Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Keepitsimple

A Rational Look at the "Settled Science"

Recommended Posts

And your pseudo-science claims you back up how?

He can't back it up he just spews hate it's people like him that ignore fact and science for corporate propaganda. He is the reason we are still burning fossil fuels and haven't had a chance to make any new substantial progress in cleaner technology in this country. He talks about how he wants nuclear but could care less as long as we continue to use fossil fuels. He hates humanity and progress. Partisan right wingers fear change especially for the betterment of society, it's hardwired into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't back it up he just spews hate it's people like him that ignore fact and science for corporate propaganda.

My backup is the NY report that you provided. Try reading what the NY report actually says. It says we know nothing and there is no conclusive evidence of anything. Based on this lack of knowledge the process is banned. Pathetic and irrational - and EXACTLY the type of thinking that is behind the opposition to nuclear. If you want to see more nuclear you need to start by looking in a mirror because you are part of the problem. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can't back it up he just spews hate it's people like him that ignore fact and science for corporate propaganda. He is the reason we are still burning fossil fuels and haven't had a chance to make any new substantial progress in cleaner technology in this country. He talks about how he wants nuclear but could care less as long as we continue to use fossil fuels. He hates humanity and progress. Partisan right wingers fear change especially for the betterment of society, it's hardwired into them.

Well I guess there are those who won't give up promoting the "benefits" of fossil fuels until the last barrel is sucked from the ground. Luckily there are others who are getting ahead of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On fracking, I suggest that ones position would depend on ones acceptance (or not) of the "Precautionary Principle";

"The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is NOT harmful falls on those taking the action."

I believe that is the base for the New Brunswick's government decision to suspend fracking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On fracking, I suggest that ones position would depend on ones acceptance (or not) of the "Precautionary Principle";

The precautionary principal is a self serving nonsense that is only used to rationalize decisions made for ideological reasons. If it was consistently applied we would still be living in caves. Moving forward requires the acceptable of risks and intelligent policy is based on the principal that risks are to be managed and minimized since it is rarely possible to eliminate them entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who think the NY report was anything other than politically driven psuedo-science should take a look at the leaked report which was subsequently suppressed by the government:

The state’s Health Department found in an analysis it prepared early last year that the much-debated drilling technology known as hydrofracking could be conducted safely in New York.

The eight-page analysis is a summary of previous research by the state and others…[that] delves into the potential impact of fracking on water resources, on naturally occurring radiological material found in the ground, on air emissions and on “potential socioeconomic and quality-of-life impacts.”…[it] concludes that fracking can be done safely.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/01/05/fracking-safe-in-ny-state-says-leaked-report/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The precautionary principal is a self serving nonsense that is only used to rationalize decisions made for ideological reasons. If it was consistently applied we would still be living in caves. Moving forward requires the acceptable of risks and intelligent policy is based on the principal that risks are to be managed and minimized since it is rarely possible to eliminate them entirely.

So what you're saying is you won't be against fracking until a few thousand people die, a couple hundred lakes used as drinking water become contaminated and a few major earthquakes occur because of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is you won't be against fracking until a few thousand people die, a couple hundred lakes used as drinking water become contaminated and a few major earthquakes occur because of it?

Gross exaggerations with no basis in evidence. Your argument is like saying nuclear should be rejected everywhere because events like Fukushima occurred. The question that we care about is whether the risks can be managed and in the case of fracking the answer is clearly yes, they can be managed. Frankly, it is pretty bizarre that someone would fret about some yet-to-be-determined harm from fracking yet be fine with nuclear which has some pretty well understood nightmare risks associated with it. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so what if it did? Your argument is like saying nuclear should be rejected everywhere because things like Fukushima occurred. The question that we care about is whether the risks can be managed and in the case of fracking the answer is clear yes, they can be managed. Frankly, it is pretty bizarre that someone would fret about some unknown harm from fracking yet be fine with nuclear which has some pretty well understood nightmare risks associated with it.

