Science when it suits

The Taranaki Daily News has a very good editorial on how the Greens want to have their scientific cake and eat it too:

. . . It is fascinating that the Green Party clearly supports science and scientists when the issue is climate change but sees little stock in the science and scientists when the issue is something that might run counter to their ideology.

Which is what this is all about. Because it most definitely is not about the science, the rational.

It is the pursuit of ideology that puts the Greens in bed with one set of scientists but has them estranged from another. And that politically inspired hypocrisy is a disservice both to the party and the New Zealand scientific community they should be supporting, celebrating, promoting. . .

Science is good when it suits their argument but not when it doesn’t.

12 Responses to Science when it suits

  1. pdm says:

    The hypocrisy of the Greens and most of the left knows no bounds.

    Like

  2. robertguyton says:

    You’ll welcome fracking with open arms when its practitioners arrive in your neck of the woods, Ele?
    I’ve looked at the process closely and been subject to a presentation from industry heads on its virtues and would advise you to take a close look yourself at what is being said on all sides of the discussion. In particular, take a look at the physical changes to your landscapes where there are frackers at work. Ask questions about the effects of their infrastructure on your roads and presently-productive farmland and if you are of a mind to, the waterbodies of your area. Hydrocarbon extraction by fracking does not have a light foot-print.

    Like

  3. robertguyton says:

    pdm – great comment, intelligently put. I for one have changed my whole world-view as a result of your truly illuminating contribution. You are a credit to the Right.
    To all of humanity in fact.
    Soldier on!

    Like

  4. Angela Hart says:

    Unfortunately the credibility of the scientific establishment and also of industry has taken a dive in recent times. For good reason.
    The Greens caution is wise. Only fools ignore the actual experiences of many people in favour of official reports unless the latter are unimpeachable.

    Like

  5. Todd says:

    The science available for New Zealand specific process is limited, don’t confuse this with the international context.

    We are to be assured that any further council considering “Multi Stage Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing” permits will consult with Taranaki District council. As far as my opinion goes, the Taranaki council were caught with their pants down & only sought “science” once the process was under way. Read the science quoted & ask your self what it does not consider.

    While were at it, lets be clear, the process under the spot light, seems to have a minimal history. being that Sidewinder was the first of its type in new zealand http://www.tagoil.com/history.asp

    NZPAM are correct to say “hydraulic fracturing” has been fiddled with for 50 odd years – what is misleading – is that the US industry have used a horizontal process for a little over ten & have plastered the country with litigation (but at least they get a check at the start & a settlement after the damage – to bad though for the guy in the middle who didn’t lease to them?).

    I resent that certain proponents are actually paid to curve public acceptance of this practice, while the full scope of science involved & actual risks to human safety remain to be established – This implies, while I turn to work, that our democratic process can be undermined- evident through the industries lobby budget increase, while government considers RMA, EEZ, Mining safety, issues of our inspectorates & a number of matters relating to securing/selling international resources.

    I’m Not fooled, are you?

    Like

  6. Andrei says:

    I’m Not fooled, are you?

    No I’m not fooled, there are those who would boldly go forward into the future and those sad creatures, paralyzed with fear of imagined catastrophes, who would not.

    Nothing in this life is certain or entirely risk free – the risks involved fracking are not great while the rewards are.

    Gas is $2.16.9 per litre and that is not good for anybody.

    Like

  7. pdm says:

    Andrei said:

    “Gas is $2.16.9 per litre and that is not good for anybody.”

    That is on an exceptionally high dollar.

    We have to do something and I have no problem with fracking if it is a means for New Zealand to source and produce it’s own petroleum products.

    RG – pleased to be of help.

    Like

  8. robertguyton says:

    “There are those who would boldly go forward into the future and those sad creatures, paralyzed with fear of imagined catastrophes, who would not.”

    That must be your most worthless contribution yet, Andrei, to any debate here. It doesn’t strike me that Todd or Angela, for example, are sad creatures, ‘paralysed by fear of imagined catastrophes’. Nor do you come across as someone boldly going forward into the future. More blindly than boldly, I’d propose. Mind you, it seems you have some knowledge of subject, saying, “the risks involved fracking are not great while the rewards are.” Please share your knowledge with us so we can confidently share in your enthusiasm.
    Or are you just sloganeering?

    Like

  9. David Winter says:

    If anyone had bothered to read Hughe’s statement, it would be clear he’s not denying the science. In fact, he states quite clearly that there are several concerns with fracking and while there is considerable uncertainty about some of those concerns it’s reasonable to stop and investigate more thoroughly.

    I wish the Green party would drop the anti-1080 and anti-GE parts of their policy, but, with those exceptions, they seem far more aligned with science than any other major party in New Zealand

    Like

  10. Paul Bailey says:

    If you had have bothered reading the GNS report referred to in the Taranaki Daily Nes and commented on by Gareth Huges you would find that there are a number of doubts as to its validity.

    Without going into technocalities even the disclaimer should raise a few eyebrows “The hydraulic fracturing and geological information in this report has lergely been supplied by oil and gas companies in the region”

    Talk about letting the fox look after the chickens.

    Like

  11. robertguyton says:

    Join the discussion, Ele.
    The ‘pro-fracking, anti-Hughes’ team is getting a pasting!

    Like

  12. robertguyton says:

    Wot Gareth said:
    “All in all, I think it’s an insult for the Minister to accuse all those concerned about fracking of being part of an ‘extreme green lobby’. What I saw last night was a community who fears for their health and the health of their kids. Contrary to the Minister’s claims, these concerned communities are not just worried about what could happen; they are worried about what is happening already, both in their own communities and to other communities feeling the effects of fracking. It’s time the Minister started listening to these people, not just the oil and gas lobbyists.”

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012/03/01/stratford-public-meeting-unanimous-support-for-fracking-moratorium-from-the-frontlines/

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: