Richard Muller: Why every serious environmentalist should favour fracking

This opinion should create quite a stir amongst enviros. – Anthony

Air pollution is a far more pressing problem – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India – than the challenges posed by greenhouse warming.

A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world, demonstrates Richard Muller (Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley since 1980) in Why Every Serious Environmentalist should favour Fracking.  His co-author, Elizabeth Muller, is his daughter and co-founder (with him) of Berkeley Earth, a non-profit working on environmental issues.

Watch the animation: 

As such, air pollution is currently harming far more people than the more distant challenge of global warming – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India. They state:

“The Health Effects Institute estimated that air pollution in 2010 led to 3.2 million deaths that year [across the world], including 1.2 million in China and 620,000 in India. And the pollution is getting worse as global use of coal continues to grow…

The Mullers argues that both global warming and air pollution can be mitigated by the responsible development and utilisation of shale gas:

“China not only has the greatest yearly death toll from air pollution, but is also key for mitigating global warming. China surpassed the US in CO2 production in 2006; growth was so rapid that by late 2013, China’s CO2 emissions are nearly twice those of the US. If its growth continues at this rate (and China has averaged 10% GDP growth per year for the past 20 years) China will be producing more CO2 per person than the US by 2023. If the US were to disappear tomorrow, Chinese growth alone would bring worldwide emissions back to the same level in four years. To mitigate global warming, it is essential to slow worldwide emissions, not just those in the developed countries. And we feel this must be done without slowing the economic growth of the emerging world…”

“It is believed that China has enormous reserves of shale gas, perhaps 50% larger than those of the US. If that shale gas can be utilised, it offers China a wonderful opportunity to mitigate air pollution while still allowing energy growth… Industry experts believe that the cubic metres of gas recovered from a given well can be doubled in the near future by better design of the fracking stages to match geologic formation characteristics. And they also believe that number could double again in the next decade. Soon that will mean four times the production for only a minor increase in cost. Such an advance is expected to turn currently difficult fields into major producers, to open up fields in China, Europe, and the US that are currently unprofitable.”

The authors consider some of the concerns raised by opponents of fracking; and conclude that they are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation.

Developed economies should therefore help emerging economies switch from coal to natural gas; and shale gas technology should be advanced as rapidly as possible and shared freely.

And China and Europe are well placed to take advantage of fracking. The high price paid in China and Europe for imported natural gas, typically US$10 per million BTU (compared to the US$3.50 in the US) means that the cost of shale drilling and completion can be much higher and still be profitable.

The Mullers conclude that environmentalists should recognise the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.

DOWNLOAD FREE PDF

Source: http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/why-every-serious-environmentalist-should-favour-fracking/

h/t Steven Mosher

About these ads
This entry was posted in Fracking and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

143 Responses to Richard Muller: Why every serious environmentalist should favour fracking

  1. Col Mosby says:

    My view exactly,although Muller is apparently ignorant of the large number of nuclear plants China has on the schedule – thirty currently under construction and hundreds more in the planning stages. And nuclear is cheaper than gas in he US, where gas prices have dropped enormously

  2. Mike Smith says:

    Yikes. The Berkeley Student Council is gonna go fracking bonkers over this.

  3. paddylol says:

    I wonder who funded their research. CA’s Monterrey shale formation is supposedly 4 times larger than Bakken. Could it be the Gov Brown is organizing a cheering section in favor of frakking in CA?

  4. philjourdan says:

    @Mike Smith – Every Enviro is going to! He is one of theirs

  5. Old'un says:

    Far too rational for Guardianistas and their ilk in the UK, but it will happen here eventually. We cannot afford not to.

  6. Mike Smith says:

    @philjourdan says: He is one of theirs

    Oh yeah. Lucky guess, I guess ;-)

  7. Steven Mosher says:

    ‘My view exactly,although Muller is apparently ignorant of the large number of nuclear plants China has on the schedule – thirty currently under construction and hundreds more in the planning stages. And nuclear is cheaper than gas in he US, where gas prices have dropped enormously”

    well, no. we visit china often and are fully briefed on their plans. If you want to good place to start, start here

    http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html

    the approach is first things first. Coal is the most damaging. the easiest step to take is to move from coal to natural gas. three main benefits: reduced pollution, reduced costs, and mitigation of GHGs. you dont even have to believe in global warming to see that it makes sense.

    If you live in a filter bubble, however, then you must come up with objections.

  8. paddylol says:

    Col Mosby, I too agree with the sentiment of Mueller’s report except for the evaluation of diesel. I am optimistic enough to believe that with time a form of filter or re- combustion device will be developed to solve the PM2.5 emissions.

    Moreover, I believe that you are engaged in wishful thinking that China will replace their 200 year supply of dirty brown coal with cleaner energy sources. The Chinese can be counted on to use every ton of their brown coal. Human life is still cheap in China and will remain so until its communist government is overthrown or evolves into one with real empathy for its citizens.

    BTW, nuclear power can never be cheaper than gas for the foreseeable future.

    Oh, have you checked the of natural gas in th US lately. The cold spell that just enveloped most of the lower 48 states caused gas prices to spike significantly. Now we hear that gas pipelines can freeze up and shut down thereby complicating both supply and distribution.

  9. Russ R. says:

    A “serious environmentalist” would know that millions of birds and bats are killed each year, and that it is being subsidized by the taxpayer. If the oil or gas industries where causing 10% of that environmental carnage, the “non-serious environmentalists” would be marching on Washington demanding action.
    Fracking is a great method to unlock energy, and it will improve the lives of people, and improve the environment for wildlife. That is why the current enviros hate it. The hard left has taken over the environmental movement. Any energy production, that can’t be use to reward cronies, and punish opponents, will be opposed.

  10. BioBob says:

    I like fracking. I want cheap energy and an ObamaPhone and Obama is going to pay my mortgage & healthcare…

    LOL

  11. neillusion says:

    What utter nonsense… Richard Muller should know better…
    If one limits the context around the soundbite one is about to make, one can sound almost sensible.
    But taking the bigger picture and the best technology, one can only arrive at one conclusion:—
    Thorium,
    A LFTR plant.
    The chinese, japanese and indians will steal a march on the usa and the west with this technology. (they have shown considerable interest and have put who knows how much into it – how much? we don’t know. You can be sure they will keep it secret anyway and only reveal their lead when they have advantage to do so.)
    The usa had it in the 50’s, even a working reactor operational for five years. It was so flexible, the technicians/scientists often shut it down just for the weekend.
    It is clear, an example of which is AGW, that the powers that be in the usa and europe have self serving agendas that relate not to the best interests of the people. They will not give in or give up making their money what ever way they can, forcing the rest of us to pay to use them and their agenda. They care not about the environment, the food, the health of the people – or any life except their own.

  12. Jeff L says:

    If your belief in CAGW is scientifically driven, then this position is internally consistent. If your view of CAGW is politically driven, this position will drive you crazy.

    Of course there is an assumption about the geology that the Chinese have appropriate source rocks to make shale plays. Historically lack of source rocks has always been the biggest problem in oil & gas exploration in China. So assuming there are appropriate source rocks is putting the horse in front of the cart at this point. At the end of the day, geology still matters. Just look at domestic plays – they are not created equal & even within a given play there are mapable sweet spots, which are driven by geology.

    Perfect example is Monterey shale mentioned by paddylol above. On paper, it should be great. In reality, it is a minor player in shale resources. Although the regulatory environment in CA is heinous, there is a geologic component to this as well ( based on my own work in the play ).

  13. Tom G(ologist) says:

    “The authors consider some of the concerns raised by opponents of fracking; and conclude that they are either largely false or can be addressed by appropriate regulation.”
    From an insider: The objections are not so much false as they rely on willful misconduct and an attitude of rapine on the part of shale gas producers to be remotely realistic. That such is patently not the case is irrelevant to fractivists (And it IS ‘F-R-A-C’ . If you want the rationale, I invite you to my latest post at http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/) There is some other information there which you might find useful or entertaining on shale gas.

    I am in the beginning stages of addressing some of the objections of fractivists in a paper in preparation. As my graduate research in 1980 was on hydraulic fracturing, this will be an extension of that research aimed at responding to fractivist concerns.

    But the authors are fundamentally correct.

  14. Lance Wallace says:

    Muller states in his book on physics for presidents (if only Obama could read it) that the long-term answer is nuclear.

  15. Canman says:

    With all of the flack that Richard Muller catches from both sides of the climate debates, I think his two books Physics for Future Presidents and Energy for Future Presidents are among the most overlooked and underrated.

  16. TRM says:

    ” paddylol says: December 6, 2013 at 11:14 am
    I wonder who funded their research. CA’s Monterrey shale formation is supposedly 4 times larger than Bakken. Could it be the Gov Brown is organizing a cheering section in favor of frakking in CA? ”

    I like how you think! :)

    Nice to see some realism in the ranks from M&M (and it’s not our M&M this time). Natural gas will give us that wonderful 30-100 year (depending on who’s numbers you use) buffer. That is lots of time to get LFTR and other technologies figured out Unless we get lazy, complacent and stupid. Again. Oh never mind :(

  17. Janice Moore says:

    I may be mistaken, but I think Mr. Mosher meant to post this:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/06/filter-bubbles-and-the-climate-wars/#comment-1493522

    on this thread.

  18. Tom G(ologist) says:

    HeyTRM:

    “Natural gas will give us that wonderful 30-100 year (depending on who’s numbers you use) buffer”

    Let me say that the volume of natural gas available as PUDs (proven but undeveloped reserves) is ASTOUNDING, and the volume which is currently, although not necessarily available comprises many times the PUD volume. If I could show you how our production reserves have INCRAEASED as a result of the performance of the Marcellus Shale during our first year of operations, you would be astounded as well. It is far above the USGS estimates

    If we can’t come up with a reasonable alternative by the time shale gas runs out, then we ARE stupid.

