Point 2: The earth is presently showing worrying signs of climate instability primarily brought about, the climate scientists say, by the combustion of hydrocarbons by human beings.
Point 3: All of the hydrocarbons that are expected to be extracted from the Great South Basin will be combusted by human beings, adding to the potentially catastrophic climate instability that is already jeopardising the lives of millions of people around the globe.
Point 4: Anyone joining these dots and warning of the foolishness of drilling the Great South Basin is set to be vilified and harangued by a bevvy of foolish souls who believe that somehow, extracting the hydrocarbons in the Great South Basin is a good idea.
SOF.
10 comments:
Point 2 is purely supposition.
Point 3 - first half correct, second half purely supposition based on an unproven theory that continues yo fail to deliver with proof. Predictions provided 20 years ago based on an unproven hypothesis have failed to eventuate. Excuses continue to emanate from those with a vested interest in big government money about how ths is another example of 'x' (whatever x may be at the time. Very similar to how witch doctors used to prey on the uninitiated in less enlightened times.
Point 4 - calling those who point out there are no dots to join 'foolish' says more of your intractable belief in a new religion than anything else.
Paranormal, can I ask what the big payoff is for we "climate change believers"? We are against unnecessary and frankly dangerous pollution for third quarter profits sake. We are working for a sustainable and manageable world.
My family has gas hot water, we use LPG for cooking. We have a car which burns oil, and there will be oil based products around our house. We are not perfect, we have never claimed to be. We are working on what we can to help bring about sustainability.
Did you read today's Southland Times editorial? The project managers give the 200 million dollar project what, a 30% chance of success? It's some 1400M, nearly one and a half kilometres down? The area is known for rough conditions, and who knows where the imported workers will be based.
What do we gain, a 30% chance for a little bit more gas?
What do we have to lose? At best, further dramatic pollution, climate change acceleration? At worst, a huge blowout, and our islands are surrounded with toxic goop? We are a nation that boasts to the other 200 of being "100% pure", yet here in Southland our waterways are 89% "poor" or "very poor". Why take a colossal gamble for a 30% chance of minor success?
Why would you choose to be for this oil/gas exploration? To go with the hydrocarbon flow? Because you will benefit in your shares going up? Because you "don't like being told what to do"?
I'm thinking of Robert Guytons new grandson, what kind of world will he live in? Why wreck up the joint and ruin his future?
Heck, I'm only 26, I would like a few more years six feet vertical before I'm six feet horizontal! ;-P
Calling my understanding of science 'religion' is pretty insulting on a personal level, para. Surely science is the antithesis of religion?
The big payoff JW is for those in the thrall of BigGovernment money. Those riding the Climate Change bandwagon.
The bigger cost to society is that it is detracting from the real problems that vie for funding. Just imagine if we spent the same amount of money on solving issues around nitrogen in waterways or possums as we waste on global warming?
My comment was about RG's linking fossil fuels to the AGW religion. But lets look at the issues you raise logically:
I was surprised to learn from a retired Shell person that was involved in the set up of Maui that Shell are going to use a similar set up. that means a fix platform - yes that's fixed to the sea bed. A floating platform could be susceptible to rough conditions that a fixed one will largely overcome.
You seem concerned about the 30% chance of success. Why is that? If Shell wish to invest the money on those odds, then good on them. If you had the same odds in lotto then I'm sure you'd take them.
There is no proof that CO2 'accelerates climate change'. The models are wrong. CO2 has doubled in the last 20 years with no 'acceleration' of climate change.
You have used emotional rhetoric tyopical of the left with little or no foundation in fact. If there is a blowout - there is no 'toxic gooop' that will surround our islands.
I think of RG's grandson and suggest that he will be far better off in the future with Shell prospecting than not!
Thinking
RG - yes science should be the antithesis of religion. But AGW or Climate Change or whatever it is now, is not science. There is a huge leap of faith from an unproven hypothesis that continues to be disproved almost on a daily basis. In that respect climate change is the new religion. At the very least it has morphed into a political movement not related to science.
Good science requires the continuing testing and repeatable experiments and observations that consistently return the same results to prove an hypothesis. Thats the bit thats missing in the CC 'science'. The theories do not withstand rigorous testing or observations.
As an aside there's a fantastic BBC documentary on Protestant Revolution that developed the way modern science is conducted with its constant questioning and testing. Interesting that it took a change in religion to develop science as we know it - but that is an aside.
Surely, para, all hypotheses are unproven???
Yours presumably is that there is no AGW. I'm guessing that's unproven.
I imagine the argument earlier on against the climate scientists was, "you can't accurately predict what the climate will do". Now that it's shown that the deatils are indeed difficult to predict, you're claiming that their predictions were wrong! Classic!
I find the explanaitions: 'the oceans are dragging-down the heat, thus creating a flatish surface reading', and 'there will be cold events as well as heat events' quite acceptable. I wonder why you do not?
An ice breaker gets caught in ice, so AGW is a scam??
The anti-AGW people say, you can't claim AGW because of extreme heat events such as have occurred recently, but seem happy to use cold events as evidence that AGW isn't happening - really odd!
Interesting how you always spin off RG. You really should be in politics - oh that's right you are.
Yes - all hypotheses are unproven. Why do you think AGW, climate change or whatever it is now is proven? Or is it a religion that doesn't require proof - consistent repeatable proof. you know like science requires.
I don't think AGW is proven, paranormal, no matter how many times you claim I do. I know that statistically, the likelihood of what the IPCC scientists have predicted being correct is very high. I know too that the likelihood of what the smattering of nay-saying scientists are saying being correct is very small indeed. You aregue for the tiny opponents to the AGW hypothesis, but in my view, you are backing a 3-legger, statistically and common sensically (sic).
Damnit RG, stop changing the topic by using mainstream facts! You're just like the Protestants of 1640!!!
So the naysayers are a small but vocal minority and the all knowing climate scientists at the IPCC are statistically likely to be correct? Crikey, there's some blind faith for you. Particularly when you consider how much they've got wrong, deceived, and quite frankly lied about to date.
So how does this statistically stack up: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observations-comparison-part-iii/
Clearly Judith Curry is one of a smattering of nay sayers - regardless of her qualifications and accuracy....
Post a Comment