In other news…"Ten Reasons Why Fracking is (not) Doomed"

Martin Lack:
Your posts in this thread display the basic techniques of professional trolls; i.e. make false statements which are mutually contradictory, and when one of them is refuted then change the subject and pretend you were saying something else while ‘snowing’ the thread with several posts.
I cite some examples of this deplorable behaviour so your posts do not distract onlookers. And I suggest that everybody then ignore your distractions by ignoring all your posts in this thread both past and future.
Martin Lack wrote at August 3, 2012 at 4:26 am:

As a geoscientist, you know nothing as a fact; and neither do I. We both deal in probabilities; and the probability that the consensus view of climate science is correct is much greater than the probability that it is not.

This quotation is three assertions:
(a) Geoscientists know nothing as a fact.
(b) Geoscientists deal in probabilities.
(c) It is much more probable that the consensus view of climate science is correct than that it is not.
I address each of these assertions as examples, but all your posts are similar.
Assertion (a)
It is true that scientists know nothing as a fact, but at August 3, 2012 at 11:18 am you say;

I am trying hard to stick to the facts; and I am relying upon probability and logic to identify what humanity should do to avoid unnecessary damage to our environment.

So, either you are denying your previous statement that “As a geoscientist, you know nothing as a fact; and neither do I”, or you are admitting you are not arguing as a scientist. In either case, your comments are irrelevant blather.
Assertion (b)
It is true that all sensible people – including geoscientists – try to “deal in probabilities”. And you do “deal in probabilities” at August 3, 2012 at 9:35 am when you write:

As Bill McKibbin recently pointed-out, it is highly likley (sic) that we have 5 times more fossil fuel reserves than the majority of climate scientists consider it would be safe to burn.

OK if it is “highly likely” that fossil fuels are that available then it is hard to understand your assertion at August 3, 2012 at 4:36 am which says;
“Fossil fuels are destined to be history. Renewables and nuclear are the future; so I suggest you get used to them.”
Your two statements do not equate because ‘renewables’ cost more than fossil fuels so will not replace fossil fuels. Unless, of course, you only “deal in probabilities” when it suites your assertions.
Assertion (c)
Either there is a “consensus view of climate science” or there is not. And a consensus view cannot be a minority view. But when Smokey pointed out (at August 3, 2012 at 9:54 am) that an overwhelming number of credentialed scientists (i.e. 34,100) have voluntarily signed a petition which rejects AGW you replied at August 3, 2012 at 10:06 am saying;

I am not interested in opinion polls; but I am concerned with extremely high probability that you are mistaken.

(Incidentally, I add that a poll of scientists who support the view of AGW is a problem found that they total 75.)
So, you said;

the probability that the consensus view of climate science is correct is much greater than the probability that it is not.

And when you were shown that the consensus denies your view you said you are

not interested in opinion polls

and tried to change the subject to whether Smokey is “mistaken”.
So, I repeat, I suggest everybody should ignore your distractions by ignoring all your posts in this thread both past and future. In other words, don’t feed the troll.
Richard

Martin Lack:
I am writing to answer your question addressed to me (at August 4, 2012 at 2:26 am) solely to demonstrate that I am not avoiding it.
Yes, that was me.
And I state that I stand by what I wrote in my previous post addressed to you so I shall not respond to anything else you address to me whether or not it applies to me personally unless and until you modify your behaviour..
Richard

Friends:
I enjoy rational discussion but deplore trolls who hijack threads as a method to evade discussion of the subjects of the threads. I remind that this thread is about the rebuttal by David Middleton of the nonsensical assertions concerning fracking by Giles Parkinson.
So, I repeat that I will not feed the troll whether or not he makes content-free personal attacks on me, and I again advise all others to ignore his posts, too.
Richard