  19. Tom G(ologist) says:

    In that last post, make that “currently but not necessarily UNavailable”

  20. Rud Istvan says:

    Muller is right on principle, but weak on facts. The Monterrey shale in Californiamis a good example of why. The Barnett, Eagle Ford, Marcellus, and other shale gas plays are relatively unfaulted basins into which the ‘horizontal’ part of the well can be run for lengths now over a mile. Makes the well work because such a long pay can be fracked. The Monterreynis all folded and faulted, so no long pay is available. Neither Chevron, nor Getty, nor any of the small independents have been able to make the Monterrey work because of this fundamental tectonic/geologic problem.
    From what is known about China’s prospective shale gas resources, many of them have the Monterrey problem. China is neither stupid not technically inept. If they aren’t developing their shale deposits,,there are good geophysical reasons.

  21. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mr. Mosher,

    Re: “If you live in a filter bubble, however, then you must come up with {will neither come up with nor seriously examine any} objections.”
    (Steven Mosher at 11:27am, today)

    {edit mine}

    Or, do you and I just define the term “filter bubble” differently?

    Wishing I understood you better,

    Janice

  22. Janice Moore says:

    Lest this article about pollution in China be mis-used to erroneously label U. S. (and other non-communist nations’) coal-fired electric power a significant source of air “pollution,” remember:

    The following provides a brief description of 16 clean coal technologies. All but one are in use today at coal-fueled electric generating units (EGUs); carbon capture and storage (CCS) is still under development. Alone or in combination, clean coal technologies are capable of reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), mercury, acid gases, and other emissions from coal-fueled EGUs by 90 percent to 99.9 percent. In addition, the high efficiencies of advanced coal-fueled electric generating technologies contribute to reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

    Wet Scrubbers (Wet FGD)

    Wet scrubbers (or flue gas desulfurization) combine a mixture of lime or limestone and water with power plant flue gases to remove SO2 and acid gases. The mixture is either injected into the scrubber with the flue gas, or the flue gas bubbles up through the mixture. According to EPA, wet scrubbers achieve SO2 and acid gas removal efficiencies of 90 percent to 98 percent. Scrubbers in combination with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx control can remove up to 80 percent of mercury emissions.1

    Dry Scrubbers (Dry FGD)

    Dry scrubbers spray very finely powdered lime or other absorbents into a vessel where they combine with power plant flue gases to remove SO2 and acid gases. The resulting sorbent is captured with a fabric filter (also called a baghouse). According to EPA, dry scrubbers achieve removal efficiencies of 90 percent to 93 percent.2

    {Source: http://www.americaspower.org/clean-coal-technologies}

    And, yes, Gary Pearse, I think we ought to build A LOT more
    nuclear plants. #(:))

  23. Janice Moore says:

    For Tom G. Ologist:

    Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing Frac’ing!

    Best wishes,

    Janice

    #(:))

  24. TRM says:

    ” Tom G(ologist) says: December 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    Let me say that the volume of natural gas available as PUDs (proven but undeveloped reserves) is ASTOUNDING, ”

    I’ve heard that as well and boy I hope it is true and we can recover it. Not to mention the Japanese are making progress on the ocean floor gas hydrates. If that gets into production even human nature couldn’t outlast it.

    Cheers

  25. Alan Robertson says:

    “The Mullers conclude that environmentalists should recognise the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.
    ____________________
    The mullers are seriously confused- when have environmentalists ever shown that they have any regard for “society” (people, in general.)

  26. Steven Mosher says:

    “From what is known about China’s prospective shale gas resources, many of them have the Monterrey problem. China is neither stupid not technically inept. If they aren’t developing their shale deposits,,there are good geophysical reasons.”

    Rud has never been to china to meet with those who are working on fracking today
    Rud doesnt have a chinese geologist on staff advising him.
    Rud has no understanding of the role existing leases play in the problem
    Rud has no understanding of the role existing subsidies play
    Rud has no understanding of what Shell is doing for example.

    傻子

    The reasons are not geophysical. It will take a long time to dispell these myths

  27. Doug says:

    China is a big place, and it takes some time to work out the best production techniques in different basins. West Texas has many prospective units for horizontal drilling and fracking, and may one day surpass some of the areas it currently lags behind. It is premature to say the lack of shale production in China indicates lack of potential. i worked a bit on the Daquing basin and there are lacustrine shales present which I could see being significant one day. We still have a lot to learn.

  28. Dr. Bob says:

    PM 2.5 is an interesting issue. I have not delved into the “science” behind it, but I suspect that it is overblown like so many toxicological studies. Much of the scare of diesel exhaust was based on heavy overloading of target tissues which did respond negatively. But work by the Lovelace Respiratory Institute in Albuquerque showed that laboratory animals exposed to ambient levels of PM emissions had no different response than control animals. So much of our tox data is based on overexposure. If the immune system is not overloaded, it copes marvelously with low level toxic materials. If it didn’t, we would all live short, brutal lives. I welcome others’ opinions on this topic.

  29. Richard D says:

    Steven Mosher says: December 6, 2013 at 11:27 am
    well, no. we visit china often and are fully briefed on their plans. If you want to good place to start, start here http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/pffp.html

    the approach is first things first. Coal is the most damaging. the easiest step to take is to move from coal to natural gas. three main benefits: reduced pollution, reduced costs, and mitigation of GHGs. you dont even have to believe in global warming to see that it makes sense.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes, indeed. I remember the days when we cared about improving the quality of air and water. I’m constantly dismayed by the anti-environmental energy solutions promoted by so called environmentalists……..Mosher’s right. Add some nuclear to the mix along with fracking and you can greatly improve air quality in rapidly growing countries.

  30. Doug Huffman says:

    Oh noes, not another previously unknown hazardous dimension. Realize that while there are more than one, there will be a ‘worst’. PM-2.5 particles are said to cause atherosclerosis against which the Statins, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are the most highly prescribed drugs in world.

  31. Paul Milenkovic says:

    I have seen claims that “fracked” oil and gas has a very high depletion rate. This might be that a given well runs out quickly, making this resource expensive because you have to keep making new wells into the formation to extract the oil or gas. Or it might be that the resource is more limited than its champions claim.

    Is this cloud of dispair surrounding a long hoped energy abundance politically driven by people who just don’t want to see energy-driven prosperity? Or is there some substance to the doubters on fracking? I have been following the CO2 Global Warming controversy here and other places to have some sense of the arguments, but what should I make of this argument?

  32. Lady Life Grows says:

    This suffers from the same defect that appears on this site over and over: the idea that the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide is good only for plants. and that trivially, while otherwise it is a dangerous pollutant that must be reduced.

    In fact, carbon dioxide is VITAL in animal physiology as well. You could not survive more than a few minutes, or maybe seconds, if the CO2 in your body were removed. It is a vital pH balancer that is probably also used in thousands of biochemical reactions.

    At increasing concentrations up to at least forty times ambient (probably more) it increases animal well-being and longevity.

    –Esther Cook, Lady Life Grows
    M.S. Animal Physiology, University of Arizona

  33. clipe says:

    The Chinese communist Party and business elites are playing footsie. They will make noises about the environment but continue to consolidate their position while enriching themselves.
    Burn baby burn!

    The Party has utilized a sophisticated strategy to maintain control of its populace. While growing the economy, it has kept the majority of wealth in the hands of an elite class of business leaders, many of whom have willingly accepted authoritarian rule in exchange for getting rich. Far from forming a middle class that might challenge authority, these groups now have reason to join their rulers in repressing “instability” among the people. Meanwhile, the Party has also deliberately stoked and shaped Chinese nationalism, and many inside China now feel pride in the government’s model of authoritarian development, especially as the model of liberal capitalism staggers in the wake of the global financial

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124319304482150525

  34. more soylent green! says:

    There are problems with fracking —

    * Fracking makes energy abundant
    * Fracking make energy inexpensive
    * Fracking reduces control of the energy supply by the statist central planners
    * Fracking prevents us from developing all those wonder, theoretical, unlimited energy sources that only exists in environmentalist’s imagination.

  35. Dolf says:

    Shale gas is well worth exploring and using when safe and feasable. But I am amazed that this argued based on huge pm deaths which sounds at least as alarmistic as warmists claims, and as ill-founded. It would be worth if this site investigates the pm2.5 claims as thorough as it does with the flawed CO2 claims!

  36. Janice Moore says:

    Dear Mr. Mosher,

    Okay, ad argumentum, Rud was mistaken. Your post would be more helpful if you instead answered and not merely posed those issues, i.e, :

    1. What do those “working on fracking today” report on the situation in China?
    2.What does that Chinese geologist report about frac’ing in China?
    3.What is the role played in China by the existing leases you refer to?
    4. What is the role played by the subsidies you refer to?
    5. What is Shell doing?

    All you have said above, essentially is:

    “‘Rud is a fool.’ I know why, but, I am not going to tell you what I know.”

    btw: How does it make one a “fool” to be simply mistaken? Why the name-calling (at this stage, anyway)?

    I hope that you have more joy in your heart than your WUWT comments over the past several months indicate. I’m really sorry if you are suffering from depression (I am not being sarcastic). That is a heavy burden to haul with you wherever you go. I have friends who will be taking their anti-depressants (if you decide to try them, hang in there, there IS one that fits you with no unpleasant side-effects; it can take 2 or 3 or more tries, sometimes, to find the right one AND the right dose) for the rest of their lives — they are determined not to ever go back into “the pit.” Depression is a brain, i.e., a physical, disorder. Taking something to help your neurons better fire is no different than someone who needs to stay on heart meds or insulin for the rest of his or her life. Ignore the stigma and DO WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU. Exercise helps. Also, watch more comedies!

    Coming from me, all this will have little persuasive weight, no doubt, but ASK YOUR FRIENDS. Believe them (if it turns out they say the same things I do). They care. I do, too. You matter, Mr. Mosher. Take care of yourself.

    Yours,

    Janice

  37. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Did someone actually say they are fully briefed on China’s energy plans? I sense nose elongation.

  38. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Talking about India, over 300,000 babies die each year within the first 24 hours of birth, 1.7 million children die before the age of 5, 1.2 million die each year in car accidents. Over half of adult males smoke and cancer causes over 600,000 deaths. So if the poverty, smoking or bad drivers don’t get you the air eventually will. Having been there a few times I would say poverty is even more important than air pollution. Of course they didn’t fully brief me on their energy plans.

