Dellers has an article over at Breitbart about the success of the green propaganda around shale gas drilling:
“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.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on acckkii.
In that cartoon, the riposte from the Gas Co guy should have been “……..and free hot water, too”
Most greenies don’t know the countryside from their backside.
Meanwhile, Owen Paterson’s replacement has been keeping her hands clean:
What is changing the conversation in the US is money. The places where fracking occurs are doing very well economically. North Dakota. Other states (all desperate for money) want in on it. Illinois is planning a move in that direction. As with all things my expectation is that experience will change minds. When presented with the idea in the abstract it is easy to be against. But then along comes lower cost gas, states making money, and jobs and there is a shift.
It will be interesting to see what Putin does this winter. If he squeezes I expect resistance to fracking to decline. BTW did you notice that the US has had the coolest summer in 100 years so far? Low cost natural gas will be a boon this winter.
tallbloke says:
July 29, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Those MPs must be denizens of WUWT.
“As scientists by training, we do not dispute the science of the greenhouse effect – nor did any of our witnesses”.
Honest question here….
What is the connection between “the greenhouse effect, denizens of WUWT, and the term dragon slayer”? I’ve sensed some squirming from some about this term dragon slayer. Is this a negative term or is there a better term for folks who don’t buy the greenhouse theory.
No agenda here, no sarcasm, just asking for some perspective here.
Ursa Felidae says:
July 29, 2014 at 7:55 pm
The “Dragon Slayers” are folks with a poor understanding of radiation physics. They don’t believe in “back radiation” even when it is explained to them as “net radiation energy transfer”. They are banned from WUWT for being obnoxious and obtuse. These days after reading a post or two here I think gas pressure is a better explanation of the “greenhouse effect” than anything else I have come across. But I might change my mind if I get different information. I used to believe in CO2 – without amplification (also the generally accepted position at WUWT). Which is a slightly modified warmist position. Which is – CO2 – with amplification. And when I say believe I don’t mean blind faith. I look at the evidence.