Politics

“UK fracking is good for the environment”, says climate minster

The new climate minister said today that developing UK shale gas would be good for the environment, the economy and jobs.

Graham Stuart MP, 12 October 2022
Photo: Parliament Live TV

Graham Stuart told MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee:

“producing oil and gas domestically creates only half the emissions around the production and transport of importing liquified natural gas [LNG] from around the world.

“In terms of jobs, the economy and the environment, clearly domestic production is a good and we should all get behind that.”

He also said it would free the UK from what he called the “vicissitudes” of the global energy system.

Mr Stuart admitted that the government, which lifted the moratorium in fracking in England last month, did not know whether UK shale gas was economically viable.

The committee heard that the British Geological Survey had not updated its 2013 estimate of 822-2,281 trillion cubic feet. More recent research in 2019 estimated there could be 198 trillion cubic feet, MPs were told.

But Mr Stuart, who has been in post just over a month, said:

“Not to examine and gather the data on the economic viability, on the seismic and other potential issues …. would be irresponsible.

“If it [fracking] can be done with local support, if it can be done with lower emissions than imports, if the regulator’s stringent requirements can be fulfilled and it is economically viable, on what rational basis would you not want to do more exploratory wells and get the data?”

Britain produces about 45% of its gas demand. About 38% comes from Norway by pipeline. Gas is also piped from the Netherlands and Belgium. LNG comes from 12 different countries, including the US, Qatar, Peru, Angola and Russia.

The minister said the UK would remain a net importer of gas and would continue to burn it until 2050. Total domestic production, despite any new shale gas, would decline faster than the rate set by the International Energy Agency to meet climate targets, he said.

Mr Stuart told the committee:

“Our production is not going to spill over into the global market. Our production is going to fall faster than is required globally and we are going to continue to need oil and gas.

The Climate Change Committee, the government’s climate advisor, warned in 2016 that significant shale gas developments were inconsistent with UK carbon budgets unless three conditions were met. The shale gas industry is currently lobbying to remove the third test, which required production emissions from shale gas to be offset through reductions elsewhere in the UK economy.

Environmental Audit Committee, 12 October 2022
Photo: Parliament Live TV

MPs also asked Mr Stuart about financial support for communities living near shale gas sites.

He said the department was looking into “various models” that recognised that “communities should benefit financially where there was disruption”.

“We are working out precisely what should be put in place.”

But he said:

“We’ll be looking to the industry to work closely with local communities and we will be considering the support seen for local projects is included when considering future proposals, as well as what kind of community benefits can be put in place.”

Asked whether any legislation would be needed to implement the change in policy on shale gas, he said:

“We are examining various aspects of this and we [later corrected to I] are not clear whether any legislation is required.”

26 replies »

  1. So factually incorrect it’s embarrassing. For a starter we have not imported any gas from Russia for months. And repeating the JRM nonsense that developing UK shale gas would be good for the environment does not alter scientific fact. To avoid climate breakdown new reserves of gas and oil should not be extracted. The fugitive emissions, millions of gallons of water used and toxic wastewater produced, traffic, air pollution, noise and light pollution, how can any of this be good for the environment?

  2. Well, KatT, you appear to be very supportive of Putin’s use of energy as a weapon! “New reserves of gas should not be extracted.” Those are your words, repeated from other sources. You are embarrassingly incorrect.

    Currently new reserves of gas are having to be extracted as other reserves (Russian) are not available. (See weekly rig counts in USA as an example, see reports from Rystad regarding LNG exports etc. etc.)
    Please explain how you know that no other reserves of gas currently available and used will all continue to be available to be used in UK. Pipelines from Norway? Secure? Well, I recall that argument being made for Nord Stream 1 and 2.

  3. Not sure how “embarrassing” this will be for KatT, as the words she uses – “New reserves of gas should not be extracted” – is the habitual expression of the views of an overwhelming majority of objective scientists
    Then to the attack – “….you appear to be very supportive of Putin’s use of energy as a weapon!”. Do explain how, Martyn, and why you should align KatT with Putin’s behaviour.
    Has KatT denied that new reserves of gas are being extracted? If not, then paragraph 2 wastes yet more space. The facts and figures are not needed to support what is currently known by all DoD readers. I’m not sure that KatT would agree with the obligation present in “are having to be extracted”, but that’s not for me to say.
    KatT has not made the claim you imply in your “Please explain how you know that no other reserves of gas currently available and used will all continue to be available to be used in UK. ” (Notwithstanding the incoherence of this claim) you suggest that she has, and that she has turned it into an argument – “I recall that argument being made for Nord Stream 1 and 2”.