  39. Janice Moore says:

    @ Ms. Esther Cook, M.S. — You go, girl! Good for you. A fine, informative, and well-informed, comment from someone whose views should be respected and valued.

    I have no science credentials; and I say, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it!” #(:))

  40. Janice Moore says:

    Re: “…many inside China now feel pride in the government’s model of authoritarian development… (quoted by Clipe at 2:06pm today)

    Disgusting. They eagerly embrace what no freeborn person would every willingly submit to.

    I’ll stick with, “Give me liberty, or give me death!, so help me, God.

    And not ALL Chinese are such bootlickers. Remember this man? Remember! Those who love liberty are still there, but they have to be very careful about what they say. We are with you, O Freedom-loving Chinese! Don’t give up!!!

    1989 Tieneman Square, Communist China

  41. eo says:

    PM2.5 is a generic name of particles smaller that 2.5 microns. There are natural sources of PM2.5 such as salt spray from the oceans to storm dust from land especially deserts. PM2.5 is an important component in the water cycle as the particles forms the nucleus for the formation of rain drops. Without PM2.5 the world could be a very humid with limited rainfall. Just like essential minerals in low concentration they are important for health but at high concentrations they could be destructive. This is the problem of the scare strategy to gather environmental awareness. It is the negative impacts that are high lighted and the other side often ignored. PM 2.5 could be fingerprinted to determine its source and this is an important exercise to develop cost effective pollution control policies, plans and programs rather than blaming coal fired power plants and brown coal right away. Renewable energy from biomass combustion is a major source of PM2.5.

  42. Peter Brunson says:

    The reference to Asthma in the video is not correct.

  43. TonG(ologist) says:

    Rud. I am developing the Marcellus on and in front o the Allegheny Structural Front where the rock is folded and thrust faulted. We are able to do ths as a small independent gecause the majors have to answer to stockholders and the pay out might not be as good. But it is, and we are running laterals out to 7,000 + ft at depths of 9000 ft. With geo steering we can ramp over folds, climb up section to stay in the pay zone when we cross a fault, go up dip, down dip… A little riky but we are doing it

  44. u.k.(us) says:

    Steven Mosher says:

    December 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    ====================
    My search of your Chinese phrase, translates as:

    傻子 {noun}
    sap · sap · idiot · simpleton · greenhorn · jackass · nincompoop · poop · a nut · poops · ninny · nitwit
    ———
    Which exactly did you mean ?
    Just curious.

  45. Jquip says:

    Lady Life Grows: “At increasing concentrations up to at least forty times ambient (probably more) it increases animal well-being and longevity.”

    So the lesson here is: To improve carbon sequestration we should lower the concentrations and thus negatively effect the reproductive spread and longevity of aerobic organisms.

    /runs for it

  46. Jquip says:

    u.k.(us): “Which exactly did you mean ?”

    Why ask a 诡辩学者 about arguments that 攻击人?

  47. u.k.(us) says:

    Jquip says:

    December 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    u.k.(us): “Which exactly did you mean ?”

    Why ask a 诡辩学者 about arguments that 攻击人?

    (Why ask a sophist about arguments that attack ?).
    This is kinda fun, but I don’t think it will last :)

  48. @Janice Moore
    Thanks for your comments and video on China, right on.

  49. Janice Moore says:

    @ U.K. (US) and J Quip — lol, I’d love to join in your fun banter, but, after I read (a long time ago…) of The Coca Cola Corp.’s marketing blunder in China (they put “Coke” into Chinese characters that meant: “Bite the Wax Tadpole” — lots of unsold inventory…), I’m kind of nervous about trusting the online translators (and that’s all I have to go on).

    I really wish we could reach Steven Mosher’s heart. He seems so unhappy.

    Thanks for your wit and fun above, guys (gals? — yes, yes, UKUS, I recall you played hockey, but, still… #(:))

    *************************************
    @ Tom “Frac’ing” G. Ologist — that is TERRIFIC. Way to go. Very impressive work your operation is doing. Oh, and…. you’re welcome….. (smile).

  50. Janice Moore says:

    J. Philip Peterson! Good to hear from you. Thank you, so much. It’s always such a BUMMER (and it happens all the time) when I post a video and no one watches it, especially one that moves me to tears as that one does.

    So thankful you took the time to tell me and for your affirmation.

    How is the art selling?

    And, in informed circles, you ARE a “famous artist.”

    Hey, everybody (just in case SOMEONE reads this), click on J. Philip Peterson’s name and look at his BEAUTIFUL PAINTINGS. All are lovely, some are stunning.

  51. Jimbo says:

    Here is a concerned environmentalist’s view about fracking.

    Leo Hickman – The Guardian – Friday 15 June 2012
    James Lovelock: The UK should be going mad for fracking
    Scientist James Lovelock is the man behind Gaia theory, and once predicted doom for our climate. He discusses nuclear (good), wind power (bad) and why fracking is the future

    …..Indeed, earlier this year he admitted to MSNBC in an interview reported around the world with somewhat mocking headlines along the lines of “Doom-monger recants”, that he had been “extrapolating too far” in reaching such a conclusion and had made a “mistake” in claiming to know with such certainty what will happen to the climate……

    He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: “Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way.
    Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-interview-gaia-theory

    Every carbonphobe should also favor nuclear energy. But nooooooooo even though it’s ‘less’ dangerous to the planet ie it won’t destroy the biosphere.

  52. clipe says:

    “Rud has no understanding of what Shell is doing for example.”

    Shell has assiduously courted the state-owned giant, only to see CNPC swept up in a political purge which has seen at least five current or former executives investigated by the Communist party.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10300263/Shell-shuts-down-8.3bn-project-in-China.html

  53. D.J. Hawkins says:

    paddylol says:
    December 6, 2013 at 11:32 am

    Moreover, I believe that you are engaged in wishful thinking that China will replace their 200 year supply of dirty brown coal with cleaner energy sources. The Chinese can be counted on to use every ton of their brown coal. Human life is still cheap in China and will remain so until its communist government is overthrown or evolves into one with real empathy for its citizens.

    While it may be true that human life is considered cheap in China, this is not something unique to the current crop of totalitarians. China’s been like that for a loooooong time. Whatever valuation may be placed on human life, the instant that fraced gas is a cheaper play than brown coal, those mines will close with a sound like thunder. Economic realities can’t be ignored forever, and only a fool would believe the Chinese don’t have a sharp eye on the bottom line.

  54. u.k.(us) says:

    Janice Moore says:

    December 6, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    ============
    ” He seems so unhappy.”
    Start to worry when he seems happy.

  55. Konrad says:

    There are many solutions to current real environmental problems and future energy needs. These include-
    – Natural gas in the short term.
    – Full baseload thorium power in the medium term.
    – Lunar He3 in the long term.

    However there is no solution to current real environmental problems and future energy needs that includes –
    – Dr. Richard Muller.

  56. Bill Illis says:

    Anybody notice how US CO2 emissions are falling so fast.

    Anybody notice how US SO2 emissions are falling so fast.

    Anybody notice how Green UK and Germany’s emissions are still rising fast.

    Duh, Natural Gas electricity generation from the recent rise of Natural Gas supplies from fracking.

  57. Poptech says:

    Advice from the fake skeptic is always fascinating.

  58. Policycritic says:

    Tom G(ologist) says:
    December 6, 2013 at 12:16 pm
    my latest post at http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/)

    Excellent post and explanation. May I suggest you pull out that part of your post that strictly addresses how fracing/fracking (which is it?) works with the porosity of the rock explanation, to how sand remains to allow the gas to rise to the surface, to how the water is RECOVERED at the surface….and then label the post How Fracking Works. Add an illustration that shows how far down the tracking is, way below aquifers, since most people (the loudest complainers) think that somehow tracking occurs inside the aquifer!

    I look forward to your paper explaining more, or whatever it is you are working on, and I hope it gets picked up here.

  59. Policycritic says:

    re: typos in December 6, 2013 at 4:42 pm…My auto-correct insists on changing FRACKing to tracking, and even when I make corrections, it does something on its own after that. Annoying.

  60. Policycritic says:

    Lady Life Grows says:
    December 6, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    In fact, carbon dioxide is VITAL in animal physiology as well. You could not survive more than a few minutes, or maybe seconds, if the CO2 in your body were removed. It is a vital pH balancer that is probably also used in thousands of biochemical reactions.

    Is that what happens during CPR when 40,000 PPM of CO2 are blown into the patient’s chest?

  61. Mike Kinville says:

    This is an aside from the main topic, but due to EPA involvement in the burning of firewood for home heating in our fair city of Fairbanks, AK, I’ve spent some time looking at the basis of the claims of harm from “PM 2.5”. I am nowhere near a conclusion, but I’m becoming concerned that there is scientific misconduct involved. To dip your toe in, search for ”flawed pm 2.5 studies”.

    BTW Janice, thanks for pointing out J. Philip Peterson’s work. Very nice indeed.

  62. Phil says:

    @ Dr. Bob on (December 6, 2013 at 1:50 pm)

    PM2.5 is a perhaps misleading metric. It includes all particles under 2.5 microns (2.5 x 10-6) in size. However, particles almost 1000 times smaller (in the nanometer (10-9 range) may have a greater effect on health than larger particles. The visible smoke from diesel vehicles is mostly in the 30 to 500 nm range. (Kittelson 2006, pg 31). Kittleson calls this range of particles the accumulation mode, one of two ranges of particles sizes produced by engines, the other one of which he calls the nuclei mode, with diameters ranging from 3-30 nm. However, the visible particles may not be the most harmful as the smaller particles may go deeper into the lungs (Kittelson 2006, pg 15).

