"Fracking" was the second most popular UK search term in the "what is?" category on Google in 2014.
(The top ten were: Love; Fracking; Gluten; FGM; Lupus; Anxiety; Twerking; Instagram; Gout; Bitcoin).
What this tells you is that capitalism in general and the fracking industry in particular is losing the argument.
How does it tell you this?
Because what it instantly suggests is that "fracking" is a controversial process.
And indeed fracking is a controversial process. But only because it has been tarred that way as a result of several years of very successful propagandising by the green movement, which the fracking industry and its allies in government have proved hopelessly inadequate at countering.
If wood-burning power stations are less eco-friendly than coal, we are getting the search for clean energy all wrong.
On Saturday my train was diverted by engineering works near Doncaster. We trundled past some shiny new freight wagons decorated with a slogan: “Drax — powering tomorrow: carrying sustainable biomass for cost-effective renewable power”. Serendipitously, I was at that moment reading a report by the chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change on the burning of wood in Yorkshire power stations such as Drax. And I was feeling vindicated.
A year ago I wrote in these pages that it made no sense for the consumer to subsidise the burning of American wood in place of coal, since wood produces more carbon dioxide for each kilowatt-hour of electricity. The forests being harvested would take four to ten decades to regrow, and this is the precise period over which we are supposed to expect dangerous global warming to emerge. It makes no sense to steal beetles’ lunch, transport it halfway round the world, burning diesel as you do so, and charge hard-pressed consumers double the price for the power it generates.
If there is a sound more pitiable than the whine of a pious environmental activist, it is the wail of a financier about to do his dough.
The mournful chorus now wafting from Greg Hunt’s waiting room is the sound of the two in unison, pleading with the Environment Minister to save the life of their misshapen bastard child, the renewable energy target.
You have to hand it to Hunt, who either has nerves of steel or is stone deaf, for he has retained both his cool and his fortitude.
The RET review by Dick Warburton on the government’s behalf has brought the rent-seekers out in force, for billions of dollars of corporate welfare is resting on its outcome.
THE deep oceans have been cooling for the past two decades and it is not possible to say whether changes in ocean heat adequately explain the “pause” in global warming, two of the world’s leading ocean scientists have said.
Warmer oceans have been a key explanation for the “missing” heat. Global average surface temperatures have not increased dramatically for more than a decade despite steadily rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
A paper by Carl Wunsch from Harvard University and Patrick Heimbach from MIT, accepted for publication with the Journal of Physical Oceanography, says more work is needed.
One of Germany's newest coal-fired power plants rises here from the banks of a 100-year-old canal that once shipped coal mined from the Ruhr Valley to the world.
Now the coal comes the other way.
The 750-megawatt Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Luenen GmbH & Co. power plant relies completely on coal imports, about half from the U.S. Soon, all of Germany's coal-fired power plants will be dependent on imports, with the country expected to halt coal mining in 2018 when government subsidies end.
Coal mining's demise in Germany comes as the country is experiencing a resurgence in coal-fired power, one which the U.S. increasingly has helped supply. U.S. exports of power plant-grade coal to Germany have more than doubled since 2008. In 2013, Germany ranked fifth, behind the United Kingdom, Netherlands, South Korea and Italy in imports of U.S. steam coal, the type burned in power plants.
It would be easy to look at the dramatic 35% increase in America's oil and natural gas production since President Obama took office and think the administration deserves much of the credit. But the energy boom has happened in spite of him.
Production could have been even greater if the administration embraced America's new energy superpower status instead of being so hostile to the development of our fossil fuel resources.
Since Obama took office, oil and gas production has soared on private and state land, for which he deserves little or no credit. Meanwhile, production on federal lands has dropped sharply due to a cutback in leasing of deepwater areas for energy development.
The U.S. government leases less than 2.2% of the energy-rich Outer Continental Shelf, and less than 6% of federal onshore lands. Offshore leasing is at half the level recorded during the Clinton administration, and its decline is indicative of Obama's hostility toward the oil and gas industry.
This July could down as one of the coolest on record, of late.
That's bad news for air condition repair companies.
The normal high temperature in Windsor this time of year is 28 C.
Looking ahead, the temperature isn't expected to hit that number once during the last few days of the month.
It means July would only see two days of 30-degree heat.
Jim Bessey says service calls to his air conditioning business are down about 20 per cent this summer.
A new report warns about climate change and wildfires, but one prominent skeptic says the report’s authors are simply wrong.
According to the report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, "Climate change and development patterns are contributing to the soaring costs of Western wildfires."
Cal Beisner of for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation - a coalition of clergy, scientists and academics - disagrees.
"The Union of Concerned Scientists - which is largely not composed of scientists but of laypeople and which has a long history of supporting all kinds of left-wing, green causes - is simply wrong," he says.
The sweatiest man in America.At a fundraiser in Washington state, President Obama promised supporters that he would work to make sure the planet Earth continues to function.
“[A] long-term challenge that has to be dealt with right now is making sure that the planet works for the next generation and the generation after that,” he said, citing the growing global warming threat.
During his speech, Obama cited global warming for causing the dry conditions that were the cause for so many forest fires in the region.
“A lot of that has to do with drought. A lot of it has to do with changing precipitation patterns,” he said. "And a lot of that has to do with climate change.”
Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard University professor who flies around the world in pollutant-spewing jumbo jet airliners to proclaim that climate change is a terrible menace, has co-written another book warning about the planet’s dire environmental situation.
The book, called “The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future,” is a tale told with sound and fury by a historian living in the year 2393 who looks back on global collapse caused by global warming.
While The Daily Caller is not about to spoil it for you by giving away the role globetrotting Ivy League professors and their ilk play in Oreskes’s science fiction potboiler, The Guardian published an interview on Thursday in which she suggests that climate change “deniers” are diabolical marketing geniuses.
The professor describes “the denial industry” as a motley crew of “very cynical individuals” “with little or no regard to the consequences for others” as well as people who believe that environmentalists are “green on the outside, red on the inside — and that climate change is just an excuse to bring in socialism by another name.” Still others, she says, think climate change is a “fad” that will pass or have such a vested interest in “the fossil fuel industry” that they are willfully blind.
Someone has petitioned the UK Government's Home Office demanding that the term "denier" be classified as "hate speech."
We the undersigned request that the offensive terms, "climate denier", "denier", "denialist" and other variants being used to harass sceptical scientists or other people who do not ascribe to the hypothesis of man made climate change or man made global warming be classified as hate speech in accordance with the Public Order Act 1986. Scientists and others should not be subjected to hateful, offensive names in order to diminish their standing or to make them accept a consensus view.
I feel their pain but I'm certainly not going to be signing myself. Here are some reasons why:
The green lobby has finally come out and revealed its true intentions. No, a clean environment is not what it's working for. It's the death of capitalism.
For more than a quarter-century, extreme green has menaced the public with terrifying stories of apocalyptic man-made global warming.
It was all the movement had left. The environment in the developed world had been cleaned up after countries had gone through the growing pains of industrial development and economic maturity. So something else was needed to rage about.
The fright campaign culminated this month with a meeting hosted by Venezuela's government and attended by 130 green groups. The U.N.-sponsored conference, known as Social Pre-COP, produced a final version of the Margarita Declaration. All this "declaration" does is call for the death of capitalism.