    So there we have it again. Our resident Don Quixote has, on the basis of two of KatT’s sentences, set up new windmills – KatT’s “embarrassment”, her support for Putin’s behaviour, her (implied) denial or ignorance that new reserves of gas are being extracted, her knowledge that *no other reserves of gas currently available and used will all continue to be available to be used in UK. ” – at which to tilt.

    To what possible end? And what a waste of space, time and effort! To cap it all, Kat T’s main points – approximately four fifths of her argument – are, of course, completely ignored. If you wish to defend Stuart, Martyn, then take up his (or indeed KatT’s) points and prove (or disprove) them.

    • [Edited by moderator] Since it has been established that – https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10486731/Biden-promises-STOP-Nord-Stream-2-Putin-invades.html
      ‘President Joe Biden confirmed there will be no Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Russia invades the Ukraine although he did not detail how that would be accomplished.
      Biden met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the White House.
      ‘If Russia invades – that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again – then there will no longer be Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it,’ Biden said.
      But Biden didn’t say how – the pipeline stretches 764 miles from Russia across Baltic states and into Germany
      ‘I promise you we’ll be able to do it,’ the president said.
      Scholz wouldn’t mention Nord Stream 2 by name but only said U.S. and Germany are ‘united’ when it comes to Russian aggression.
      ‘We’re acting together,’ the chancellor said. ‘We’re absolutely united and we will not take different steps’
      Similar reports are as follows – https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-ukraine-there-will-be-no-nord-stream-2-biden-says-2022-02-07/
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/27/nord-stream-2-gas-pipeline-wont-open-if-russia-invades-ukraine-says-us
      Also there is this report – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/27/nord-stream-2-gas-pipeline-wont-open-if-russia-invades-ukraine-says-us
      Whereas it has yet to be established why Vladimir Putin would wreck his own pipeline, when all he would need to would have been to shut off the valves.
      It is a mistake to assume that there is only one aggressor to any conflict, regardless of how escalated it has become on all sides.
      Are there any innocents in this conflict?
      Yes, the unwilling civilians trapped into political expediency and seen as nothing more than collateral damage.
      Are there any governmental innocents in this conflict?
      No, you only need to look at Russia in Chechnya and Ukraine, Israel in Palestine, Saudi Arabia in Yemen. The United States and all guilty governments including the United Kingdom in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia and the blood soaked list goes on and on.
      Sanctions against Russia, quickly turned to ‘Lethal Aid’ where billions in deadly weapons are salted to Ukraine (most of which never reach their supposed intended destination). When the unwilling poor in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, have been successively and criminally squeezes of available funds to either heat their homes or feed their children by our own governments.
      [Edited by moderator]

      • OMG.

        Nord Stream 2 is not delivering gas to Europe. That gas is not available. That has produced an issue around supply of gas to Europe. Other sources of gas are being obtained for Europe currently. Facts. Much more expensive gas. Fact.

        Where on earth did I make any statement as to how and why Nord Stream 2 is not delivering gas?

        If you want to make a point about the insecurity of energy supply that Nord Stream 2 always offered, fill your boots.

        So, YYLee, what was all that conspiracy theory about? You obviously have some sort of axe to grind, and that is your choice, but don’t try and incorporate me into that as if I am raising a conspiracy theory. You wanted to do that. You have done it. Just grind your own axe.

        • Absolute nonsense, Martin Frederick Collyer. [Edited by moderator] the conspiracy theories originated from you, not anyone else. I can prove everything I say. You cannot and have not ever done. I suggest that you read what you write in your own posts before you leap into fact free emotional diatribes.
          You very clearly accused Kat T of (and I quote your own words) * Well, KatT, you appear to be very supportive of Putin’s use of energy as a weapon!*. And then – *Please explain how you know that no other reserves of gas currently available and used will all continue to be available to be used in UK. Pipelines from Norway? Secure? Well, I recall that argument being made for Nord Stream 1 and 2. * That is a conspiracy theory. It is yourself who exploded your own conspiracy theory with your own words.
          Try and wriggle out of it if you wish, which, come to think of it, is all you ever do, but your own post denotes a blatant conspiracy theory in your own words.

          Whereas I have shown you the linked evidence, that it was not ‘Putin’ that used * energy as a weapon!* as you put it, at least, not in this case. But that from what was reported at the most reliable available sources, that it was Joe Biden who very clearly said, * ‘If Russia invades – that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again – then there will no longer be Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it,’ Biden said* So that proves that it was Joe Biden who initiated the @weaponisation of energy.’ *
          * But Biden didn’t say how – the pipeline stretches 764 miles from Russia across Baltic states and into Germany
          ‘I promise you we’ll be able to do it,’ the president said. *
          That was way back in February 2022. Once again, I challenge you to explain away the recorded facts. Are you suggesting that Joe Biden was joking over such an important subject? That would be more redolent of your own fracking fanatical practices.

