Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:01 PM

GasBuddy News Article

44
votes
Frack-deadline twist

NEW YORK POST -- Cuomo’s Department of Environmental Conservation filed for a 90-day extension, which requires the agency to issue a revised set of rules and open them to public comment for 30 days.

The move gives the state Health Department more time to finish its review of the potential health impacts of drilling for natural gas by blasting into upstate shale with a high-pressure chemical, sand and water mix.

The extension comes as drillers, landowners, farmers, contractors and business advocates launched a print and radio ad campaign pressing New York to join Pennsylvania in creating jobs and cutting carbon emissions by allowing high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which environmentalists warn could harm drinking-water supplies and create pollution.


Read the Full Article

Submitted Nov 28, 2012 By: NOTSOGRN
Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics Add to favorite topics  
Author Topic: Frack-deadline twist Back to Topics
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2012 5:19:32 PM

kar120csii - Strange comment!!
Profile Pic
KAR120CSII
Champion Author Oregon

Posts:4,660
Points:882,790
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 8:19:17 PM

Guess they went on to harrass someone else (probably a women) -- anonymously -- brave guys.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 10, 2012 5:53:53 PM

First a big LOL to KAR!

Now on to the so called 'empirical' evidence CdnLynx posts from NASA. Now when I was studying science in college many years ago I was taught that empirical proof stated most importantly with the question to be asked. The data is then gathered, observation performed and conclusions drawn.

So, with an emphatic 'yes' I must say NASA research is flawed in several ways, mostly in their bias. This goes to the number one prognosticator of AGW, James Hansen of NASA, who you claim to have no knowledge of but has been NASA's biggest proclimater on the predictions of the effect of his beloved AGW. As noted earlier he has been so wrong on his predictions it has almost become laughable, if it were not for the $billions (government funded) thrown down the hole chasing this AGW hoax.

Beating a dead horse you say? Absolutely not, changing your mind is not possible, because your faith is too strong, and certainly not my intent.

You see, there are many that still keep an open mind as to the whims of the natural world. As I have stated before, no one knows nature's design plan because it will always change. Humans are the design of nature are we not? So ultimately who is to say what nature's design had in store for us?
Profile Pic
KAR120CSII
Champion Author Oregon

Posts:4,660
Points:882,790
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 1:48:48 AM

You gotta give up -- tho' I can't read what Doc is writing (he's in the ether zone with me) -- he's gotta just be writing the most amazing s**t and just turning your words back on you so precisely -- just have a cold one and chill out.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 12:48:55 AM

You go on about empirical data to prove the global warming stance! I will supply the following; suspect this will be classed as junk science!empirical data site re: global warming!
You go on about empirical data; are you able to prove that the environment is not at risk and all things in the natural world are copacetic.
We are now beat a dead horse; we do not agree! Dialogue at times has been problematic with negative innuendos. Carrying on a correspondence becomes tiresome, when one uses negative commentary as "Groan, AGW Hoax, Calm Down, Fear Mongering, preach, Fears and Paranoia, etc.
I told you earlier, and you chose to ignore the following, "Drpepper - Some people here are using invective monikers to describe people that don't agree with their point of view. You must decide if that includes you!"
I try (not always successful) to discuss with dialogue without invective speech directed towards opponents.
I would like to touch on couple other things, you mention 'Urban use in the U.S is 2.6 percent" however does that include all local, regional, interstate hwys in the U.S; suspect that will increase the asphalt heating aspect; It is not only a U.S problem, it is global, and many other nations have far more urban land use. This is far more reaching then just Urban land use around the world.
You touched on warmer weather could be a good thing as less people would die of cold around the world; it goes far beyond that and the consequences would be more far reaching. This is a global phenomenon not American.Warming Worlds Impacts by degree
I constantly give empirical data quotes; reciprocal data for your arguments would be appreciated!
I constantly give links to data sites however I don't even think you even look at as you have just categorized this as a hoax!
I have given this calm consideration without any fears and paranoia!
However I must reiterate, that we disagree, and we are only beating a dead horse!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 5:54:21 PM

CdnLynx, "Atmospheric change could have went the other way, it could have became colder pending another ice age; it is not, as global warming is occurring."
===================
Sure it could, after all, there have been 12 mini ice ages, glacial periods, in the last million years. The latest advancement of ice was about 15,000 years ago. We are still coming out of that one other wise we would have the Great Glaciers instead if the Great Lakes.