    Spark Ignition (i.e. gasoline) engines can also produce high concentrations of very small particles but the particles are generally smaller than those produced by diesel engines. These smaller particles don’t absorb as much light and, therefore, aren’t as visible as the larger particles emitted by diesel engines. Interestingly, greater fuel economy demands are leading to more direct injected (DI) gasoline engines. Most diesel engines have direct injection, where fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. Gasoline engines have, up to now, generally used indirect injection, where the fuel injectors spray into the intake valves but are mounted in the intake manifold. DI gasoline engines seem to have much higher emissions of ultra-fine particulates, similar to the emissions from non-filtered diesel engines. (Färnlund, et al. 2001)

    Färnlund, et al. 2001 state that the largest number of particles from spark ignition engines were in the smallest size category of 10 nm, but that their equipment could not measure particles that were smaller than that. That raises interesting issues about gasoline vs. diesel engines, especially with regard to modern clean diesel engines.

    Stoeger et al. 2005 compared 6 different ultrafine carbon particles using live mouse models. Particles were instilled into the lungs and, after 24 hrs, the mice were euthanized and the tissues sampled for inflammation. Reference diesel exhaust particles (DEP) produced the least inflammation while spark-generated ultrafine carbon particles (ufCP) generated the most. Specifically:

    …. the instillation of ufCP particles generated the highest cytokine levels at each dose. BALF concentrations of IL-1β are shown in Figure 1B. IL-1β content showed a significant increase at all ufCP doses and at higher doses of SootL, SootH, and Printex90 particles. PrintexG and DEP generally failed to increase IL-1β cytokine levels significantly. Only the instillation of ufCP significantly elevated TNF-α concentration in BAL at all three doses
    (emphasis added)

    It should be kept in mind that Stoeger et al. 2005 measured immediate inflammatory responses. Longer-term exposure may have different results (i.e. diesel particulates may be found to have a significant inflammatory response), but it is still interesting.

  63. David Ball says:

    I was reading about Muller’s “Nemesis” theory. If you look this up, you will never believe anything that comes from him again.

  64. kuhnkat says:

    Muller hasn’t done enough Junk Science so now he gets into the PM2.5 Junk Science???

  65. JimF says:

    @Steven Mosher says:
    December 6, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    and

    @Steven Mosher says:
    December 6, 2013 at 11:27 am

    You just cannot help being an a$$hole, can you? You might have something to say, but either you cannot write, or you simply cannot forbear showing a juvenile and rude contempt for those to whom you are responding, or both. I do wish I could “ignore” you on this site, because you add nothing of value, at least in commentary. I feel sorry for one so socially lacking.

    And, Mod, if you kill this, that’s fine with me. I just get tired of his stuff.

  66. Janice Moore says:

    @ Mike Kinville — you’re welcome!

  67. higley7 says:

    Of course all of this discussion about particulates is based on the EPA’s lying about how bad it is for people, claiming it can kill and then hiring people to be exposed to much higher levels. When nothing happened to these people, they buried the study and claimed it lethal.

  68. Grey Lensman says:

    Tom, many thanks for your posts. First class on many counts. Can you add water usage and chemical usage, including volumes and recovery. Anthony, can you make toms reports a post in their own right. Ground breaking and myth busting indeed.

  69. OssQss says:

    It is about the cost of energy in the end.

    Expensive, or cheap, for those who need it is what matters.

    What can you afford at the direction of those who arbitrarily set energy policy?

    Think about it!

    Video redacted !

    Not!

    Don’t forget what this man told you!

    He meant it!

  70. Mike Maguire says:

    An article I wrote on air pollution earlier this year.

    http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/may/30/co2-overhyped-as-air-pollution-threat/

  71. old engineer says:

    Whenever I see a statement like:

    “A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year…”

    I always ask myself “ How did they determine that?” And so should everybody. You can bet there are not 3 million people with: “cause of death: an overdose of PM2.5” on their death certificate.

    I have been retired for a number of years so my knowledge is getting a little outdated. But back in the early ’80’s when I was working under contract to EPA on mobile source pollutant exposure, The model used by EPA for cancer deaths due to pollution exposure, was called a “one-hit, no threshold” model. This means that one exposure to any level of pollutant would cause some deaths.

    The curve of “deaths per 1000 population” ( Y axis) versus “pollutant level” ((X axis) was a straight line drawn from some very high concentration of pollutant for which there was some data that showed some cancer deaths, down through the 0,0 point. Thus guaranteeing that now matter what level of pollution there was (as long as it wasn’t zero) there would be some cancer deaths.

    Now the number of cancer deaths per thousand for a given concentration of pollutant from the curve might well be a small fraction (say 0.001) but when multiplied by the population of a country (say 2 billion for China) you get lots of deaths (in this example, 2 million).

    My bet is that the “one hit, no threshold” model was use to get the numbers in the first line of this post. Which IMO means it is meaningless.

  72. Janice Moore says:

    I think you should change your name to “Wise Old Engineer.” Re: yours at 10:23pm, I’ll bet you’re right.

  73. janama says:

    There is two types of fracking – coal and shale

    Coal fracking, as performed in NSW and Queensland in Australia, uses water to force the escape of gas from the coal seam. The water that returns to the surface is highly saline and full of toxic chemicals.We are talking Tonnes of salt and Megalitres of toxic water. Very hard to dispose of. There is serious, and understandable public opposition to this type of fracking especially as it’s being sourced from prime agricultural land where the water table and aquifers are at stake.

    New shale deposits have been found in the Woomera district of South Australia possibly as rich as Saudi Arabia – that’s where fracking should be performed in Australia..

    It should also be noted that we have copious amounts of natural gas that doesn’t require fracking and reports are that even more is yet to be discovered.

  74. otropogo says:

    If, as so many here insist, nuclear power generation is economical and environmentally desirable, how can it be that no commercial underwriting firm can be persuaded to cover the potential liability?

    If Fukushima has demonstrated one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is that nuclear power facilities are incapable of covering the potential liability of their operations. Yet everyone here seems supremely indifferent to this.

    If the fact that Japan,a relatively open society, in which (unlike in China or Russia, or, probably, India) whistle-blowers need not fear assasination of imprisonment) could botch its safety measures so badly (keep in mind, if you haven’t managed to miss it altogether, that Reactor #1 melted before the Tsunami struck – as Tepco revealed three months after the fact), leaves no reasonable expectation that less technically advanced and much more repressive societies will be able to manage nuclear power more safely.

    Angela Merkel has an advanced degree in physics. Her husband is a physics professor, and she decided that nuclear power is not currently safe to employ. what do Putin, Cameron, Hollande, Obama, and the rest, have for credentials for assessing the advice of their “yes-men”?

  75. KuhnKat says:

    otropogo,

    Why are you spreading BS?? There simply was not enough TIME for ANY of the reactors to have melted down before the tsunami struck!! It certainly could have STARTED runaway…

    It really does not matter. The casings are designed so that in the event of a melt down the core material spreads out on the bottom of the containment vessel increasing the area covered by the fuel and reducing the neutron exchanges so that the reaction naturally slows and stops. The explosions were caused by the attempt, now known to be futile, to cool the reactors and prevent the melt downs that were happening anyway. The core heat broke the water creating explosive hydrogen that had to be vented and that collected in the buildings.

    Basically there is exactly ZERO deaths that can be contributed to Fukushima dai-Ichi. The amount of radioactive material leaking is safe to this point and unlikely to increase to a dangerous level. It has shown once again that even the old designs claimed to be dangerous are safer than most other forms of energy production even with HUMANS operating it.

    The only real disaster, and it is still overhyped, has been Chernobyl which did not even HAVE a containment vessel, just a water cover to damp radiation. They rave about the millions of deaths caused by Chernobyl. Those deaths are based on the Linear no Threshold stats that Old Engineer referred to. In other words they are practically nonexistent. They cannot be found in the mortality statistics of the cities under the exposure path.

    Try researching Hormesis. It is one of the issues that insures that Linear no Threshold stats are totally bogus.

  76. janama says:

    I agree kuhnkat – I’m so sick of the lurid posters circulating on the web about radioactive waste poisoning the pacific ocean etc yet no one actually checks the facts.
    Here is the latest report on the radioactivity levels in the ocean 2km from the power station which is being regularly monitored by Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority.
    The readings are in becquerel per litre. as a reference the US FDA allow 1200 bq/l in food and Japan allows 300bq/l in drinking water.
    The readings in the report are below 10bq/l.

    http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2013/seamonitoring031213.pdf

    People don’t realise that there is a sister station to Fukushima only a few kilometers south and it was unaffected by the tsunami.

  77. John Morpuss says:

    I see fracking going down the same road as tobacco. A major cause of lung cancer Radon 222 If the industry was fairdinkem they would be warrning people about this toxic gas http://www.prlog.org/12055189-fracking-radon-balanced-view.html

  78. phlogiston says:

    Nuclear, fracking, DDT, genetically modified crops, measles vaccine – a bulging net-full of own goals by the watermelon anti-science movement.

  79. phlogiston says:

    John Morpuss says:
    December 7, 2013 at 1:27 am

    I see fracking going down the same road as tobacco. A major cause of lung cancer Radon 222 If the industry was fairdinkem they would be warrning people about this toxic gas http://www.prlog.org/12055189-fracking-radon-balanced-view.html

    That’s hilarious – they’re digging up the old radon scare for the anti-fracking cause.

    The “risks” or radon are a good example of games played using the “linear no threshold” hypothesis to generate a fictitious risk. Lung cancer can only be demonstrated in workers at underground health spas with hot springs where radon levels reach 10,000’s of Bq/m3. The fraudulent trick is then to extrapolate this risk down to zero. e.g. if 10,000 Bq/m3 for x years gives 1% (imaginary example, not real data) lung cancer risk, then 10 Bq/m3 gives 0.0001% risk. Since everyone’s house has at least 10 Bq/m3, then the 0.0001% is multiplied by the whole population. Hey presto – mega-deaths, political influence!

    A more accurate picture of the relationship between radon and lung cancer can be seen here:

    http://www.aarst.org/proceedings/1988/1988_06_Correlation_Between_Mean_Radon_Levels_Lung_Cancer_Rates_in_US_Counties.pdf

    My grandparents lived in a house over a fractured (naturally!) granite formation in Cornwall, I measured radon in their house at ~1000 Bq/m3 (UK average 20 Bq.m3). They lived happily into their 90’s.