          On the same day as the Nordstream 1 and 2 pipelines were sabotaged, the Norway, Poland, pipeline was opened. Coincidence or conspiracy theory? Who precisely sabotaged the Nordstream pipelines, will probably never be known. The only available evidence was from the Joe Biden speech. Which appears to be the only clue that has so far emerged from any side in this insanely escalated conflict with both the reason to carry out the sabotage, and the declared threat to do so. Is that what you call a conspiracy theory? Then what is your evidence? Will you be only too ready to show everyone on this website your linked and proven evidence that it was all a conspiracy theory in anything other than your own imagination? No?
          The inevitable conclusion from that lack of evidence, is that your fraudulent conspiracy theory accusations are the last resort of the failed fake narratives you plonk into any conversation completely out of context of the issues.
          [Edited by moderator] As a commentary on anything factual, it is absent of content or rationality whatsoever.

          As for the new ‘climate’ MP Graham Stuart, he is the latest ideologically dogmatic convert to throw himself to the Tory wolves, who are already calling for Liz Truss’resignation and replacement. It’s akin to watching a slow motion building demolition, where buildings in imminent danger of structurally weakened construction, even without the additional dangers from further much more destructive earthquakes caused by fracking, in trapping, injuring and killing the unfortunate occupants, who are no more than collateral damage to yourself and the new government. The following silence, as the dust clears politically and structurally, will reveal the truth of the multiple threats to life and limb originating from this government and what true damage they have done to the United Kingdom.

          • Well, YYLee, you obviously want to pursue your conspiracy theories.

            However, if you want to rely on what Biden states, then you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel! Why stop at Biden? Why not go back to Trump? He had some choice things to say about Nord Stream 2. Was it him?

            Maybe your “evidence” is not what you suggest. It could just as easily have related to sanctions and alternative supplies of energy. Sanctions applied, LNG being shipped. He told the US drillers to get drilling. He moans about OPEC+ refusing to. That is evidence.

            If you want evidence that pipelines are not secure, perhaps you could ask the MoD why they have just ordered two more ships to help protect them?

            And you may conveniently forget that gas supplies had already been interrupted from Russia before they were stopped.

            If you wish to excuse Putin it is a free world-currently-but don’t try to involve me in that enterprise. It is your theory. Own it or disown it.

            I really am not into conspiracy theories. I prefer real evidence.

            • Sadly for your attempted fake narrative, Martin Frederick Collyer. Yes, you are deeply into conspiracy theories, you admitted as much in your false accusations. You want evidence? I have already educated you with enough evidence to convince even the most recalcitrant nay sayer. If you are incapable of admitting that, then I’ll provide more for your edification.
              Also was not just Joe Biden who stated the intention to ‘end Nordstream’ by whatever method, it was also stated by his staff and handlers. Victoria Jane Nuland in January 2022, Karine Jean-Pierre as White House Press Secretary, and many others of his staff, since Joe Biden, to be generous, is little more than a ‘prompt screen spokesperson’ these days – Here is Tucker Carlson’s view on the matter – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLb0QeCQF_I&ab_channel=FoxNews.

              Also, Radosław Tomasz “Radek” Sikorski, who is a Polish politician and journalist and a Member of the European Parliament, posted a picture of the Nordstream blow out with poisonous gas pouring out of the sea and wrote ‘ *’Thank you, USA’ *. Not exactly subtle, but there it was, before it was deleted. So, just how many people are you accusing of conspiracy theories? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? More?
              Oh dear, so your false accusations and conspiracy theories, go nowhere again. Sorry about that. But facts are facts. Whereas, your opinion, is going nowhere fast without a puddle.

              No, you are wrong again. Answer me this. Where have I written, anywhere, that I wish to excuse Putin? Or anyone else? In any way whatsoever? No, I didn’t write anything of the sort. You have misinformed yourself and misrepresented what I did say. Hardly unusual, for your fake post narratives, but worth pointing out nonetheless.

              Not only that, what I did say, was precisely to the contrary of your fake claim. Whereas, nothing you have written is even remotely factual regarding what I did write. But as you now have revealed, you haven’t read anything I have written at all. The only person that is attempting to excuse anyone, is yourself attempting to excuse yourself.
              That is all internal to your own fake narrative processes, nothing to do with me or anyone else, nothing more than that.
              I educated you very succinctly that there are no good guys in conflict politics in any major or minor war between insane megalomaniacs. Which ones will you excuse? I gave you a list of some of the most recent events that prove that conflicts where weapons and armaments are used without regard for the civilian populations. They kill and maim the innocent civilians. The various militaries have made their choice, and they live and die by it. The trapped civilian people haven’t made a choice. Because they were never given a choice. Facts are facts. Death is the last fact.

              All that you have said, I have proved to be untrue and completely wrong. Once again, the facts deny your conspiracy theories. And that is all there is to say on your many fake narratives.