CdnLynx "however 7 billion people have had to cause negative effects on this planet."
===================
Sounds logical, but where's the empirical proof? Roughly a century's worth of temperature data out of the last 15,000 years?? You say "have had to cause", really? This sounds like the same thing you groaned about earlier, just because you say it has to does not make it true.

CdnLynx "all this activity, has to have had, a cumulative negative effect."
===================
There you go again. And if negative, whom is it negative to? Your eyes? Nature's eyes? You know, there is a case to be made that warming would be a net good. History shows us there are many more deaths related to cold weather rather than hot.

CdnLynx "All of this humanity, living/working in heated habitats, combined with global travel, turning green spaces into asphalt/concrete jungles, etc."
===================
You might try a little research on asphalt/concrete coverage as a percentage of Earth's land mass and get back to me on that. I have a feeling you'll be shocked at how minuscule it is. Hint: total urban use of US land is about 2%.

But you do hit on an important factor of the AGW hoax regarding temperature records (especially in the US)!

CdnLynx "This is the only planet we have at present to live off, and further destruction endangers our very existence. That's why I stated "it must be protected at all cost"; it must be emphatically stated, as it's the truth, and not fear mongering!"
===================
Calm down please. The Kyoto protocol's most optimistic ideas, don’t really change the results of warming. The Kyoto treaty would have delivered a .2 (degree Celsius) change in temperature over 20 years. According to Kyoto this would cost an estimated $14,000,000,000,000. The US is currently $16,300,000,000 and counting in debt. All costs eh?

Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 12:51:00 PM

Atmospheric change could have went the other way, it could have became colder pending another ice age; it is not, as global warming is occurring.
Yes, it could have happened slowly over time, however 7 billion people have had to cause negative effects on this planet. All of this humanity, living/working in heated habitats, combined with global travel, turning green spaces into asphalt/concrete jungles, etc.; all this activity, has to have had, a cumulative negative effect.
Many kinds of species are dying off, with man being the cause of this!
This is the only planet we have at present to live off, and further destruction endangers our very existence. That's why I stated "it must be protected at all cost"; it must be emphatically stated, as it's the truth, and not fear mongering!
The prestige of science, I don't feel has been diminished; 21st century science and technology has allowed humanity to explore some of the deepest recesses of the universe. Science, math, and resulting technologies have allow for a cornucopia of discoveries, including global warming and the causes of it!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 10:30:52 AM

CdnLynx, may I ask, who is denying that the climate is warming? Certainly not me.

That climate is warming is not the issue, the issue is the cause. The fear mongering of the global warming agenda has undermined and diminished the prestige of science, to me that's a terrible thing.

And when someone makes the statement "the human race and other living creatures; they must be protected at all costs", the end result of that fear mongering is emphatically revealed.

All costs??? Over something that may be completely NATURAL???
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:47:51 PM

Well I won't use the word consensus; I will describe it this way!
Most people from around the world, including their gov'ts and their institutions of higher learning and other organizations, are of the same stance; that being; 7 billion plus people on an ever shrinking land masses are projecting an negative effect upon the lands and oceans that sustain the human race and other living creatures; they must be protected at all costs so the human race can be sustained, not just now but for future descendants.
I guess the supporters of global warming (global warming heretics), will eventually be vindicated (hopefully sooner then later), with ever mounting scientific evidence that global warming indeed exists.
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file"; brings a smile to my face, as I picture both of us as soldiers within the ranks of differing camps of opinion marching for their respective causes. Victory will be Ours!
If you surrender now, I will be a benevolent conqueror; your opposition is futile!