Unfortunately we already know the risks associated with Nuclear and can now act accordingly. I'm pretty sure Saskatchewan and Alberta are pretty safe from earthquakes and tsunamis. We still don't know all we need to know about fracking so why test the waters when it's not needed we have an alternative for baseline power. But you've made it pretty clear that you see human beings other than yourself as guinea pigs to be used in experimental ways. If one dies well that's okay because there are more to take its place. So long as there continues to be an exchange of currency it's all good. You also have made it pretty clear you don't care about this planet nor any future generations of our species on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately we already know the risks associated with Nuclear and can now act accordingly.

We know the risks associated with fracking and they can be managed. Your claim that we don't is self serving BS.

But you've made it pretty clear that you see human beings other than yourself as guinea pigs to be used in experimental ways.

It was a flippant comment to your grotesque exaggerations. More importantly, you are no different from me. A nuclear plant could meltdown tomorrow and kill thousands and render a large swatch of land uninhabitable but I suspect you would respond by saying something like "the deaths were unfortunate but we need to learn from the mistakes and keep using nuclear". Your hypocrisy is jaw dropping. The risk of accidental deaths is fine with you as long as you approve of the means of the deaths. I am surprised the contradictions don't make your head explode. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know the risks associated with fracking and they can be managed. Your claim that we don't is self serving BS.

Back that up with some science then. Rather than pointing to a report I posted and saying it's flawed. Where's your evidence that no harm has ever come from fracking?

It was a flippant comment to your grotesque exaggerations. More importantly, you are no different from me. A nuclear plant could meltdown tomorrow and kill thousands and render a large swatch of land uninhabitable but I suspect you would respond by saying something like "the deaths were unfortunate but we need to learn from the mistakes and keep using nuclear". Your hypocrisy is jaw dropping. The risk of accidental deaths is fine with you as long as you approve of the means of the deaths. I am surprised the contradictions don't make your head explode.

We could put a nuclear plant so far away from civilization in this country that it wouldn't kill anyone if it melted down. Also there has never been in the history of Canadian built CANDU reactors a meltdown either in this country or another, because we know and have taken the precautionary step to prevent this. it's virtually impossible;

CANDU reactors, Canadian-invented deuterium-uranium design, are designed with at least one, and generally two, large low-temperature and low-pressure water reservoirs around their fuel/coolant channels. The first is the bulk heavy-water moderator (a separate system from the coolant), and the second is the light-water-filled shield tank. These backup heat sinks are sufficient to prevent either the fuel meltdown in the first place (using the moderator heat sink), or the breaching of the core vessel should the moderator eventually boil off (using the shield tank heat sink)

We have already learned from the mistakes. There will be no accidental deaths. No large swathes of uninhabitable land. You're comments are not backed up by any science just your uninformed opinion on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fracking creates a type of competition as to whether we can do more damage with CO2, or will methane win out. CO2 has a bit of a head start but methane is a really strong runner. It's a race to the bottom, please place your bets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back that up with some science then. Rather than pointing to a report I posted and saying it's flawed.

I gave you the leaked version of the NY report which indicated that the risks can be managed. The fact that despite the best efforts of anti-frackers, NY failed to find any conclusive evidence of harm is evidence that whatever the industry is doing is sufficient to manage the risks.

We could put a nuclear plant so far away from civilization in this country that it wouldn't kill anyone if it melted down.

We already have nuclear plants near Toronto. You don't have to have a huge population density to kill thousands in major catastrophe.

Also there has never been in the history of Canadian built CANDU reactors a meltdown either in this country or another, because we know and have taken the precautionary step to prevent this. it's virtually impossible;

But the risk is there and cannot be eliminated yet you are OK with it. Same with fracking. It has been used for decades. There has been no major incident and with proper controls there is no reason to believe their will be one. But you have arbitrarily decided the risk of a much greater harm from a nuclear incident is fine with you but not with fracking. Irrational hypocrisy to cover up what is really decision based on your ideology. So spare me your claims about caring about science. Your hypocrisy shows you care nothing about science. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have nuclear plants near Toronto. You don't have to have a huge population density to kill thousands in major catastrophe.