              Now you can answer all the questions about threats to life and limb, of the staff and residents, the children and teachers, the doctors and nurses of the 34 hospitals, schools, private and public buildings that are in imminent danger of structural collapse even without the additional dangers of earthquakes created by releasing the fracking moratorium.
              Then you can explain why the new ‘climate’ MP Graham Stuart, has committed political suicide in some bid to curry favour with the last sinking gasps of the Titanic Liz Truss Prime Ministership of fools?

              • There you go again, YYLee, with your badly constructed conspiracy theory. Yours, not mine.

                Where I do agree with you is your comment about “who done it” will probably not be identified. I disagree with the rest of your posts where you try and speculate that it was not Russia. The basis of your argument seems to be that they could just turn off the taps. Well, excuse me, but then everyone would know Russia did it!

                I have already answered your other contrived nonsense about 34 hospitals. Which was pretty generous of me as, again, it was equally badly constructed.

                The reality, if it means anything to you, is that energy pipelines don’t look very secure, do they? They never have been, neither has maritime transport been that much better.

                • No. What a load of absolute ‘badly constructed’ rubbish that was, Martin Frederick Collyer. (in those silly and entirely unproven words * ‘badly constructed’ * there is in fact a clue to your fake news and false assumptions right there. Freudian slip perhaps?).
                  There you go again with your ‘badly constructed’ fake news and false narratives.
                  Oh, dear. You really don’t have any idea of what you are writing about, do you. Worse still, you clearly have not read anything I did write either. Did you look at the links to the speeches and reports?
                  No, you can’t have, because your unbelievably and deeply misrepresented false narrative couldn’t possibly exist in its present laughable ‘badly constructed’ mess, if you had.
                  There, in fact, is the reason that your posts to me on this and the 34 hospital issues, are pointless and without substance. Because you don’t actually read or look at any evidence that threatens your fanatical fracking nonsense. Therefore, nothing you write in reply to my very detailed and verified proof, has any validity.

                  As for your ‘badly constructed conspiracy theories’. That emerged from your own posts, not mine. Who attempted to accuse others of (and I quote your own words) * Well, KatT, you appear to be very supportive of Putin’s use of energy as a weapon!* Wasn’t that your own words? Yes it was. So there is your conspiracy theory, right there. Your conspiracy theory in plain sight that even you can’t deny. (in spite of you attempting to deny it, 5 times now?).

                  Whereas, I have only provided you with verified links to the speeches and reports.
                  For that matter, the links showed that it was not myself that reported Joe Biden and his staff’s threats to ‘end the Nordstream pipelines’.
                  It was in fact the conclusion of the reporters, that Joe Biden and his staff said they would *’end the Nordstream pipeline’*. I merely repeated the reports already produced in order to educate you with the facts. So now you can accuse all those USA staff and the reporters who filmed their words, of ‘conspiracy theories’ in assuming that President Joe Biden was actually speaking the truth.
                  Best of luck with that. I’m sure the FBI/CIA whoever, would be only too pleased to receive your accusations of conspiracy theories and your opinions of the USA President Joe Biden in good nature and humour? They may even invite you to have a holiday in a small resort called ‘The Guantánamo Hotel’. Long term vacations, a speciality. Stay a long as you like, even if you don’t like.

                  Sorry, but I have already proved everything you have said in your posts on this issue to be absolute nonsense. You constantly repeat that nonsense, without even the minimum of any linked verified scientific engineering and structural proof whatsoever.
                  That proves that the only one who has speculated and assumed has been in your own posts. I have not speculated about anything. Quite the reverse, in fact. I gave you the facts that are reported in the most precise and honest sources. And I have provided verified links to the precise words used. Whereas you, have not provided anything but a stream of laughable accusations that only originated from your own imagination. As I have proved in every post so far, you make assumptions, speculations and conspiracy theories without any evidence at all. That alone discredits and debunks your spurious assumptions and speculations.
                  No, you have not answered anything about the 34 hospitals, schools, public and private buildings that are in imminent danger of collapse even without the additional dangers of far worse earthquakes caused by local fracking operations. You attempted to dismiss the additional danger of those buildings that are in imminent danger of structural collapse even without fracking earthquakes, which is proof that those buildings will collapse when even worse earthquakes are caused by fracking operations, whereas you failed to prove any such thing.
                  If you have any evidence at that anything you say about the 34 hospitals, schools public and private buildings that are in imminent danger of collapse, even without earthquakes caused by fracking operations, then I suggest you provide detailed structural analysis, scientific documented proof, and linked verified evidence to support your fake opinion.
                  The reality is, that your denials mean nothing to you about the patients, doctors and nurses, staff and residents, children and teachers, who will be trapped and injured or killed by collapsing buildings that are already in imminent danger of structural collapse, even without the additional dangers of further much worse earthquakes caused by fracking operations which will most certainly cause more collapses at the risks to life and limb.
                  As regards the Nordstream pipelines, then nothing and no-one is safe in a war situation. Lives are at risk. So why subject the doctors and nurses, residents and staff, children and teachers to even greater danger, by allowing earthquakes caused by allowing the fracking moratorium to be lifted? How much does that mean to you?
                  Or is that a ‘different’ subject to you? But, just like the civilian casualties in this megalomaniacal war. It’s not a different subject to them.