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 12/3/2012 9:53:49 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 6:06:37 PM

CdnLynx "I see the scientific facts and base my conclusions of that; others see only what they want and ignore the the consensus of worldwide findings."

=====================================================

Here's what Albert Einstein had to say about "consensus":
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions that differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."

You see, history has shown repeatedly that consensus is meaningless in science. For centuries Ptolemaic epicycles were consensus. Copernicus and Galileo were both labeled by the "consensus" as heretics before they were vindicated with the proof as were Louis Pasteur and Albert Einstein himself.

Science is about asking questions, being 'skeptical', while consensus is about demanding that you not question any conclusion. Consensus is a demand that you believe rather than appeal to logic and evidence. Do you see yourself among the herd?

One more from Albert Einstein:
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."


[Edited by: drpepperTX at 12/3/2012 6:08:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
KAR120CSII
Champion Author Oregon

Posts:4,660
Points:882,790
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 1:57:17 AM

Old DocP is out in the ether zone -- try using the 'Ignore' button -- you'll feel a lot better, Cdn.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 1:15:36 AM

Drpepper - Some people here are using invective monikers to describe people that don't agree with their point of view. You must decide if that includes you!
I told you i don't follow millerites, hanson etc and I don't follow "Church of global warming", that you have just brought up.
I mentioned quite some time ago I look at scientific documentation. That is what I base my thoughts and decisions on!
I don't follow minuscule avenues that support whatever far out hypothesis!
My first comments re: the article, were about the global temps and their eventual effect on crops and melting ice in the Arctic and how that moderates temps; also commented on melting permafrost and the methane gases that would also contribute to green house warming of the atmosphere; originally, I was not mentioning rising sea levels until you mentioned it in one of your reply's, then I waded in on rising sea levels! I did quote that specific article but it was not originally about rising sea levels.
People are negatively labelling their opponents here; "green is red", greenie; I don't consider myself a communist or a greenie, nor am I, a seventh day Adventist, or a preacher, or a lemming.
I just respect mother nature and realize that the earth must be protected; I am a realist; knowing, that earths bounty is there to nurture mankind with its benefits; in the process, with as little damage, as possible to the environment!
This church of global warming strikes me a just another negative connotation given to a group that does not follow the viewpoint of others; yet another epithet.
You and me, have a different viewpoint! I respectfully believe, it's only a matter of time, before you and others, will come to realize that we must take actions to protect the planet and to harvest its bounty in a sustainable way. Presently I feel we should just drill for gas, without fracking, and only do so when there is need. Presently there is an abundance of NG and at present it would be beneficial to leave it in the ground until such time its required.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 5:56:44 PM

CdnLynx, if you're going to preach about rising sea levels and tying that to anthropogenic climate change, how can you claim ignorance of James Hansen? Hansen is one of the leaders, similar to the Millerites, of AGW, ahem 'concensus' or founders of the Church of Global Warming, movement.

You see, Hansen has proclaimed many of the same things you are espousing on rising sea levels, man made climate change etc. As each of his predictions, starting in the 80's, have proven untrue he, like James Miller, continue to ramp up the apocalypse leading the disciples of the Church of GW like lemmings over the cliff.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 1:43:26 PM

CdnLynx, what does the country you live in have to do with knowing history??

The Millerites William Miller is perhaps the most famous false prophet in history. In the 1840s he began to preach about the world's end, saying Jesus Christ would return for the long-awaited Second Coming and that Earth would be engulfed in fire sometime between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. He circulated his message in public gatherings and by using the technologies of the day — posters, printed newsletters and charts. Moved by those messages, as many as 100,000 "Millerites" sold their belongings between 1840 and 1844 and took to the mountains to wait for the end. When that end didn't come, Miller changed the date to Oct. 22. When Oct. 23 rolled around, his loyal followers explained it away yet again and went on to form the Seventh-day Adventist movement.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 2, 2012 12:38:48 PM