But they won't meltdown, we know this. So your argument is invalid.

There has been no major incident and with proper controls there is no reason to believe their will be one.

So NY states government, a conservative government, shuts down fracking because they have reason to believe it's not harmful?

"While a guarantee of absolute safety is not possible, an assessment of the risk to public health must be supported by adequate scientific information to determine with confidence that the overall risk is sufficiently low to justify proceeding with HVHF in New York. The current scientific information is insufficient… Until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from HVHF and whether the risks can be adequately managed, HVHF should not proceed in New York State."

The better safe then sorry approach is fine by me.

Now your being a Nuclear fear monger while a few posts ago you were saying if climate change supporters were serious about going green they would support Nuclear. So which is it do you support nuclear or do you support fossil fuels. It seems like no matter what I say all you want to do is argue, are you a lawyer?

lets straiten out your argument for a second:

1. If the climate change folks were serious about eliminating emissions they would support Nuclear.

2. Nuclear is bad because something that can't happen, might happen.

3. We should support fracking because they're isn't enough evidence to support a catastrophic event will occur, even though smaller events including health problems in humans and livestock, seismic activity, contaminated water supplies and other effects on communities have occurred. But we can prevent these, even though we are not doing so.

4. Fossil fuels aren't the problem, people who don't support them are.

5. You have nothing, not a shred of evidence save for a sentance in a "leaked" document that supports the claim that fracking is safe because we have no evidence of it not being safe even though we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they won't meltdown, we know this. So your argument is invalid.

Greenpeace disagrees:

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/candu6_report/

The same design flaw that contributed to the Chernobyl explosion and to the world’s first nuclear accident in1952 at AECL’s Chalk River laboratories. This design flaw does not meet modern safety standards.

...

Its emergency shut-down systems are untested and unproven. Confidence in the ability of these systems to operate in accident situations is low.

Is Greenpeace wrong? If they are wrong on this why are they right on anything else?

The better safe then sorry approach is fine by me.

Except that is not the policy of NY state which aggressively imports fracked gas. If they really believed in "better safe than sorry" they would ban all imports of fracked gas.

So which is it do you support nuclear or do you support fossil fuels.

I support all economically viable sources of energy. I would even support wind provided it was clear that wind capacity can never exceed 10% of grid capacity. My position is rational, consistent and based on evidence.

Your position is irrational and contradictory. I am picking on nuclear because it exposes the irrationality of your argument against fracking.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greenpeace disagrees:

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/candu6_report/

Is Greenpeace wrong? If they are wrong on this why are they right on anything else?

Greenpeace is definitely wrong about some things. I have never supported them or their methods. What they did to the Nazca Lines is unforgivable. With that being said I don't know why you would resort to using greenpeace to prove your point, especially since I haven't linked or used or quoted any information from them during this entire discussion, just shows how desperate you really are.

Except that is not the policy of NY state which aggressively imports fracked gas. If they really believed in "better safe than sorry" they would ban all imports of fracked gas.

Well obviously given that NY state is conservative they are just protecting their own state from fracking, knowing the potential dangers associated with it, they could obviously care less about anyone else, a typical conservative policy so they continue to import it.

I support all economically viable sources of energy. I would even support wind provided it was clear that wind capacity can never exceed 10% of grid capacity. My position is rational, consistent and based on evidence.

Wind capacity has already reached beyond 10% grid capacity in many countries such as 33.2% of grid electricity production in Denmark ,19% in Portugal and 16% in Spain and Ireland while Germany is currently at 8% and climbing. In 2011 South Australia, championed by Premier Mike Rann, reached 26% of the State's electricity generation through Wind power, edging out coal for the first time. It's viable and can be done despite what you hear from the pro-fossil fuel corporate propaganda.