                • [Edited by moderator]

                  to help you with dangers from structures:

                  I am looking out at a large tree in my garden. Some of the branches are dead. Heaven save me and my neighbours, and all passing by from those dastardly frackers that could cause one of the dead branches to fall, even though they would be nowhere near. What can I do? Oh well, perhaps it is October 14th and high winds might be coming, so just perhaps I should pick up the ‘phone and book the tree surgeon. If the tree needs attention, then it needs attention. If it was a building, no different. Common sense, YYLee. I recommend it to you.

                  There is a bit of a conflict to absorb, YYLee. People in general are pretty good regarding common sense. UK population actually has a good reputation in that respect. The Internet chats are the reverse. You may like dealing with one aspect, I will concentrate on the common sense.
                  If you want to see opinions of Biden in action, then keep an eye upon the Mid Terms next month. If your odd understanding of US is correct, then the FBI and CIA are going to be very busy bunnies! But politically affiliated security services are not that common in the US or the West, YYLee, so I suspect it will make no difference.

                • HaHaHa! So you are going to *’help me with the dangers from structures’* are you Martin Frederick Collyer??!! Now you have made me laugh, and I thought you did not have that capability at all? Not intentionally, I know, but hilarious all the same! What real life qualifications will you provide for your ‘help’?
                  Oh dear, maybe I should attempt to break this gently to you, though, however, on second thoughts. No, you don’t deserve it. No. You are incapable of any ability to ‘help’ me with anything to do with structures. That capacity is beyond you.
                  Since when was a tree a structure or a building in imminent danger of structural collapse? Once more, you have demonstrated that you have no conception of what a tree, a structure or a building even is?
                  Whereas, what you have said, is well below the average schoolchildren’s appreciation of anything to do with trees or buildings or structures in general.
                  No, a tree is a living flora, it grows independently of humans, if not chopped down by humans or storms that is, even then a tree has an astonishing ability to regrow, repair and rebalance itself with new growth in every season. Fallen branches, once separated, can sprout and grow again if allowed to. The tree can regrow the branch and increase in height. Whereas a building is a fixed in place human made structural construction that is built, not grown, and a building cannot regulate, rebalance or regrow its own form like a tree. If failure occurs to a building, say, an entirely inappropriate roof construction such as RAAC, a building can’t regrow damaged branches, floors, ceilings walls or roofs. In actual fact, (oh dear, a fact, you will have trouble with that) a tree is far superior to a building structure. A building is invariably built by living human engineers who are skilled in propping up the damaged structure, and to rebuild it to make it structurally sound and safe for occupation.
                  I repeat, since you don’t appear to have read anything I posted. I did not make any conspiracy theories, the reports are real speeches, the conclusions were the reporter’s conclusions, not mine, I merely repeated them for your education. Whereas, your own conspiracy theories, were and still are, all from your own imagination.
                  The sun always shines somewhere, the wind always blows somewhere. Community, peace and sharing of resources between countries and locations will solve all problems and more besides. Trussians, Prussians, Bidens and Russians not withstanding.
                  The remainder of your post, is equally inept and hilarious, and that is the very best I can say about it. Manners forbid the truth from being revealed.

                • That was indeed hilarious, YYLee.

                  So, I bow to your knowledge that as a tree is a living structure no parts of it will die, become unstable, be in danger of imminent collapse or fall off. If seen that branches are dying, they will just grow back to living and tree surgeons around the UK will have no work left!

                  Very interesting. So, when the tree guy calls from the Council and tells me my tree requires a tree surgeon to remove part of it which is dead and unstable, in danger of collapse and it is my responsibility to remedy that, I will just refer him to YYLee! No, no, the parrot, sorry the branches are not dead they are merely resting!

                  Now that is hilarious enough, but would this be the same YYLee who states:

                  “A building is invariably built by living human engineers (much better than the ones built by dead ones: my words) who are skilled in propping up the damaged structure, and to rebuild it to make it structurally sound and safe for occupation.”

                  Hospitals are buildings! Even 34 of them.

                  Oops. So, I do read what you post YYLee, and it still makes no sense, common or otherwise. If a building is not structurally sound and safe for occupation, then these living human engineers are there to put that right. Argued as a problem by YYLee, solution provided by??? YYLee!! Goodness, I will have to take up marriage guidance next. Getting the individual with a problem to solve it themselves is a skillset I should use more.