  80. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Tom G(ologist) says:
    December 6, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    If I could show you how our production reserves have INCRAEASED as a result of the performance of the Marcellus Shale during our first year of operations, you would be astounded as well. It is far above the USGS estimates.
    ———————-

    Tom G, your production reserves increase wouldn’t astound me very much because I’ve been watching the increase in drilling activity here in WV as well as reading press releases such as this, to wit:

    WHEELING (January 22, 2011) – Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon said his company sees so much potential in West Virginia’s Marcellus Shale natural gas reserves that it plans to spend as much as $50 billion in the state.
    http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/551077/Company-To-Invest–50-Billion-In-W-Va-.html?nav=515

    $50 billion investment = horrendous NG reserves

    And as you probably already know, the number of Marcellus wells that have already been drilled in PA is just a tad less than the number that has been drilled in WV.

  81. mwhite says:

    “This opinion should create quite a stir amongst enviros. – Anthony”

    http://rt.com/search/everywhere/term/fracking/

    It’ll upset the Russians.

  82. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Janice Moore says:
    December 6, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    Dear Mr. Mosher,

    Okay, ad argumentum, Rud was mistaken. Your post would be more helpful if you instead answered and not merely posed those issues, i.e, :
    ———————-

    If Rud was mistaken …. why are you criticising Mr. Mosher? He is not obligated to post excuses for Rud’s mistakes.

    Rud (December 6, 2013 at 1:15 pm) first stated: “Muller is right on principle, but weak on facts.

    But then, according to Mosher, apparently Rud never did his own ‘facts checking’ before stating this: “From what is known about China’s prospective shale gas resources, ….

    Being mistaken ONCE is sometimes permissible. Being mistaken two (2) or more times about the same thing is NOT permissible ….. and the guilty party should be criticized for doing so. When mistakes are not “criticized”, …. any further education is not possible.

    And ps, Ms. Moore, Depression is NOT a physical disorder of the brain. Depression IS a self-nurtured mental disorder of the mind ….. and the consumption of anti-depressants only serve to “mask” or “lessen” the effects of “feeling” depressed. Pain pills and anti-depressants are like “two peas in a pod”. Neither one cures the “problem”, they only “mask” the effect(s) caused by the “problem”.

  83. Bruce Cobb says:

    Air pollution is a far more pressing problem – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India – than the challenges posed by greenhouse warming.
    No. The only “challenges” posed by greenhouse warming are those in the fevered imaginations of CAGW proponents like Richard Muller. Yes, air pollution is certainly a problem in developing countries like China and India. That is their concern, however, not ours. We have no business telling them what to do about it. If developing their natural gas reserves makes economic sense, and I imagine it does, then it will happen.
    The primary thrust of Muller’s “argument” appears to primarily be one of anti-coal, rather than pro-fracking. He uses the typical Alarmist tactics of exaggeration and partial-truths to make his case. FAIL.

  84. David A says:

    Dolf says:
    December 6, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    Shale gas is well worth exploring and using when safe and feasable. But I am amazed that this argued based on huge pm deaths which sounds at least as alarmistic as warmists claims, and as ill-founded. It would be worth if this site investigates the pm2.5 claims as thorough as it does with the flawed CO2 claims!
    ============================================
    Dolf, there are many good posts below yours that begin to address this, and the false linear harm basis of such claims. However the heavy smog in many Chinese cities reminds me of the late 60s and early 70s in the US, particularly LA which I frequently visited. Air pollution of particulates is not CO@, an immensely beneficial gas. The clean air act did enormous good. Particulates are a problem and coal can and does successfully produce energy, without producing “smog”

    Mosher does not address this at all, and his condescension towards folk in general is exceedingly annoying. Besides, he is often wrong.

  85. Samuel C Cogar says:

    old engineer says:
    December 6, 2013 at 10:23 pm

    Whenever I see a statement like:

    “A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year…”

    I always ask myself “ How did they determine that?” And so should everybody. You can bet there are not 3 million people with: “cause of death: an overdose of PM2.5” on their death certificate.
    ———————-

    Right you are, old engineer, ….. and I have been asking myself that same question for nigh onto 40+- years.

    And the same goes for: “cause of death: cigarette smoke induced lung cancer” on their death certificate.

    I figured that anyone that marks “YES” on their medical records as being a “cigarette smoker”, …… then no matter if they get shot or run over by a truck, ….. they will likely get counted in the “cigarette smoking related death statistics”.

    One can easily see the stupidity of those outrageous claims if they look at the … “geographical distribution of cancer deaths” ….. rather than looking at the “total number of reported cancer deaths”. And one can easily do said via the following interactive web site, to wit:

    State Cancer Profiles – create dynamic views of incidences of cancer
    http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/map/map.noimage.php

    So, “click” the above link, …. choose your preference of parameters ….. then create your “cancer incident” map.

    Then ask yourself: “Why is the number of reported cancer deaths extremely high in some states, …. and/or some counties” …. and/or some locales, …. but not in others”?

  86. Chris Wright says:

    Muller’s Nemesis theory has been mentioned. His book ‘Nemesis’ is a superb scientific story, I highly recommend it. Despite its title, it’s really the story of how the Alvarez group discovered what (probably) killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Muller created his Nemesis theory in order to explain why ages of craters on the Earth seemed to follow a cyclical pattern. As far as I’m aware, he was unable to find observational evidence (a distant, dim companion of the sun) and he’s probably dropped the idea now. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s how science is supposed to work.

    To his credit, Muller ripped Mann’s hockey stick into pieces but, as far as I’m aware, he was never a climate sceptic. I have to say I’m completely baffled as to why he thinks global warming is a serious threat. All the evidence seems to show that the mild warming we enjoyed in the last century has been, overall, of great benefit to the world and mankind. And AGW is so badly flawed that predictions of many degrees of warming are completely ridiculous. The very idea that anyone – least of all climate scientists who have a huge vested interest in dangerous warming – can forecast the climate in fifty or a hundred years in the future is mind-numbingly stupid. These models can’t even forecast the weather a few weeks ahead.

    Still, I’m glad he supports fracking, for whatever reason.
    Chris

  87. Richard D says:

    Samuel C Cogar says: December 7, 2013 at 4:42 am
    And ps, Ms. Moore, Depression is NOT a physical disorder of the brain. Depression IS a self-nurtured mental disorder of the mind ….. and the consumption of anti-depressants only serve to “mask” or “lessen” the effects of “feeling” depressed. Pain pills and anti-depressants are like “two peas in a pod”. Neither one cures the “problem”, they only “mask” the effect(s) caused by the “problem”.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Wow. So much stupid, inane opinion here I don’t even know where to begin….Off topic so I won’t comment other than call B.S.

  88. David Ball says:

    Chris Wright says:
    December 7, 2013 at 6:45 am

    “he’s probably dropped the idea now.”

    Evidence, please.

  89. Richard D says:

    Janice Moore says: December 6, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    Dear Mr. Mosher,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I sympathize with Mosher and appreciate the opportunity to here from a working scientist in the field. I’m sure he’s frustrated as he runs the gauntlet of some of the more zealous mud throwers in these parts.

  90. Poptech says:

    Richard D., I hope you are not referring to Mr. Mosher with a B.A. in English Literature and Philosophy and a career in marketing, a “working scientist in the field”.

  91. Kip Hansen says:

    “A deadly pollution known as PM2.5 is currently killing over three million people each year…” epidemiology gone wild. The usual findings are that some surrogate end point (such as ‘carotid intima-media thickness’) can be shown, by mathematical model, to have a relative risk after exposure of a shocking 1.01-1.02! All cause deaths (one might wonder why they look at ALL cause deaths — it is unlikely that PM2.5 causes accidental deaths, auto accident deaths, general deaths from old age, etc) — shown, in “results from the random effects Cox models without and with contextual ecologic covariates” of the same shocking RR 1.01 – 1.02. You should be getting the idea here. [ according to the latest HEI update: http://tinyurl.com/m6yyzjh ]

    In the US — both the National and all nine Regional PM2.5 levels are, and have been for years, below the national standard for PM 2.5, and are trending even lower.

    The evidence pointing to PM 2.5 particulates being deadly is so very thin and tenuous that only an EPA Administrator could believe it.

  92. Bruce Cobb says:

    Indeed, with the proper technologies used, coal is definitely “21st century power:
    http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/08/coal-is-21st-century-power/

  93. catweazle666 says:

    Prof. Muller is assuming that the average “Environmentalist” is motivated by concern for the environment or the welfare of the energy deprived citizens of the Third World.

    Nothing could be further from the truth, they are not referred to as ‘Watermelons’ – Green on the outside and Red on the inside – for nothing.

  94. Jay says:

    I just got back from Suzhou and Shanghai yesterday. The air was so bad (450-550 ppm), rated extreme hazard by the WHO. The Shanghai airport had flights cancelled and delayed because of the low visibility.
    The air smelled very bad and my eyes burned. I was lucky and my flight left an hour late.

  95. dp says:

    His lips are moving.

  96. Richard D says:

    Poptech says: December 7, 2013 at 7:39 am
    Richard D., I hope you are not referring to Mr. Mosher with a B.A. in English Literature and Philosophy and a career in marketing, a “working scientist in the field”.
    ___________________________
    What’s your point, Poptech?

    Steven Mosher: the real hero of Climategate? By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: January 12th, 2010.

    “Steven Mosher. An open-source software developer, statistical data analyst, and ….+
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022057/steven-mosher-the-real-hero-of-climategate/

  97. Kip Hansen says:

    I grew up in Los Angeles in the 1950’s, right in the smack center of it — when the smog was so thick one couldn’t see the surrounding hills. It was bad, sometimes one’s eyes burned. But we didn’t drop like flies.

    I don’t believe the data show a dose response 1950 to 2000 for LA residents. They should show much more mortality then than now, based on this new PM 2.5 bugabear.

    I don’t like smog — but LA doesn’t have it now like they did then.

