Cameron on fracking opponents

January 16th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Telegraph reports:

Many opponents of gas are “irrational” and simply “can’t bear the thought of another carbon-based fuel”, said on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister attacked people who he described as “religiously opposed” to shale gas exploration.

He said that fracking is a “real opportunity” for Britain and that it could solve our gas needs for decades to come.

Opponents do tend to have a near-religious belief that any use of Earth’s natural resources is spiritually wrong, and must be opposed.

Mr Cameron said: “There are, though, some people who I think are opposing shale because they simply can’t bear the thought of another carbon-based fuel being used in our energy mix and I think that is irrational because it’s surely better for us to be extracting shale safely from our own country rather than paying a large price for having it imported from around the world.”

He added: “I think that’s why some people are so religiously opposed to it because they just don’t want to see any carbon-based energy work. I don’t think that’s helpful.”

Or rational.

Tags: , ,

14 Responses to “Cameron on fracking opponents”

  1. alex Masterley (1,438 comments) says:

    The term “swivel eyed loon” is also a useful description for fracking opponents.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. peterwn (2,933 comments) says:

    Seems some people think that the raw materials for the goods and energy they use come from another planet. Or are they just NIMBY-ists.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. David Garrett (5,120 comments) says:

    He has nailed it completely…the Greens’ opposition to fracking here is completely without scientific foundation, (all our oil wells are thousands of metres deeper than any water well) and they must know it. They are so vehemently opposed for two reasons: firstly it will allow production, and thus burning, of more fossil fuels, and they oppose that – while being quite happy to travel on planes and cars – and secondly fraccing of shale puts “peak oil” back dozens or perhaps hundreds of years.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    No, you can’t build that!

    NO, you can’t build THAT either!

    You can’t MINE here!

    You can’t DRILL here!

    You can’t FRACK here!

    WAAAAH – why is everything so expensive?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. WineOh (428 comments) says:

    I have no objections to people fighting environmental issues, but it needs to be done on the basis of sound science not fanatical blind ideology. When the facts firmly support the safety of the technology then you need to STFU and let the rest of the world get on with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. EAD (314 comments) says:

    I wonder if David Cameron can he see a little bit of himself in the irrational environmentalists vis-à-vis his obsession with the man made climate change myth?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10565247/Flooding-chaos-is-down-to-David-Cameron-not-climate-change.html

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Reid (15,510 comments) says:

    Whenever you see lefties hysterical about anything to do with fossil fuels, bear in mind this comes from their religious belief that fossil fuels of all kinds are broken and cannot be considered as a viable alternative under any circumstances. The origins of this belief are usefully outlined in this rense article, which isn’t available anywhere else on the web. If you want to defeat an argument you need to know where it comes from. This was Lord Denning’s philosophy when, as a young defence counsel he used to sit down and prepare the case for the prosecution before he prepared his own, and also Tsn Tsu’s. The article is written by a warmist critic.

    http://rense.com/general96/climbdown.html

    And just to forestall the inevitable moron(s) who complain about the fact it’s published on rense: (a) who cares and (b) if you aren’t equipped to analyse content regardless of source, then why do you bother reading anything at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Fentex (656 comments) says:

    I hope people who condemn concerns about fracking as irrational because they argue the evidence is positive for fracking remain as committed to evidence in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Sam Buchanan (499 comments) says:

    “Opponents do tend to have a near-religious belief that any use of Earth’s natural resources is spiritually wrong, and must be opposed.”

    I’m always highly amused when those who claim their opponents are irrational, themselves make ridiculously emotive, over-the-top and inaccurate statements such as this!

    “The term “swivel eyed loon” is also a useful description for fracking opponents.”

    Nice – let’s have a discussion based on reason and evidence shall we?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    let’s have a discussion based on reason and evidence shall we?

    If the anti-fracking crowd did that there would be no discussion.

    The swivel eyed loons do not really believe a word of what they say. Which explains why they continue to use the products of the oil industry every single day. It is to meet this [their] demand that fracking is now economically viable. Stop using the products and they will stop being harvested. Simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Sam Buchanan (499 comments) says:

    “The swivel eyed loons do not really believe a word of what they say. ”

    Right. So instead of debating facts, we’ll describe our opponents as loons and liars, thus making the debate impossible, and then say it’s their fault because they won’t discuss the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pita (356 comments) says:

    It is not the “Near-religious believe that the use of the Earth’s natural resources is spiritually wrong”… it is the religious belief that the use of those natural resources has led to runaway global warming.

    After years of the political classes telling us (useful idiots) that the burning of carbon based fuels has led to runaway anthropogenic Global Warming (that can only be halted by the handy application of a deserving tax) it’s hardly surprising that they are met with this level of opposition.

    You can’t take both sides of the same argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Sam I am happy to debate facts. I was just making polite conversation until you presented some.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RichardX (288 comments) says:

    Reid (14,692 comments) says:
    January 16th, 2014 at 10:56 am
    …bear in mind this comes from their religious belief …

    You of all people should know that facts and evidence do not change someone’s religious beliefs
    That would be the only part that is accurate in calling their beliefs ‘religious’ but then you believe atheism is a religion as well despite the lack of certain key characteristics a religion requires
    It looks like you are not alone in applying that term though
    At least DPF stated ‘near-religious belief’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.