                  Maybe you would be better off sticking with your conspiracy theories? And maybe some poetry?

                • HaHaHa. You are so funny, Martin Frederick Collyer. You made me laugh again. Congratulations! Have you thought of transferring your ‘hilarious tragi-comedy act’ to the stage? Or a tree? Preferably a living tree, since a dead one would not be at all appropriate? Maybe a building would be better, to have the audience in stitches? But you had better have a structural analysis carried out of the building if there is fracking being operated in the locality. Because an audience in stitches from a structural collapse may have to be carried out to a ‘hospital building’ which may well be already in danger of imminent structural collapse even without further earthquakes caused by fracking operations?
                  Since you are trying out your ‘tragicomedy act script’ I would say ‘satire’ however that would require some wit, which has not been demonstrated by yourself so far. More education required, perhaps? Strangely, your chosen ‘forum’ appears to be regularly portrayed on this website to the audience responses? (?) No. Sorry, slow clapping is not applause.
                  No matter, I shall ‘help’ you with some with more hilarious Biden like prompts, since facts, science, engineering and common sense are entirely absent in any of your posts on these subjects to date. A Bidenesque prompt screen appears to have become a necessity for you?
                  Except, unfortunately, your latest tragicomedy act scripted post went down like a fracking gas filled lead balloon? Subterranean in fact. (a fracking gas joke!)

                  Maybe you should fire your tragicomedy act scriptwriter, (Eli-Goth? Really? No wonder!). Like the ‘new PM Liz Truss’ fired her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng for supporting her structurally collapsed ‘mini bodge-it’ (a tragicomedy act script if ever there was one).
                  You had better watch out for the Trussian long knives, Jeremy Hunt, you’ve got 38 days. It’s either you or her. Act fast.
                  As a political structure, the Tories are living humans, who should have had the capability, (with the correct knowledge and financial structural expertise) to build a political party or even a building structure capable of at least standing up for more than 38 days? Fracking caused earthquakes will only bring the politically structurally deficient edifice down even quicker.

                  So, no, I’m sorry that you cannot retrieve your inept understanding of structures with a flawed structurally collapsed comedy act script? Possibly because it contains no discernible factual content, other than emotion, nor any links to verified reports, nor any structural or engineering capability or knowledge.

                  Maybe you can resurrect a living scriptwriter that has at least the minimum requirement of any understanding of the serious dangers to life and limb, posed by lifting the fracking moratorium. When there are 34 hospitals, schools, public and private buildings that are already in danger of imminent structural collapse, even without the additional dangers threatened by earthquakes caused by fracking operations? Perhaps an appreciation of the lives and injuries of hospital patients and doctors, children and teachers in schools, residents and staff in public and private buildings would be more appropriate to the badly scripted tragicomedy act attitude you delivered?

                  Because, unfortunately, there is no tragicomedy act script that is anywhere near appropriate for the imminent dangers of lifting the fracking moratorium. Only the non comedy tragic facts of injury to lives and limbs, accompanied by the tragic echoes of ambulance sirens.

                  [Text amended at poster’s request]

    • Absolute nonsense, 1720.

      [Edited by moderator]

      A fact denier, trying and failing, to cover it up with incoherence.

      [Edited by moderator]

      Perhaps take a look at what scientists have actively supported in the past that was found to be absolute nonsense-and worse. Having put on those glasses, perhaps better not to just rinse and repeat when it is evidently absolute nonsense.

      Otherwise, the support of such nonsense in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary is hardly that scientific.

      • A welcome break from the quixotic modus operandi!
        But….

        [Edited by moderator]

        Some more textual analysis, always fun with Martin in his efforts to demonstrate the indemonstrable –

        “Absolute nonsense” you say. Well, that proves it!

        “A fact denier” – which relevant facts?

        “trying and failing, to cover it up with incoherence.” Why should I wish to try and cover up my fact denial at all, least of all trying to do it “with incoherence”?

        Which cult have I been dragged into, assuming I am “the leader” referred to – (an honour I have not sought?) What am I trying to screen with smoke?

        “scientists have actively supported in the past (something) that was found to be absolute nonsense”. Well, possibly. Which group of scientists is doing that now, Martin? Which bit of the current scientific consensus is “evidently absolute nonsense”?

        “the support of such nonsense in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary is hardly that scientific.” What support? What nonsense? What “conclusive evidence”?
        What….are you talking about?

        • So many questions but no answers! Usual tactic of the activist. Just another smoke screen attempt.

          [Edited by moderator] it might be a good idea to get to know some of the basics in order to take part, otherwise it simply looks like someone who is desperate to show how smart they are but failing in the context of the subject.