Drpepper being that I'm Cdn, I don't follow every little bit of local news that may being playing out in America. Just like, I can't tell you what has happened in Paraguay or Bolivia today. I am not God! However news that's on going and significant and of global importance is a priority and of consequence!
You're correct, if you don't know history you are doomed to repeat it however the ignoring of facts, that are a of a worldwide consensus is far worse! Wanting to wish away the facts does not make it so!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 9:34:17 AM

CdnLynx "I have no knowledge of millerites or James Hanson or William Miller. "
===================
Reminds me of the old saying "those that don't know history are doomed to repeat past mistakes."
Profile Pic
honda0105
Champion Author Tallahassee

Posts:21,418
Points:1,939,065
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 8:29:02 AM

ropegun: we'd all be better off if we'd listen to some of those wisdoms...
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 1:02:49 AM

CdnLynx "For whatever reason, you feel, that if you state its not happening, then it's not reality. I suspect the number of people with their heads in the sand, are far less, the the people that feel that the humanity is pilfering our one and only planet."
===============
You're off base there CdnLynx, I never, ever, said that climate does not shift. And I most certainly don't believe "that if you state its not happening, then it's not reality", just as your stating it does not make it reality.

Oh yes 'consensus' you say.

Well here's a few of the 'consensus' prognosticators misses:

Hermann Flohn gave the Arctic ice only 20 more years of life. He said it would be totally gone by 2002

"Hermann Flohn of the University of Bonn, West Germany, said studies of the Arctic Sea ice cover have shown that prolonging the summer melt season by as little as two weeks annually would free the Arctic of ice in about 20 years.” “Scientists predict World’s Climate Will Warm Up”, The Leader-Post-Jan 9, 1982

And

"A predicted rise in sea level of one foot within the next 30 to 40 years will drive much of the Atlantic and Gulf shoreline inward by 100 feet and some of it by more than 1,000 feet, according to marine geologists." Erik Eckholm, “The Rising Seas Problems will Seep Far Inland,” Chicago Tribune, March 16, 1986
source

30 years from 1986 is 4 years from now. Another swing and a miss by the 'consensus'.

One more of oh so many misses from the 'consensus'.

“A major report from the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program earlier this month concluded that without a major effort to fight warming, global temperatures could increase by 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade until the middle of the next century, and sea levels could rise by a foot.” Guy Darst, “Nasa Scientist Says Future Droughts Likely,” The Lewiston daily Sun, June 24, 1988, p. 6

We are nowhere close to that fearful prediction. But why should the facts get in the way of the Church of Global Warming? That would get in the way of the grant money flowing from the taxpayers.

Millerites repeated? I say likely.

Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Dec 1, 2012 12:36:25 AM

I have no knowledge of millerites or James Hanson or William Miller. I doubt what facts I speak about, is the biblical apocalypse, however mankind's effects on this planet are abysmal and an abomination!
I will leave the conspiracy theories with yourself and your band of brothers!
I see the scientific facts and base my conclusions of that; others see only what they want and ignore the the consensus of worldwide findings.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 11:42:16 PM

Your original quote was "CdnLynx, so you're basing your fears and paranoia over an article about sea level rising less than 1 inch in 20 years?"
Notice I put (my) in parenthesis, just for context only.
I also unequivocally stated "I don't have any fears or paranoia;"
I'm glad your situated at 400' above sea level; luckily I reside over 900'.
I could state that it will get you before it gets me, but I won't. Neither one of us are directly affected by rising sea levels; residents of Islands and coastal areas are, quite possibly some of your coastal friends.
Yes, there have been ice ages; the modern area has more people and we have been utilizing fossil fuels for our comfort and convenience. Seven billion people and our consumption of the earths resources are having a negative effect on our planet. Hopefully you looked at the sites I supplied for you; many scientists, organizations, universities and nations from around the world have the same consensus that mother nature is being destroyed, usually for the disease of needless consumption.
For whatever reason, you feel, that if you state its not happening, then it's not reality. I suspect the number of people with their heads in the sand, are far less, the the people that feel that the humanity is pilfering our one and only planet.
drpepper you can beat your own drum and beguile the less informed and boldly attempt to intimidate others, that are not of the same mindset, as yourself or the group that don't believe in global warming etc.
We both know, it's only a matter of time before you will have to capitulate. The reason you will have to capitulate is because, bottom line, your wrong!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 11:40:29 PM