    China may have it — they don’t seem to have been listening to the air pollution solutions developed over the last 50 years.

  98. Janice Moore says:

    @ Richard D — thanks for the affirmation at 7:06am today. I didn’t even BEGIN, lol. It was intriguing that Cogar chose my relatively benign post re: Steven Mosher to attack instead of the more forthright (and likely far more accurate) post by Jim F at 6:56pm yesterday (nor did he respond to those of J Quip and UKus).

    *******************************************

    @ Pop Tech — I get your point. Apparently, Richard D thinks that those credentials and his having had the good fortune to have had the Climategate e mails handed to him, a pro-AGW person(!) — and why hasn’t he published the third set, yet? — by the WUWT moderator on duty that night, make Steven Mosher an expert in some kind of hard science relevant to air pollution and or geology and or frac’ing (still trying, Tom G. — smile).

  99. Gary Pearse says:

    TRM says:
    December 6, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    ”Natural gas will give us that wonderful 30-100 year (depending on who’s numbers you use) buffer. That is lots of time to get LFTR and other technologies figured out Unless we get lazy, complacent and stupid.”

    So many think we have to do something. Look, it’s truly magic. It wasn’t someone seeking a solution to CAGW or prosperity, or whatever that led to development of fracking technology. It was the beautiful, eternal magic of profit. The way the various technologies – horses to cars, etc. came to pass wasn’t through people getting together to find out what we could do about larger cities and the ordure of horses. Nope, it was automatic. Sit back and enjoy the new things that just will unfold before you, or better, join in and make a dollar as you go. It is a central_planning mindset that figures we have to jump up get something going to replace a foundering technology.

  100. Janice Moore says:

    “Sit back and enjoy the new things that just will unfold before you, or better, join in and make a dollar as you go.” (Gary Pearse at 2:57pm)

    Yes! Well said. Go, free market capitalism!

    Up with Hayek, Williams (Walter), and Friedman!

    (down — booo, hissss — with Marx, Stalin, and Alinsky)

  101. michael hart says:

    Gary Pearse says:
    December 7, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    So many think we have to do something. Look, it’s truly magic. It wasn’t someone seeking a solution to CAGW or prosperity, or whatever that led to development of fracking technology. It was the beautiful, eternal magic of profit. The way the various technologies – horses to cars, etc. came to pass wasn’t through people getting together to find out what we could do about larger cities and the ordure of horses. Nope, it was automatic. Sit back and enjoy the new things that just will unfold before you, or better, join in and make a dollar as you go. It is a central_planning mindset that figures we have to jump up get something going to replace a foundering technology.

    Well said, Gary. I think that’s worth repeating.

    One of the wonderful things about the 21st century will be the new technologies that emerge as the poorer, more populous, nations develop like we did. When their citizens have to spend less time grubbing in the soil merely to eke out an existence, they will increasingly be the source of new ideas and technologies which can now be rapidly disseminated around the world.

  102. Richard D says:

    Janice Moore says: December 7, 2013 at 2:53 pm. @ Pop Tech — I get your point. Apparently, Richard D thinks that those credentials and his having had the good fortune to have had the Climategate e mails handed to him, a pro-AGW person(!) — and why hasn’t he published the third set, yet? — by the WUWT moderator on duty that night, make Steven Mosher an expert in some kind of hard science relevant to air pollution and or geology and or frac’ing (still trying, Tom G. — smile).
    _______________________
    @ Janice Moore. Apparently both you and Poptech found it offensive that I characterized Steven Mosher as “a working scientist in the field.” I linked to an article that described him to be an open-source software developer, statistical data analyst. Math/Computer Science/Statistics are hard sciences in my opinion and logic/philosophy is foundational. Don’t believe me roll over to RGB@DUKE’s blog and look at all of the work he did in philosophy. BTW, Berkley Earth lists Mosher as a scientist http://berkeleyearth.org/team

  103. Richard D says:

    Poptech says: December 7, 2013 at 7:39 am.
    Richard D., I hope you are not referring to Mr. Mosher with a B.A. in English Literature and Philosophy and a career in marketing, a “working scientist in the field”.
    _____________________________________________________________
    Steven Mosher, Scientist: Steven Mosher is co-author of “Climategate: The Crutape Letters” and works as an independent consultant in the San Francisco area. He attended Northwestern University where he graduated with honors and BA’s in both English Literature and Philosophy. He left the Phd. program in Literature at UCLA to take a position in Threat Analysis at Northrop Aircraft where he advanced to Director of Operational Analysis for flight simulation. After serving as Vice President of Engineering for Eidetics Inc., he transitioned to the consumer sector and specialized in bringing new technology to market. As Vice president of New Technology at Creative Labs he was instrumental in bringing 3D graphics, DVD, Web cameras and Mp3 players to market. He has subsequently dedicated himself to the open source and open hardware movements, working as the Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Openmoko, where he championed the FreeRunner open phone and later founded Qi hardware, a company dedicated to creating “copy left” consumer products. He has written and maintains several R packages devoted to analyzing temperature and climate data with open source tools.
    http://berkeleyearth.org/team/steven-mosher

  104. Poptech says:

    Richard D. please stop misrepresenting Mr. Mosher as a scientist as you disrespect real scientists.

    Steven Mosher, B.A. English Literature and Philosophy, Northwestern University (1981); Director of Operations Research/Foreign Military Sales & Marketing, Northrop Aircraft Northrop Aircraft (1985-1990); Vice President of Engineering, Eidetics International (1990-1993); Director of Marketing, Kubota Graphics Company (1993-1994); Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Criterion Software (1994-1995); Vice President of Emerging Technology [Marketing], Creative Labs (1995-2006); Vice President [Marketing], Openmoko (2007-2009); Marketing Consultant, Qi Hardware Inc. (2009); Marketing Consultant (2010-Present); [Marketing] Advisor, RedZu Online Dating Service (2012-Present)

    I see Mr. Mosher is now misrepresenting himself as a “Scientist” at Berkeley, talk about BS. Looks like I may need to contact Berkeley.

  105. Tim says:

    If the Precautionary Principle is so important to the CAGW proponents, why not apply it to frakking? It doesn’t seem to be evident in the unholy rush to exploit this resource.

  106. Poptech says:

    Looks like Muller is playing more marketing games with his organization’s name, “Berkeley Earth” is a 501(c)(3) non-profit independent organization that is NOT affiliated with the University of Berkeley and registered to a home address. So they can make up imaginary titles like calling Mr. Mosher a “Scientist” with no accountability. This is good enough to fool people like Richard D.

  107. Poptech says:

    Richard D says: @ Janice Moore. Apparently both you and Poptech found it offensive that I characterized Steven Mosher as “a working scientist in the field.” I linked to an article that described him to be an open-source software developer, statistical data analyst. Math/Computer Science/Statistics are hard sciences in my opinion and logic/philosophy is foundational. Don’t believe me roll over to RGB@DUKE’s blog and look at all of the work he did in philosophy.

    The claim that he is an open-source “software developer” is BS as well as all of these other embellished credentials. He has absolutely no background in REAL computer science and “statistical data analyst” is a self proclaimed credential (AKA made-up). Nor does he have any specific expertise in math (no relevant degree). It is absolutely hilarious you are trying to give him scientific credentials based on his philosophy background, is that some kind of joke?

  108. Poptech says:

    I am still waiting for Mosher to apologize for the fraudulent marketing ploy of pawning Muller off as a recovering skeptic in the New York Times.

  109. Janice Moore says:

    Pop Tech,

    I think Richard D. is reading what you and I write through some kind of translator (open source, no doubt) and it selectively: deletes — edits — and generally completely messes up what we actually try to communicate to him! Well, at least we understand each other!! Arrrgh.

    “Bite the wax tadpole.” {Search: the quoted words plus “Coca Cola in China”}

    Thankful that you UNDERSTOOD me (and piped up!),

    Janice

  110. Poptech says:

    Janice, no problem.

  111. Richard D says:

    Let’s give thanks to Richard Muller for this……..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

  112. Richard D says:

    Dr. Muller deserves our thanks for this, “Air pollution is a far more pressing problem – particularly for emerging economies such as China and India – than the challenges posed by greenhouse warming.”

    Dr. Muller is making a hugely useful contribution with this paper and I believe Mosher is working in this cause. I’m always interested in learning and am in fact grateful to see rational discourse that includes useful technologies like fracking that address our energy needs. An awful lot of people are in fuel poverty, with a huge percentage of the world’s inhabitants in extreme fuel poverty. It’s sad to see other posters bringing politics and grudges into play here on this thread.

  113. Richard D says:

    It is absolutely hilarious you are trying to give him scientific credentials based on his philosophy background, is that some kind of joke?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    People are frequently ignorant of the relationship of philosophy/logic to mathematics/statistics/computer science.

    rgb@duke trained in philosophy, too. Why don’t you visit his pages at Duke to learn more about philosophy and science.

    BTW, Mosher’s contributing to scientific literature: SciTechnol; International Publisher of Science, Technology and Medicine.

    Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States. Richard A Muller, Jonathan Wurtele, Robert Rohde, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Charlotte Wickham and Steven Mosher Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:3 doi: 10.4172/2327-4581.1000107 http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-107.php

    Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process. Robert Rohde, Richard Muller, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Jonathan Wurtele, Judith Curry, Charlotte Wickham and Steven Mosher Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:2 doi: 10.4172/2327-4581.1000103 http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-103.php

  114. Poptech says:

    That’s nice, go apply for jobs where the requirements are a B.S. in Mathematics, Statistics or Computer Science with a Literature and Philosophy degree. Your resume will wind up in the trash can. People are frequently ignorant of scientific credentials.

    Mosher is the tenth and ninth co-author on those papers. Anthony and Steve McIntyre co-wrote scientific papers too (both had much more to do with them than Mosher did with those), neither misrepresents themselves as scientists like Mosher is now trying to.