          To help you get going, but unassociated with the previous thread, scientists advocated the closing of German nuclear plants. Now, scientists are advocating they should stay open. Greta is agreeing with the current ones advocating that-so they must be correct! LOL.
          There are endless examples of such situations, circumstances show previous “scientific” consensus was not correct, new consensus has to be achieved. Leaving Luddites who just argue the proven incorrect scientific consensus has to be obeyed, simply because that was what they built an argument upon.

          Took a while, but I believe “we” have answered the “who” question. Well done “we’s”.

          • I take it that you have decided that there is one question you can actually attempt. I think it’s this one – “Which group of scientists is doing that now, Martin? Which bit of the current scientific consensus is “evidently absolute nonsense”?“
            If it was scientists who argued nuclear closure and this is the same group now urging re-opening, one wonders has the science changed. If this is the case then it could be an example of a change in mind and of consensus. However, I am happy to be told I’m wrong (but preferably by someone who actually knows) when I suggest that the voices against nuclear were with respect to risk of accident, therefore environmental, as well as to proliferation and maximisation of risk, and to the problems of storage. The main arguments against nuclear are not scientific, it seems to me. (This does not mean they are wrong.) I very much doubt that the environmentalists arguing against nuclear have changed their minds. The validity of your answer is spurious.

            You adduce “endless examples” but seem to be unable to produce a valid one. Maybe I can help? Galileo, perhaps, but not current, I know. So my question remains unanswered, as do all the other points in my last posting – “ Which group of scientists is doing that now, Martin? Which bit of the current scientific consensus is “evidently absolute nonsense”?” (I might point out, Martin that if the consensus in Germany on nuclear has changed, it is not because of scientific vacillation, but political vacillation.) This does not render the previous scientific consensus ( which you can explain to us) incorrect or as you prefer “absolute nonsense”. What is the new scientific consensus, Martin?

            You seem to have a vague idea of who the Luddites were but ignore the social, not scientific, reason for their revolt. Their protest was to a large extent futile in preventing modernisation, and yet their main concerns have been vindicated and are still valid. Your dismissive and typically arrogant reference to their activities is very topical, Take the Trussian “anti-growth coalition” insult, for example, which suggests an “anti-life coalition” response. The Luddites did not argue that “the proven incorrect scientific consensus has to be obeyed, simply because that was what they built an argument upon.”

            Your understanding of history approaches only your understanding of arithmetic in ineptitude.

            I’ll do you the courtesy of assuming you understand your final paragraph.

            • [Edited by moderator] it was not me who had to “interpret” what was stated about it in respect of renewables by the Chief Scientific Adviser, whilst the UK public can now get ready for the £160B to start to fill the gap. You can “interpret” that there was no gap, and the £160B is a mirage, yet it will still exist and still show you are simply trying to redirect your failings to others. I can look at the comment made by Sir David and see that was spot on. But it should have been, as he was an expert in his field. Shame a consensus didn’t emerge around his comment, even though he did point out in his book there is no practicable zero-carbon future without full-on investment in nuclear power!

              As for that strange, convoluted nonsense about scientific consensus around nuclear in Germany. It may amuse you, except the reason there is any current change in scientific consensus is apparent to all other than yourself. There is a shortage of gas in Europe! So, other forms of energy need to be maximized. Including importing expensive gas from far afield and looking at other energy sources that can do the job when the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t blow.

              Sorry, but that will mean some previous consensus is historic, out of date, nonsense in light of current events, the parrot is deceased etc.etc.

              • I think you are trying to answer a questions but it’s not clear which.
                (I meant to have a word about exam technique but forgot. Answering, sorry attempting one question in about ten is not going to get you a pass.)
                What relevance has my much earlier suggestion that MacKay may have changed his mind about renewables had he not suffered a tragically early death? Only speculation, Martin, not susceptible to proof. You are permitted to disagree with me. Dragging this difference of opinion up every five minutes does not advance any argument. Nor is it relevant here.
                I don’t think it is at all clear that there has been a change in Germany concerning the scientific consensus over nuclear. Miss out the word ‘scientific’ , then of course there has been a change. Try and understand, Martin. The change is political and/or pragmatic, not scientific. And yes, even I can see that and, like you, see why. But, I repeat, the political change does not render the original arguments against nuclear incorrect.
                (Back to exam technique: 1. Read and try to understand the questions or points, all of them. 2. Attempt an answer to all. Some sort of mark will be allocated to the silliest of answers should an honest attempt have been made.)
                Good luck.

  4. Absolute Tory claptrap with the Climate Minister having no knowledge of the scientific facts or else choosing to ignore them.