CdnLynx, it would serve us all well to study the Millerites. You see following false prophecy, such as Anthropogenic Global Warming, shows how a cult like religious following can turn into a major debacle. The ahem "consensus" among those poor folks is eerily similar to the "consensus" thinking of James Hansen in the 80's, take a look at his prophecies and you'll find a startling similarity to the Millerites. His Global Warming prophecies have proven untrue yet just as William Miller kept ratcheting up the predictions after each date of the apocalypse he preached passed without fruition.
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 9:26:35 PM

WoW! I see Pop TX is vibrating again! I thought the Mods said that name calling, i.e. fear and paranoia were verboten? Way Sad!

[Edited by: LetemEatCake at 11/30/2012 9:28:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 8:10:16 PM

LOL, I live over 400' above sea level.

As to your emotional fear and paranoia, I'll just quote you (notice your exclamation points): "The Arctic, once a frozen ocean is virtually liquid; when it was frozen it had a moderating effect on extreme temps, not just in the northern hemisphere but globally! "
And
" that they wish away global warming with rhetoric that it does not exist; until it's to late! "

Again CdnLynx, the climate is warming, has been overall since the last glacial period, man is not significantly responsible nor can man change that fact.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 6:43:25 PM

Austin TX based scientific organization
http://earthsky.org/earth/why-sea-level-is-rising-faster-than-predicted
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 6:01:30 PM

drpepper - your comment "so you're basing your(my)fears and paranoia"!
I don't have any fears or paranoia; I don't live as close to ocean as you do!
Mr. drpepper, it seems that when you become embroiled in deep discussions and things don't necessarily go your way you resort to inflammatory speech. I refuse to be sucked into your diatribes.
Upon reading my comment, my main comment/point was with global temps and their effects on climate and crops and the melting permafrost. Ice sheets around the world are a mitigating factors on global temps; [giving to my comment of (think its hot now, just wait for it)]! Ice sheets around the globe are melting at exponential rates. It is Not good and Why? Methane will increase greenhouse gasses, due to methane in upper atmospheres.
I did not touch on global sea level rise and rate of rise; however since you brought it up specifically, I must agree that with the proponents of detrimental effects due to sea level rising!
The Empire State building, Seattle Space Needle, Eiffel Tower, will not soon topple into the ocean; that is not to say that some coastal areas around the globe are not out of danger. The residents of Maldives, Tuvalu, Bangladesh and New Orleans, a community that is presently below sea level.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink
cut and paste the following:

Global sea-level rise at the end of the last Ice Age
http://noc.ac.uk/news/global-sea-level-rise-end-last-ice-age

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/slr/viewer/#

Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise - A Focus on Mid-Atlantic Region (320 pg .pdf report)
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-1/final-report/sap4-1-final-report-all.pdf

Sea level rise planning maps
http://plan.risingsea.net/

Colorado Univ Sea Level Research Group
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/blogs/dallas-masters

Be careful for what you ask for; for you will receive!
Hope this helps; I will always back up what I say without the inflammatory smoke and mirrors!

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 11/30/2012 6:07:03 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 12:52:03 PM

CdnLynx, so you're basing your fears and paranoia over an article about sea level rising less than 1 inch in 20 years? Or combining that with all the other heart string pulling hype you've been hearing for years and offering this as more "proof"?

Can you tell us how much the sea level has risen since the end of the last glacial period?

Can you tell us that a 0.44 inch increase in sea level over 20 years is not due to normal climate variance?

Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 1:07:30 AM

It is not allowing me to insert link; so plse cut and paste the following
from the prestigious Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-measure-sea-rise-from-po
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 30, 2012 1:00:31 AM

World Ice pack melting five time faster then 90's - You think it's hot now, wait for it!I also have other concerns; global warming will only increase exponentially with the melting permafrost! It's becoming more apparent here, with many peoples psychology, that their desires for cheap energy to further their need for convenient transportation and possibly personal profit, that they wish away global warming with rhetoric that it does not exist; until it's to late!
The Arctic, once a frozen ocean is virtually liquid; when it was frozen it had a moderating effect on extreme temps, not just in the northern hemisphere but globally! Temperatures around the globe will increase and effect human comfort levels; more importantly, it will effect food production etc.