    REPLY: Actually, I’ve seen some of the work Mosher did on some of the BEST papers, it wasn’t trivial. A number of the people named as authors of those papers were there as figureheads, and did little analytical work except to sign off on the final product – Anthony

  115. Poptech says:

    This has to be some sort of Twilight Zone episode, where a B.A. in Literature and Philosophy now equals a B.S. in Mathematics, Statistics or Computer Science. Robert, you should tell all these Universities to stop bothering with separate degree course requirements for scientific degrees as you can meet them all with their liberal arts program! Think of the money savings from this brilliant revelation! Let me know which accredited University you get to agree with you.

  116. Richard D says:

    “This has to be some sort of Twilight Zone episode, where a B.A. in Literature and Philosophy now equals a B.S. in Mathematics, Statistics or Computer Science.”
    ____________________________________________

    I understand someone without much exposure to undergraduate philosophy/logic, computer science or statistics/mathematics might feel like he is in the Twilight Zone.

    I’ll appeal to authority in this instance…….University of Oxford: “Historically, there have been strong links between Mathematics and Philosophy; logic, an important branch of both subjects, provides a natural bridge between the two, as does the philosophy of mathematics.”

    Mathematics and Philosophy: The degree is constructed in the belief that the parallel study of these related disciplines can significantly enhance your understanding of each.

    Careers: “Recent graduates secured positions in diverse occupational areas such as software development…….

    Testimonial: “Will, who graduated in 1999, works as a data analyst at the University of Michigan. He says: ‘My degree taught me to construct a rigorous and detailed argument, and also to adapt and defend it “live” in a tutorial setting. This is a crucial skill for jobs that require the analysis and presentation of complex data.’

    Related Courses: Students interested in this course might also like to consider other Mathematics courses or Computer Science and Philosophy.

    http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate_courses/courses/mathematics_and_philosophy/mathematics_and.html

  117. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Richard D says:
    December 8, 2013 at 12:05 am

    I understand someone without much exposure to undergraduate philosophy/logic, computer science or statistics/mathematics might feel like he is in the Twilight Zone.

    I’ll appeal to authority in this instance…….
    —————-

    Give it up, Richard D, you can appeal to whoever …. but you can not be quoting, copying, reciting, paraphrasing, plagiarizing and/or mimicking commentary from your Google search results as a means to infer you have a learned knowledge of the subject matter being discussed …… or that you are qualified to judge, critique or criticize the commentary of posters that have highly learned knowledge in/of the subject matter for which they offer their expertise and/or commentary.

    And Richard D, the talent or ability for “logical reasoning” and “intelligent deductions” are mental attributes that can not be taught to students by Professors at institutions of higher learning. The foundation of the neural network for those two attributes must be nurtured during one’s early adolescent years …. and their personal. experiences and education only provides them a multitude of “tools” to work with.

    There are many, many individuals that are quite the EXPERT at “logical reasoning” and “intelligent deductions” but who have never attended college or even graduated from High School ….. and thus their primary problem is the fact that their “toolbox” is quite empty of the “tools” to work with. You can purchase a “box of tools” but iffen you don’t have said attributes for using them, ….. then your only recourse is to mimic what they might be used for.

  118. David Ball says:

    Richard D, have you ever seen Muller on Shatner’s “Weird or What?” show? His explanation is so laughable and illogical it is beyond words. Seek it out and you will be so embarrassed that you will never defend him in a public forum again. “Logical reasoning” and “intelligent deductions”, but only to the highest bidder. His motivation is questionable.

    Just so you are aware, academia is a very narrow measure of intellect.

  119. Richard D says:

    @David Ball, Consider I applauded Dr. Muller for in this instance for stating that fracking is good. I also linked to the lecture in which he crushed Michael Mann’s hokey stick…..not a bad argument, me thinks. And I’m never surprised when men choose self interest vs. the public interest—e.g.see Federalist Papers.

  120. Richard D says:

    Samuel C Cogar says:
    December 8, 2013 at 4:21 am
    __________________________________
    Samuel the dispute was with Poptech who objected to my assertion that I believed Steven Mosher to be a working scientist. I showed that he was by links to scientific papers he in fact contributed to. Our host here at WUWT even vouched for Mosher’s not insignificant contributions to the literature. Poptech raised the strawman about credentials, so I merely linked to what Oxford says about the interrelatedness between philosophy/logic/mathematics/computer science. Having studied philosophy/logic/statistics and Fortran this all seemed obvious to me. Readers who are interested in the nexus between philosophy and science should visit rgb@duke’s excellent pages http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/philosophy.php

    You assert that “there are many, many individuals that are quite the EXPERT at “logical reasoning” and “intelligent deductions” but who have never attended college or even graduated from High School ….. ” and I agree. Lincoln would be an example I believe. Purportedly, he was an autodidactic, who studied the theorems and proofs of Euclidian Geometry.

    BTW, the frontal cortex develops well into the early 20’s, not early adolescence as you assert.

  121. My problem with fracking has nothing to do with the direct environmental effect because fracking is safe when done according to accepted standards. The problem is with the capital destruction that accompanies financing money losing processes that consume more energy to produce than the energy content at the point of use. Sadly, many otherwise rational people seem to have missed this point because they have never bothered to look at the numbers for themselves. The shale oil and gas producers cannot generate positive cash flows outside of a few core areas. If we look at the 10-Ks we find that increased production has been financed by external borrowing and that the only way for the producers to report small losses or profits is by assuming that their Estimated ultimate recovery rates are at least 100% higher than what the actual data is indicating and by assuming that the areas between active wells will yield similar quantities of oil and gas as the older wells in the core areas.

    The real problem is not the loss that will have to be taken by retail investors. It is the diversion of productive assets to a dead end that will not do anything to help us deal with the decline of production from viable sources. Add to this the fact that the entire positive story in the US is built on the assumption of abundant and cheap oil and gas and we have in place conditions that will destroy much of the real economy that no longer makes sense in a high energy-cost environment.

  122. David Ball says:

    Richard D, a better example would be Faraday. Also, many have refuted the hockey stick, rendering Muller (and his fake claim to be a skeptic) unnecessary. To back someone like Muller discredits you as well. Clearly you do not understand this. I have read and understood your posts (it was silly to repeat yourself) and it is obvious you have not understood what I or Poptech posted. Lincoln was not a scientist. Perhaps a little forethought before posting.

  123. otropogo says:

    ” KuhnKat says:
    December 6, 2013 at 11:47 pm

    otropogo,

    Why are you spreading BS?? There simply was not enough TIME for ANY of the reactors to have melted down before the tsunami struck!! It certainly could have STARTED runaway…”

    I’m sorry that I can’t find the online reports I read (and saved to disk) in June of 2011. I happened to be residing on the the tip of the Shandong Peninsula, where radioactive lettuce and spinach was being reported, and, having arrived two days before the earthquake for a three month stay, was watching the daily reports on Fukushima quite keenly, especially as it was impossible to secure so much as a packet of thyroid blockers.

    Before I left, in mid-June, Tepco was reported to have revealed, three months after they knew of it, that the meltdown in reactor number 1 had started before the tsunami had hit the power plant. Unfortunately, I no longer have the laptop I carried in China, and am not able to easily find where I’ve archived those news reports.

    I did spend a half hour searching online without success. Perhaps a “cleaning crew” has been at work on this story, as I could find no mention of it even in Wikipedia or the Greenpeace timeline. Such disappearances are not unusual on the WEB, in my experience. Of course, the difficulty is greatly increased by the disappearance of proximity operators in the major online search engines.

    “The explosions were caused by the attempt, now known to be futile, to cool the reactors and prevent the melt downs that were happening anyway. The core heat broke the water creating explosive hydrogen that had to be vented and that collected in the buildings.”

    NO, the explosions were caused by the failure of the automatic pressure venting mechanism to function as designed, AND

    by the failure of the backup manual procedure for venting, ON ALL of REACTORS #1, 2, and 3.

    How such identical failures in all of the affected containment vessels could have occurred has never been explained to my knowledge. Is one to conclude that these power plants are not routinely tested in the course of their long working life?

    If so, then sure, why not try fracking ourselves out of existence too?

  124. Richard D says:

    @ David Ball Where did I claim that Lincoln was a scientist? Perhaps you should quit making stuff up.

  125. Poptech says:

    REPLY: Actually, I’ve seen some of the work Mosher did on some of the BEST papers, it wasn’t trivial. A number of the people named as authors of those papers were there as figureheads, and did little analytical work except to sign off on the final product – Anthony

    I don’t believe it and if it was true you list them higher up in the order, not last. None of this changes the fact that Mosher is NOT a scientist.

  126. Poptech says:

    Richard D says: I understand someone without much exposure to undergraduate philosophy/logic, computer science or statistics/mathematics might feel like he is in the Twilight Zone.

    You seem confused who you are talking to as not only did I attend a technical research university but have extensive training in computer science, something Mosher does not. The amount of mathematics and hard science courses I took would be more than an English major as well. You are correct though I do not have any formal training in Philosophy nor his much more extensive training in English Literature.

  127. Poptech says:

    Richard D says: Samuel the dispute was with Poptech who objected to my assertion that I believed Steven Mosher to be a working scientist. I showed that he was by links to scientific papers he in fact contributed to. Our host here at WUWT even vouched for Mosher’s not insignificant contributions to the literature.

    No one is disputing Mosher does not appear as a co-author on those papers. Our’s hosts assertion (which I do not believe until shown evidence) is that his contributions to those papers was “significant” (which is subjective either way) not that he is a scientist. A significant contribution is what Anthony did on the Fall et al. paper where he is the first listed co-author not the tenth or ninth. Non-scientists like Mosher contribute to scientific papers all the time, that does not make them a scientist.

    I am well aware of the actual proven “contributions” (most of which is making snide remarks) from Mr. Mosher, which has nothing to do with him pretending to be a scientist. If you refuse to concede this and Mr. Mosher wishes to continue to mislead people, I have other ways to deal with these issues.

  128. Richard D says:

    If you refuse to concede this and Mr. Mosher wishes to continue to mislead people, I have other ways to deal with these issues.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Stop, please. You’re only embarrassing yourself, again. Whatever your beef with Mosher it’s beyond dispute that he contributes to Berkley Earth as a scientist and works with Dr. Muller, who is the topic of this thread. To claim otherwise is simply bizarre – mendacious really.