Your position is irrational and contradictory. I am picking on nuclear because it exposes the irrationality of your argument against fracking.

My position is based on evidence, scientific fact and findings and logic. Nuclear in Canada is a better option than Natural Gas. You have exposed nothing but your own lack of knowledge on the subject.

Edited by PrimeNumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article, thanks. It reminds me I should up my bet on methane. As long as we keep emitting CO2 we'll get lots of methane even without fracking.

In the end it might not even be the CO2 that does the warming. Methane is impossible to stop but we sure are helping it. Methane has been proven to reverse ice ages. So it's needed in the natural flow of things but adding fuel to the fire may have consequences. We can not be certain of that at this point. the equator around the earth would be largely unlivable though if enough methane is present which would have dire effects on immigration north ward which Conservatives are always against. You think they would be trying to siphon the methane out of the air and cause an ice age to keep all of them foreigners out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that being said I don't know why you would resort to using greenpeace to prove your point

Well, the point was to further illustrate how selectively you invoke the precautionary principal. If you wanted to find excuses to reject nuclear you could but you choose not to (which is a good thing). But what you fail to understand is by choosing to support the irrational obstructionism on fracking you make it harder to convince people to support nuclear. If you believe that risks can be managed then you need to demonstrate that belief consistently.

That said, if you simply said "I don't support fracking because of the CO2 emissions" then you would be consistent and I would not call you a hypocrite. The problem only occurs because you give credence to the nonsensical claims that there is an unmanageable risk of harm from fracking.

My position is based on evidence, scientific fact and findings and logic.

No it is not. There is no rational basis for rejecting a widely used technology because "something bad might happen". Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the point was to further illustrate how selectively you invoke the precautionary principal. If you wanted to find excuses to reject nuclear you could but you choose not to (which is a good thing). But what you fail to understand is by choosing to support the irrational obstructionism on fracking you make it harder to convince people to support nuclear. If you believe that risks can be managed then you need to demonstrate that belief consistently.

That said, if you simply said "I don't support fracking because of the CO2 emissions" then you would be consistent and I would not call you a hypocrite. The problem only occurs because you give credence to the nonsensical claims that there is an unmanageable risk of harm from fracking.

No it is not. There is no rational basis for rejecting a widely used technology because "something bad might happen".

In fact it is, because as stated you have provided nothing to support your claims on fracking and have also provided nothing to support your claims about the Canadian Nuclear Industry. Everything you provide is just your opinion, which I have proven to be wrong several times. I didn't say the risk was unmanageable I said there is risk of harm from fracking, that is not being managed as it continues to happen in this country. We don't have any recorded risks in this country from CANDU nuclear reactors so there is no evidence to support the claim that it is even dangerous in this country.

You're saying i should support fracking even though there is physical evidence it can cause many things in this country but if I don't support fracking then I can't support CANDU nuclear reactors even though they don't have a history of causing any harm whatsoever in this or any other country.

You're are trying to make my argument illogical based on no evidence, while dismissing my evidence to support that your argument is the illogical one. This is what is known as a false equivalence and is an illogical fallacy in debate. The difference between your greenpeace argument is that it is speculative. My Nuclear argument is based on fact. Fracking evidence isn't speculative, it has actually occurred in this country. Therefor logically Nuclear is a better option than Natural Gas.

Edited by PrimeNumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact it is, because as stated you have provided nothing to support your claims on fracking

I have. You keep ignoring it. The NY report itself says there is no evidence that there are any unmanageble risks from fracking. All it says is there could be risks that we don't know about. This is an irrational and obstructionist position to take.

I have proven to be wrong several times.

WTF? You have not refuted anything.