[Edited by: CdnLynx at 11/30/2012 1:06:05 AM EST]
Profile Pic
LetemEatCake
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:5,705
Points:1,360,915
Joined:Mar 2008
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 10:53:51 PM


Well I see that Pop from TX is calling names again! I kinda thought that the Mods made it clear that calling folks stupid and ignorant is a No-No!

Shame!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 2:19:51 PM

dawgmckay, if you can't tell the difference between putting oil on the surface and hydraulic fracturing 5000' below the surface your problem is ignorance.

Ignorance is a choice, stupid is not.
Profile Pic
dawgmckay
Rookie Author Ohio

Posts:2
Points:42,475
Joined:Jun 2009
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 11:01:19 AM

$$$$ talks, or buys silence.
Just look at how much the president spent to keep his records from us.
Country roads use to put used oil on them to keep dust down. EPA says you can't do that, you will pollute the water supply.
How is fracking different, injecting poison straight into the ground.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 9:53:37 AM

AND THE WITCH HUNTS CONTINUE:

Regulation of oil and gas activity should remain squarely under individual state supervision. There is no reason the Feds should be involved in issues the states have already stringently set. All the information is available at the site www.fracfocus.org.

As more and more SCIENTIFIC studies are added to a growing list of studies showing the safety of hydraulic fracturing, the science denial crowd will overlook the science and continue to promote fear. Yelling "the water's on fire etc.".

They'll continue to chant the thoroughly debunked claims of Josh Fox "Gasland" propaganda.

No disclosure of fracturing fluid?? WRONG again... Just take at look around the site www.fracfocus.org, it's ALL right there for the world to see.

And the latest from the purveyors of fear? Insurance!!! Aha, this will be the nail in the trackers coffin! Oh wait...."Fracking-related losses have never been a covered loss under personal or commercial lines policies." - Nationwide Insurance Co.

So now it's water use eh? As each aspect of the witch hunt against oil and gas production is knocked down by science these yahoos will come up with something else out of the blue. Show me one state where oil and gas comapanies use more than a tiny fraction (far less than 1%) of the total water usage. While your at it show me a state that doesn't allow golf courses to use hundreds of times more water than drilling. You cannot, case closed.

You see, there is a huge amount of deceiving information spouted out to the public about hydraulic fracturing, a decades-old technology. Those who spread this misinformation are mostly preying on the public's fears, with an ultimate goal of forcing state governments to succumb to that fear and prevent or even ban hydraulic fracturing. We need to make sure that the discussion is productive, and that any rules are legitimately conceived. Fact must be sEPArated from fiction.

The most common claim talking point is that hydraulic fracturing contaminates ground water. This is baseless. Have you ever noticed that the critics who make that claim never provide concrete evidence? The reason for their omission? It is obvious why. After being used more than 1.2 million times there have been no confirmed cases of hydraulic fracturing contaminating water. None. Never. Ever.

As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in April of 2012, "In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater."

The three "smoking gun" cases that the anti-shale zealots were sinking their teeth into have proven false or based on very poor science. See Pavillion WY, Dimoch, PA, and Parker County, TX.

The latest fear mongering is "climate change" thru methane emission from hydraulic fracturing. Once again SCIENTIFIC investigation has shown the EPA using numbers that are overblown by 50%.

Oh and the "evil Halliburton Loophole" talking point! LOL, what a joke. This is the errant claim born out of the yellow journalism of "gasland", a proven fraudulent film by Josh Fox, that hydraulic fracturing is "exempt" from the Safe Drinking Water Act, thanks to an energy bill passed by Congress in 2005. The truth??? SDWA has been the law of the land for nearly 40 years, and at no point has it ever covered hydraulic fracturing. Why??? States already tightly and effectively regulate the process.