  129. Poptech says:

    The only thing beyond dispute it that Mosher contributes to Berkeley Earth (unaffiliated with the University of Berkeley) and they fictitiously call him a “scientist”.

    So it appears I need to take further action on this again.

  130. Poptech says:

    I would like to take a bet at how many WUWT regulars are unaware that “Berkeley Earth” is unaffiliated with the University of Berkeley and registered to a home address.

  131. Samuel C Cogar says:

    David Ball says:
    December 8, 2013 at 6:50 am

    Just so you are aware, academia is a very narrow measure of intellect.
    ————

    Now that is a quote well worth repeating ……. and I will save it for that very purpose.

    I like it even better than this one, to wit:

    If you could reason with the CAGW believers, there would be no CAGW believers“.

  132. David Ball says:

    Poptech, I was aware. Important to point out. Thank you.

    Samual C Cogar, I am humbled. Thank you.

  133. David Ball says:

    Sorry, Samuel. Did not intend to misspell your name. Mods? Little help?

  134. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Richard D says:
    December 8, 2013 at 8:32 am

    Samuel the dispute was with Poptech who objected to my assertion that I believed Steven Mosher to be a working scientist.
    ————

    Richard, you can assert or profess to believe anything that “turns-your-crank” ….. but you can not affirm, confirm, justify or prove the “truth” of your beliefs by simply citing a reference to an unknown (to you) person’s opinion, claim or commentary. And I say that to you because, unless you yourself have learned knowledge and/or experience in/of the subject matter then it is not possible for you to accurately judge the merits of said opinion, claim or commentary. And you can’t base you beliefs solely on a “consensus of opinions”, simply because, as the ole adage goes, “there is honor among thieves”.

    ….. so I merely linked to what Oxford says about the interrelatedness between philosophy/logic/mathematics/computer science. “.

    HA, most all institutions of higher education have long since morphed into “For Profit Businesses” and they will “sell” you just about any type of degree you wish to pursue.

    Having studied philosophy/logic/statistics and Fortran this all seemed obvious to me“.

    Richard, my opinion of philosophy is that it is little more than imaginary “junk science fiction” with a flair of the “supernatural”. And I’m pretty much an expert on logics ….. and statistics don’t interest me in the least because I’m not a gambler. And I studied Fortran for maybe 5 minutes, “C” for a couple hours …… but quickly decided I wanted to be in control of how my firmware/software actually functioned.

    I looked up the definition of your word “autodidactic”, which in my opinion, actually applies to everyone, just some more so than others. But “autodidactic” has to do with the acquiring of the “tools” that are prerequisite to one’s applying their nurtured abilities of “logical reasoning” and/or “intelligent deductions”. And I wasn’t asserting anything about non-schooled persons, it was a “statement of fact”. Charles Goodyear, Thomas Edison, etc., etc.

    BTW, the frontal cortex develops well into the early 20′s, not early adolescence as you assert“.

    Now Richard, I dun tolt ya that you really shouldn’t be making such brash statements …. about specific entities and/or things that you know very little about. And to prove my “point”, …. and “HA”, lucky for me, …. guess what was just announced in this morning’s NEWS @ this link, to wit:
    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/12/06/root-causes-dyslexia-unraveled/?intcmp=obnetwork

    And you can read my response to that article at this link: http://snvcogar.newsvine.com/_news/2013/12/09/21828976-root-causes-of-dyslexia-unraveled-fox-news ….. and in the Public Discussion forum included at the bottom of that linked article.

    And before you make any more silly assertions about my learned knowledge of the human brain/mind …. I suggest that you read this commentary that I am the author of and which was specifically written as a “learning aide” for people like yourself, to wit:
    http://snvcogar.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/04/5408053-a-view-of-how-the-human-mind-works

  135. Richard D says:

    “The Mullers conclude that environmentalists should recognize the shale gas revolution as beneficial to society – and lend their full support to helping it advance.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Not an unhelpful conclusion. In fact, it’s hugely helpful whenever rational technologies like flacking are advocated. Perhaps more so when presented by scientists with warmest credentials. And I’m in agreement with Anthony, who apparently believes this sort of thing gives greens a bad case of hives. Furthermore, it’s not unhelpful when guys like Hansen make a big push for nuclear power, as they often get wide publicity. IMO, nuclear we need it and nuclear could use some good publicity whatever the source. And it’s even more helpful when guys like the co-founder of green peace flips and advocates for sane energy policies.

    What is unhelpful is to attack these people personally, especially fellow posters and working scientists such as Mosher. It’s similar to the trolls who show up with the same old tripe every time Monckton presents here. Say whatever you like about their personal backgrounds or credentials, it’s a fact that they are working to move knowledge forward. Unless you can refute the facts or ideas they present you’re just playing school yard bully.

  136. Samuel C Cogar says:

    No problem, David B, you can “call me” bout anything ….. except “too late” to enjoy a once cold beer. ha ha

  137. kuhnkat says:

    otropogo,

    “NO, the explosions were caused by the failure of the automatic pressure venting mechanism to function as designed, AND

    by the failure of the backup manual procedure for venting, ON ALL of REACTORS #1, 2, and 3.

    How such identical failures in all of the affected containment vessels could have occurred has never been explained to my knowledge. Is one to conclude that these power plants are not routinely tested in the course of their long working life?”

    You are NOT paying attention. I will ignore what you tell us yet, can’t seem to find, then go conspiracy theory.

    The fact radiation could be measured has little to do with whether it is actually at a level that can cause harm immediately or long term. Except for a couple of small hotspots from the explosions blowing the filters across the countryside there are no dangerous areas except on the reactor grounds. The lurid stories about leaking radioactive water are undiluted samples on the grounds and NOT in the ocean. TWO fish have been caught since the accident which were dangerous. No other fish caught have been measured with seriously elevated levels much less dangerous levels. We can speculate that those two fish were plants.

    The excess heat caused by the meltdowns would have boiled and dissociated all the water in the containment vessels and would have been vented and dissipated with no issue. The fact they continued to pump in water in their vain attempt to cool the melting cores simply provided more water to be dissociated increasing the amount of hydrogen to collect in a building with no ventilation. Whether the valves malfunctioned or not, the hydrogen was released in LARGE amounts into the building.

    To sum up yet again, after a 9.0 earthquake, sizable tsunami, and three partial to total core meltdowns there have been NO DEATHS OR ILLNESS FROM RADIATION!!!

    There HAS been quite a bit of mental illness and suicides from the excessive evacuation enforced by the gubmint. Alarmists and idiot enviros spreading Junk Science are at fault for these deaths and misery that are almost totally unnecessary.

  138. Richard D says:

    @ Samuel C Cogar
    discussion with untrained, opinionated quacks is futile so I’ll ignore you in future
    “the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s.” http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html

  139. otropogo says:


    kuhnkat says:
    December 9, 2013 at 10:10 am

    otropogo,

    “NO, the explosions were caused by the failure of the automatic pressure venting mechanism to function as designed, AND

    by the failure of the backup manual procedure for venting, ON ALL of REACTORS #1, 2, and 3.

    How such identical failures in all of the affected containment vessels could have occurred has never been explained to my knowledge. Is one to conclude that these power plants are not routinely tested in the course of their long working life?”

    … I will ignore what you tell us yet, can’t seem to find…”

    The fact that something can’t be documented at a moment’s notice should not deter any fairminded person from lending it credence. And I suspect that producing a link or copying the text that I saved to disk would prove equally unpersuasive. If you were interested in the truth instead of merely trashing my post, you would have searched yourself.

    “The fact radiation could be measured has little to do with whether it is actually at a level that can cause harm immediately or long term. … [irrelevant rant removed]”

    Apparently the Canadian and US governments are in agreement with you on this score, at least when the nuclear radiation originates from nuclear power plants, but NOT when it comes from natural sources of Radon. In the latter instance, any amount is harmful, strangely.

    I marvel that such a dyed in the wool “skeptic” would stoop to blindly accept government figures on such a sensitive subject as radioactive pollution, especially given the amount of deception that has been exposed to date in the Fukushima incident.

    “The excess heat caused by the meltdowns would have boiled and dissociated all the water in the containment vessels and would have been vented and dissipated with no issue. The fact they continued to pump in water in their vain attempt to cool the melting cores simply provided more water to be dissociated increasing the amount of hydrogen to collect in a building with no ventilation. Whether the valves malfunctioned or not, the hydrogen was released in LARGE amounts into the building.”

    Hu? So you’re saying that the identical failures of the automatic and manual activation of the venting system is irrelevant because it wasn’t needed anyway, since the operator shouldn’t have pumped sea water in to cool the reactor core?

    Brilliant!

    “To sum up yet again, after a 9.0 earthquake, sizable tsunami, and three partial to total core meltdowns there have been NO DEATHS OR ILLNESS FROM RADIATION!!!”

    I suggest you start to educate yourself on nuclear safety and the role of government in undermining it by reading the excellent book:

    Full Body Burden

    Unlike my ill-fated post above, it provides all the references any real skeptic could ask for.

    “There HAS been quite a bit of mental illness and suicides from the excessive evacuation enforced by the gubmint. Alarmists and idiot enviros spreading Junk Science are at fault for these deaths and misery that are almost totally unnecessary.”

    And where is your evidence for this astonishing pronouncement?

  140. Poptech says:

    Richard D says: What is unhelpful is to attack these people personally, especially fellow posters and working scientists such as Mosher.

    Why do you keep repeating this false statement? Mr. Mosher has a B.A. in Philosophy and English with an extensive career in marketing. If you can call him a working scientist then the term is meaningless and everyone is a “scientist” by simply declaring it and holding no relevant qualifications.

  141. Samuel C Cogar says:

    Richard D says:
    December 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    @ Samuel C Cogar
    discussion with untrained, opinionated quacks is futile so I’ll ignore you in future
    “the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s.”
    ————–

    Richard, and just how many years will it be until you can celebrate your 21st Birthday?

Comments are closed.