David Fogg says: August 2, 2012 at 11:30 am
@Allan MacRae: Athabasca is a mess, and a big one at that. The indigenous people down stream have problems with fish and sickness. Nothing I’ve heard as ridiculous as two jawed fish. Red spots, illnesses, population declines. Sure, it was never tar-free, but it’s gotten worse by most accounts. Regardless, you could remove Athabasca from m(gov’t/energy) to give me any point, and my point is still valid. Our government GIVES away our resources to the Energy industry, claiming very little in the way of revenue for it… and then doesn’t even do its job of regulation and oversight. As a result, there is NOTHING trustworthy or inherently safe about energy development. I’m not against gas development… or possibly even fracking. But currently I can’t trust anyone involved to give real honest answers. Look at all the BS they gave us when the Macondo blew out. It’s the same colluded garbage we get from gov’t/climate science.
__________
David, you are speaking in an area of my expertise. I was directly involved as a manager in the Canadian oilsands from 1984 to 1992. That is why I started studying “global warming” (CAGW) science in about 1985. It was my responsibility to understand what we were doing in the oilsands, and it became an interesting hobby.
Like any other cantankerous old fart, I think I could have done a better job in the oilsands than the kids that took over. 🙂
Nevertheless, I must be objective and fair in my assessment.
First, on fiscal terms (royalties and taxes). The Athabasca oilsands are an economically marginal resource – among the highest-cost sources of oil in the world. IF we want to develop them (and we should – they are THE economic backbone of the Canadian economy), we need fiscal terms that make them sufficiently economic to attract investment.
The new fiscal terms adopted by the Klein government in 1996-97 were , in my opinion, well-suited to the oilsands. They allowed the investor to get his capital back quickly, to enhance the otherwise-marginal rate of return, and then the government took a larger share. The total income split was about 50:50 between government and industry.
The Stelmach government revised these terms in ~2008 to remove these investment incentives, and this will ultimately prove to be a mistake, in my opinion. When costs and oil prices finally re-align, new oilsands projects will probably be rendered uneconomic by the Stelmach fiscal terms.
By way of credentials, I personally initiated the move to the Klein tax terms in 1985, and the move to the new royalty terms in 1988. It took about a decade for experts to establish these new terms, and less than a year for neophytes to destroy them.
As far as “giving the resource away” to industry, the fact is that the revenues from the Athabasca oilsands carry the entire Canadian economy. The reason Canada is the strongest economy in the G8 is entirely due to the oilsands – Canada’s manufacturing sector is no better than that of the USA.
Regarding the people who live downstream from the oilsands, there has been so much falsehood written about this – one doctor from Nova Scotia established himself in Fort Chip and was found to be fabricating scary stories about the health of the native peoples there – he was formally censored by the Alberta Medical Association. Excerpt below – sorry I’ve lost the full link.
Sure, there are lots of liars in industry – look at Enron and all the financial scams on Wall Street. However, senior executives caught lying are swiftly dealt with industry – they are fired. Boards of Directors do not like to be lied to, and are deeply embarrassed by these events. Most Directors of large companies are independently wealthy and have good reputations – they do not want to be associated with lies.
The CAGW scam is a much more serous deception. The truth is what we wrote in 2002: “The alleged global warming crisis does not exist.” More evidence since then? There has been NO net global warming since we wrote this article.
Nevertheless, certain climate scientists continue to lie about the global warming crisis, and most politicians continue to repeat these lies. Industry leaders are dragged along, most of them lacking the courage to speak out against this nonsense and be pilloried by radical warmists for doing so.
Like investing, one has to be cautious about who you believe. The remarkable change now is that, with the internet and a good basic education, one can develop one’s own informed decisions. Good luck!
__________
Excerpt:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012649.html
After two years of repeated requests from authorities, he finally agreed to turn over his files. They showed no evidence to support his shocking claims. The investigator discovered, instead, that Dr. O’Connor’s public statements about the health of Fort Chipewyan’s residents contained ““mistruths, inaccuracies and unconfirmed information.”
He had reported five cases of a rare bile duct cancer called cholangiocarcinoma in the community of 1,200. There were two. The doctor had told reporters of a man who had died of colon cancer at the young age of 33. It was fiction. ““No patient died at age 33 from colon cancer as reported by Dr. O’Connor,” says the report.
“These weren’t misdiagnoses; they were diagnoses that never occurred,”” says Hakique Virani, one of the three Health Canada physicians who lodged the original complaint with the college. ““Our concern was, this is a guy who is saying there are a huge number — five in a community that small is a huge number — of rare cancers and there were outward associations being drawn between environmental concerns and cancers.”
“Basically you’re telling a group of people that you’re likely to get these rare cancers and there’s nothing you can do about it because of the place you live, the water that you drink and the food that you eat. If it’s true, you’re darnstraight to advocate. If not, you’re really abusing the trust of an entire community.”