How can an industry be exempt from something that never covered you in the first place? But you hear this falsehood talking point most every time the subject comes up.

It is important to rely on facts and the science, not fear-mongering talking points. The shale gas and oil boom is the result of U.S. business innovation and risk-taking. If we let the fear of undocumented pollution kill this boom, we will deserve our fate as a second-class industrial power.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:11,535
Points:1,079,100
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 9:52:48 AM

You bet we'll drink the water, I'll go a step further, I and many others have been for 15 years on our deer lease.
Profile Pic
ropegun11
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:775
Points:563,485
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 3:12:28 AM

..."In Our Every Deliberation, We Must Consider the Impact of Our Decisions on the next Seven Generations." - From the Great Law of the Iroquois Nation

Profile Pic
ropegun11
All-Star Author Illinois

Posts:775
Points:563,485
Joined:Sep 2011
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 2:42:41 AM

...I fully agree with CdnLynx: "Wonder if the supporters of fracking would be willing to drink the natural water coming from the wells in the area where fracking is occuring?"
Profile Pic
KAR120CSII
Champion Author Oregon

Posts:4,660
Points:882,790
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 12:22:34 AM

Hi ya, jrsva!
Profile Pic
rahcat
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:4,315
Points:992,150
Joined:Jan 2010
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 12:05:44 AM

What to do, what to do.
Profile Pic
jrsva
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:11,657
Points:1,941,600
Joined:Jan 2006
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:59:55 PM

Fracking is a wonderful process that has unlocked massive amounts of fuel — provided that it does not unleash a massive environmental disaster. This is yet to be known so the industry must be watched. Water and sand should do the job; why are dozens of toxic chemicals added to the fracking fluid? The industry does not say what they are using or why these things are necessary. Bear in mind that oil and gas are good and useful products but pure water is essential for life. Don’t let greed take it away.

Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:57:52 PM

Wonder if the supporters of fracking would be willing to drink the natural water coming from the wells in the area where fracking is occuring?
Profile Pic
wayoung56
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:4,350
Points:1,135,185
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:56:25 PM

Hmmm...
Profile Pic
OOXXFF
Champion Author Greensboro

Posts:4,675
Points:1,405,435
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:55:16 PM

Safety is important.
Profile Pic
CdnLynx
Champion Author Ontario

Posts:1,220
Points:792,675
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:53:26 PM

Contributor's (use that term lightly), comment "Green is Red"!
Sir, your colour blind; do you really know who the enemy is?
Useless Rhetoric!
Profile Pic
SavALot
Champion Author Virginia Beach

Posts:10,086
Points:2,038,185
Joined:Apr 2005
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:52:56 PM

there's always a twist when deadlines like this come up
Profile Pic
camel1
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:9,904
Points:2,590,840
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:47:21 PM

fracking creates jobs, but at what unknown costs to the environment, and water supplies
Profile Pic
nwsynthetics
Champion Author Oregon

Posts:1,108
Points:434,410
Joined:Dec 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:45:53 PM

I cant wait for the new movie with Matt Damon filming and how fracking is terrible an ddangerous. The main financing is from a movie company in Abu Dabi haha
Profile Pic
PDQBlues
Champion Author San Diego

Posts:8,705
Points:1,773,375
Joined:Jan 2009
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:43:02 PM


"EPA will always beat them back "

Sure, who needs clean water and air anyway?
Profile Pic
mstearno
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:9,277
Points:2,029,535
Joined:Jan 2008
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:40:30 PM

yawn
EPA will always beat them back
Profile Pic
Harry813
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:4,529
Points:985,420
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:39:43 PM

Just flip a coin... It will be a different story
Profile Pic
WIPACKERFAN
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:10,449
Points:2,171,555
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:38:34 PM

OK. Could this just be sabre rattling?
Profile Pic
Ebaz
Champion Author Oklahoma City

Posts:4,471
Points:1,021,945
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:37:49 PM

Oh my
Post a reply Back to Topics