I didn't say the risk was unmanageable I said there is risk of harm from fracking

And the NY report says there is no evidence of harm - just that their might be harm we don't know about. You really need to stop making stuff up.

We don't have any recorded risks in this country from CANDU nuclear reactors so there is no evidence to support the claim that it is even dangerous in this country.

Yet you are keen to develop a completely new process based on thorium that would come with all kinds of unknowns.

Why is it so hard you to admit that real reason you don't like fracking is because of CO2 emissions?

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have. You keep ignoring it. The NY report itself says there is no evidence that there are any unmanageble risks from fracking. All it says is there could be risks that we don't know about. This is an irrational and obstructionist position to take.

WTF? You have not refuted anything.

hahaha wow you are beginning to sound ridiculous. You said there is no evidence of any harm caused by fracking, when in fact there is. I have admitted these risks are manigable but absolutely nothing is being done to manage them, in fact there are very little restrictions on fracking in this country, far less than even the regulations the US has in place. You also now admit that there are risks we don't know about but should continue to do so anyways, fair enough that is your opinion. My opinion is that it is an unnecessary risk. Why do these things if we do not need to? I'ts an exercise in futility and possible fatality.

I have refuted a lot of things such as your claims about wind energy, your fear mongering claims on nuclear energy and your claims that fracking hasn't caused any harm.

And the NY report says there is no evidence of harm - just that their might be harm we don't know about. You really need to stop making stuff up.

Except for the fact that there is.

Yet you are keen to develop a completely new process based on thorium that would come with all kinds of unknowns.

Our reactors are equipped to use thorium. The biggest drawback from this is the by-products being able to be used in nuclear weapons other than that it's process' are no different than Uranium. The unknowns are known about thorium. The second largest drawback is weather its viable economically. The only thing it might hurt is the industries wallets.

Why is it so hard you to admit that real reason you don't like fracking is because of CO2 emissions?

ahhh I see so your entire argument is based on the fact that I might be hiding the fact that I don't like fracking because of CO2 emissions. Well you are partially right I ALSO, aside from the fact it can cause our fellow human beings harm which is legally documented in this country, dislike fracking because it can cause CO2 emissions. But the part you have left out is I also don't like it because it can cause extensive methane emissions too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end it might not even be the CO2 that does the warming. Methane is impossible to stop but we sure are helping it. Methane has been proven to reverse ice ages. So it's needed in the natural flow of things but adding fuel to the fire may have consequences. We can not be certain of that at this point. the equator around the earth would be largely unlivable though if enough methane is present which would have dire effects on immigration north ward which Conservatives are always against. You think they would be trying to siphon the methane out of the air and cause an ice age to keep all of them foreigners out.

Animal agriculture is the single largest contributor of methane. If the western world were to adopt a plant based diet for at the very least a few days a week, it could result if enormous reductions of methane.

"Though carbon dioxide (CO2) appears to be the greatest source of climate change when evaluated 100 years after the emissions occur, shorter-lived climate forcers, including methane (CH4), black carbon and ozone precursors contribute much more to warming in the near term."

http://www.worldpreservationfoundation.org/Downloads/ReducingShorterLivedClimateForcersThroughDietaryChange.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is you won't be against fracking until a few thousand people die, a couple hundred lakes used as drinking water become contaminated and a few major earthquakes occur because of it?

O my. What nonsense. Just what is the acceptable level of harm for you people? You seem to be living in the modern world, most of which was made possible by oil, so as you write your decree's you are harming the environment. So some level of environmental impact seems to be ok with you. The real bottom line problem is that most of you are anti science, and anti fact left leaning individuals who will simply accept no reality outside of your broken ideology. Prove me wrong and stop participating in this fossil fuel driven world. Stop posting from your made mostly from oil computer, find a nice cave, or mud dwelling, etc. Major earthquakes? If you knew anything about science, geology, or plate tectonics you would be embarrassed for having written that.

Edited by poochy

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...