I happened across this video today which has been posted for quite some time now. It appears that you have very little going on by how often you comment or you work for an oil company. Do yourself a favor and try turning off the computer, phone, and television take off the tinfoil hat and go outside.
Be on the right side of history and be progressive instead of regressive!
2) To substantiate that deception, Google this, (double quotes and all):
“stable isotope and gas composition analytical results for your water well”
Select the entry posted by the state of Colorado.
The state regulatory body concluded:
“the methane gas present [in your well water] is the product of natural bacteriologial activity and unrelated to any oil & gas activities in your area”
You're being fed a PURELY POLITICAL PACK OF LIES!
Numerous beyond numerous sites have been contaminated. Don't let big business brainwash you with their dollars. Stop fracking lest we all have a flammable water supply..
Sorry pal, even the EPA knows your full of shit. Quoting EPA head honcho Lisa Jackson:
"we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk".
Google this, dumb ass:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
@sbvor So all the video evidence and testimonies made are... what exactly? There's a reason this nonsense is banned in other countries. Because water that lights on fire is perfectly fine...
“stable isotope and gas composition analytical results for your water well”
Select the entry posted by the state of Colorado.
The state regulatory body concluded:
“the methane gas present [in your well water] is the product of natural bacteriologial activity and unrelated to any oil & gas activities in your area”
There is NO PROOF that fracking has caused ANY well water contamination of ANY SORT. There IS proof to the contrary!
@sbvor Do you know why the EPA gives hydraulic fracturing the thumbs up? They cave under political and industry pressure. The industry has enough dollars to brainwash people like you into not listening to what the common people in America are saying about fracking. It's not just a coincidence that someone with perfect water before fracking began on or near their property that their water turns undrinkable. Are all these people liars? They see the causation; they see the correlation.
Oh, so now YouTube video clips trump a peer reviewed journal published by the National Academy of Sciences? REALLY?
Not ONE example exists ANYWHERE documenting that drinking water contamination did not exist before fracking and did exist after fracking. Here in Colorado, we are about to make before and after testing the law. That will settle this stupidity once and for all.
People like you are just too damn stupid to comprehend NATURAL PROCESSES!
@sbvor By the way, do you live on this Youtube video comment page? My god, there's a reason there's 1,680 likes here as opposed to 61 dislikes. Luckily one such as you cannot skew the truth, no matter how much you try. Why do we even need fracking in the first place? Green energy is the alternative. You never hear anything about a solar panel putting benzenes and xylenes in people's water. Face it, you're fighting a losing fight. What is it for, anyway?
I'd like to comment on the video but I think my words are best saying- Perhaps sbvor really has nothing better to do than to respond to every comment posted on this video.
@sbvor this is twitching words what he is saying is its acceptable for people to demand that. What are you gonna put a number on how much damage you have to cause. You do know that we can use energy that causes no damages that we know of yet. Thats the best kinda energy isntead of using the shit that we just know is gonna fail and destroy the world. Please dont pretend facts arent correct. They are facts
1) Google this & watch the EPA administrator herself dispel all this fracking hysteria:
Html : Video: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson comments on Pavillion
2) Google this and get the rest of the story (well beyond just this one quote):
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
NO drinking water @ the Pavillion site was “polluted”.
Anarchist @sbvor glad to know that you are a big supporter of the EPA and encourage much more funding for the EPA to go after polluters (frackers, coal companies) and throw their CEOs and boards of directors into prison.
BTW folks, please note from the exchanges posts that you can turn anti-science types into self-neutering farce simply by sticking to the science. The science is sparse and it's under review. Logically, fracking represents clear risk to groundwater, whether from injection or accidental spills on the surface. Stick to the science: it has definitely caused contamination from spills and it appears likely in some cases of injection. We have a hunch and we're finding evidence. No smoking gun.
In 1947, Stanolind Oil conducted the first experimental fracturing
States have been regulating and investigating the process ever since. As you note, even the EPA has been investigating since at LEAST 1987. And yet, after SIXTY-FOUR YEARS of fracking, the BEST you can come up with is ONE example of ONE well ALLEGED (in 1987) to have been contaminated by fracking? REALLY?
@sbvor You've exposed yourself as an anti-science shill, must you embarrass yourself further in public? From the articles, the old fracking wells did not use the same pressures and volumes as the modern ones do, the process was quite rare (less than 2%) You stated unequivocally and with absolute certainty that it "NEVER happened", I showed your statement false. One has to consider, what other of your absolute claims are false? You can go now, you've embarrassed your cause, that's all I wanted.
@sbvor Why don't you show some EVIDENCE. It is obvious you are a troll from the oil industry. Also, this is a video for those who already know the fracking story. For them it is entertaining. Obviously, as others have stated, if this is the first that one has heard about fracking the hope is that they'd continue to research the science. Only an Oily Troll would posit an idiotic comment like yours. Get Fracked!
I've shown MOUNTAINS of evidence. But, politically indoctrinated Leftist idiots such as you REFUSE TO EXAMINE the evidence.
1) Google this, pinhead:
Html : Video: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson comments on Pavillion
2) Google this & get the rest of the story:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
Reality is that fracking isn't guaranteed to contaminate wells. Logical expectations and some data indicate that in some cases it does contaminate. The question isn't "is fracking bad or good", the questions are "what level of risk is acceptable?" and "what is the relative value to *humans* (not oil companies) of continuing to use fossil fuels?" The Koch boys can outspend anyone in a "is so/is not!" shouting match. Change the argument. Is it worth the risk? Is global climate change worth it?
"some data indicate that in some cases it does contaminate"
But, even the environmental extremists at the EPA know Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 is full of shit.
Google this, comrade:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
There is NO evidence of a cause and effect relationship! NONE!
@sbvor You claim to be a scientist then you cite Forbes magazine as a scientific journal or some sort of evidence? You claim to be a scientist but you don't seem to be aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? You keep trying to substitute sensationalist websites, popular media and insult for a scientific theory. You refuse to admit that the few papers you did cite you had to cherry pick phrases from?
"You claim to be a scientist then you cite Forbes magazine"
I cite the National Academy of Sciences (and countless other examples of peer reviewed science) and Comrade @ExperienceCounts disavows science.
I cite Forbes and Comrade @ExperienceCounts disavows Forbes. The OBVIOUS fact is that no amount of evidence from ANY source will convince Comrade @ExperienceCounts to disavow his totalitarian, political religious cult. DUH!
@sbvor You cite Forbes as "proof" of something, then I can cite NY Times as "proof" of something. "Fact Check: Contamination Of Groundwater By Fracking Was Documented In 1987" How about quote from your "authority", Lisa Jackson: “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water although there are investigations ongoing.” If investigations are still ongoing then the evidence isn't in yet, is it? I can cite National Enquirer too. Still not science.
Congratulations! You had to go all the way back to 1987. But, you found precisely ONE example where ONE well was ALLEGED to have been contaminated by fracking (and the owner was properly compensated). Is that enough to make you want to ban fracking?
Every year, about 40,000 Americans die on our highways. Should we shutdown the highway system? That would (paradoxically) make a lot more "sense" (in the fantasy utopian world your sort inhabit).
@mphello I prefer to get my science news from The Onion. