water about, you’re bound to make it shoogle a bit but, as you will have gathered, I have zero knowledge about the strength of the explosion, the pressure of the water or the absorption capabilities of different strata of the earth. 

 

So, if anyone with the knowledge can back up my unschooled notions in understandable language, I’d be pleased to read it. But it’s not enough to say Bill is wrong because emotionally I think he might be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, buster. said:

I don't need to be any of the above to challenge such weak defensive arguments from someone who does claim to have relevant experience.

 

Surely the real issue when talking about credibility of views is that despite your experience, you can't lay out a convincing argument, nor subsequently, when challenged, defend it. Instead and as Stewarty has pointed out, despite your experience, the predictable MO is to avoid substance and look to discredit/attack the individiual.

 

If only the wastewater was as transparent !!

 

I'll take your petulance as confirmation you have neither experience the qualifications to justify your views on this. Wait ... maybe you're one of those graduates of the famous University of Life. You know, the one where "feelings" are so much more important than facts, where posturing replaces debate and where armchair expertise is king. Or perhaps it's just good old fashioned windbaggery? Am I getting close?

 

Maybe best just to stick to things you understand. Otherwise the only people who won't laugh at you are those who know as little as you. 

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

True, but to challenge effectively and demonstrate the weakness  of Bill’s arguments you need more knowledge than I suspect you have.

 

It seems to me that if you howk down into the earth, set off explosions and scoosh water about, you’re bound to make it shoogle a bit but, as you will have gathered, I have zero knowledge about the strength of the explosion, the pressure of the water or the absorption capabilities of different strata of the earth. 

 

So, if anyone with the knowledge can back up my unschooled notions in understandable language, I’d be pleased to read it. But it’s not enough to say Bill is wrong because emotionally I think he might be.

But I'm not wrong. There's no shortage of things in this world about which I know as little as Buster, which is diddly squat ... but this isn't one of them. I might not be a go-to expert in fracking but the best part of 20 years in oilfield ops, including drilling and well completions, a degree in geology and currently taking a second degree in geophysics at least gives me enough insight to back up what I've said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, forlanssister said:

I'm neither a contrarian nor conspiracy theorist but nor do I subscribe to groupthink or feel it necessary to always run with the herd.

 

You were born at the wrong time 1690's Salem, 1490's Spain or 1930's Germany would have been more suited to your thought process.

You're being a tad melodramatic here. I'm not demanding you change your opinion or suggesting that you should be punished for your point of view. All I'm saying is that the train of thought you've followed to reach your conclusion on this matter isn't very scientific or rational.

 

You are, of course, completely free to be as unscientific and irrational as you wish. In fact, you stand with the majority of the world's population if you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thinker said:

You're being a tad melodramatic here. I'm not demanding you change your opinion or suggesting that you should be punished for your point of view. All I'm saying is that the train of thought you've followed to reach your conclusion on this matter isn't very scientific or rational.

 

You are, of course, completely free to be as unscientific and irrational as you wish. In fact, you stand with the majority of the world's population if you do.

You questioned my "motive" for no other reason than I hold a different view from you that's about irrational as it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

You questioned my "motive" for no other reason than I hold a different view from you that's about irrational as it gets.

No, I questioned it because you hold a different view from 97% of people who've studied the matter much more closely than you have.

 

Let's imagine you presented a newspaper article that showed 97% of economists think that Scotland would be less prosperous if it became independent. If I was to counter by saying that, in spite of that, I had decided, in my capacity as not-an-economist, to believe that Scotland would be more prosperous if independent, would you commend me for my open-mindedness? I think you might suspect that I had a preconceived notion of what I wanted to be true that was clouding my judgement.

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.