  5. I think you are trying to answer a questions but it’s not clear which.
    (I meant to have a word about exam technique but forgot. Answering, sorry attempting one question in about ten is not going to get you a pass.)
    What relevance has my much earlier suggestion that MacKay may have changed his mind about renewables had he not suffered a tragically early death? Only speculation, Martin, not susceptible to proof. You are permitted to disagree with me. Dragging this difference of opinion up every five minutes does not advance any argument. Nor is it relevant here.
    I don’t think it is at all clear that there has been a change in Germany concerning the scientific consensus over nuclear. Miss out the word ‘scientific’ , then of course there has been a change. Try and understand, Martin. The change is political and/or pragmatic, not scientific. And yes, even I can see that and, like you, see why. But, I repeat, the political change does not render the original arguments against nuclear incorrect.
    (Back to exam technique: 1. Read and try to understand the questions or points, all of them. 2. Attempt an answer to all. Some sort of mark will be allocated to the silliest of answers should an honest attempt have been made.)
    Good luck.

  6. You have used the “teacher” approach before, 1720. However, you have failed to qualify other than in your own opinion and certainly not in mine. You have also tried to cloak yourself in intelligence, and my comment would be ditto.

    So, removing the discussion from your own opinion of yourself, 1720, the Profs comments are very relevant here. You wish to dismiss science when it is inconvenient yet can only do so by interpreting that the scientist would have changed his mind if he had lived! Yet the evidence shows now that he was correct, as UK commits to spend £160B on what he had been calling for years ago. So, no need to interpret anything. He was correct. Now UK is admitting that the horse was needed to make the cart move. Perhaps admitting a spend of £160B for a horse was thought best to avoid until it was impossible to do so any longer? Just wait until not only that is appreciated but that the horse will produce toxic “dung” that is also an afterthought.

    Try and understand, whether Germany decides to shut nuclear and go coal, or keep open nuclear and cut back on coal the decision will be scientifically supported. Just like energy security in UK was scientifically supported, and the Emperor’s New Clothes were scientifically supported.

  7. “Ditto” is an interesting comment, Martin.
    Your bland assurances are worthless. Think Truss!
    Such German decisions might or might not be supported. Not a question of “trying to understand”. You would no doubt have argued the same re the Trussian moratorium decision, yet any scientific evidence that was available, failed to support.
    You can produce the German evidence when appropriate.
    I do not wish to dispute science nor to dismiss it when it is relevant. Truss could not use it. It was MacKay’s opinion that was used, by you, as scientific evidence that renewables could not work. It was not his scientific opinion, and it was a risky, early opinion. I fear you have misused your guru. He seems to have been right in forecasting, if he did, that nuclear would re-emerge. The scientific arguments against nuclear, as well as the political and moral, remain the same.
    Were the scientific arguments for fracking as persuasive as the scientific counter arguments, and were there no additional persuasive arguments, then most anti-frackers would frack away happily with you.
    I’ll leave you and your friends to dwell on the dung. You know much more about it than I.
    “Debate” away with yourself now. There’s a good chap.

    • No, it was not the Profs. opinion that renewables could not work. It was his opinion they could not work without serious support from other energy sources, and he referenced nuclear. Without that support, he indicated that humanity would be denying arithmetic and physics. He has been shown to be correct, but he was very careful to leave his comments until towards the end of his life as he knew they would be so unpopular with the Group Think already at work. He left his knowledge to humanity for some to then “interpret” rather than accept.

      (Actually, I can think of one or two countries where that might not be the case, but he was particularly referring to UK.)

      Now, I do not claim to have anywhere near his expertise, but I do know that in the UK high pressure is frequent, and at other times the sun doesn’t shine. Pretty basic stuff, and not to be confused by glossy pictures of solar panels in far off deserts. I also note wind speeds across Europe are forecast by some scientists to fall and other scientists who work on solar activity have even been predicting a mini ice age.

      Nuclear always seemed the logical option, if fusion had not been cracked. The former is the one being pushed forward now, which is a bit ironic with all the safety stuff being aimed at producing gas via fracking, with UK nuclear submarines awaiting and awaiting disposal. In terms of costs, then these nuclear costs need to be added to the cost of those sources that require such support. So goodby cheap renewables. Then compare the combined cost to other, previous forms of energy, as that will eventually become evident to the consumer. If they wish to get ahead of the game, they can look at Hinkley Point as a marker. If they run a business and wish to be competitive internationally, forget that or be conned by a comfort blanket of “UK will lead the world”.

      I suggest then the physics and arithmetic will be observed by humanity.

      There is no single and ideal way to get transition done, but the previous pathway has been found by current events to not to be fit for purpose. The bill payers can see it. If politicians do not, they might also find problems with paying their bills in the coming years. I provide my thoughts to help avoid that: Nuclear/fusion, decarbonize fossil fuel and plonk some renewables on top of that foundation. Don’t become distracted by energy saving and insulation, both of which are a given no matter what the supply policy is. Remembering the horse comes before the cart.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s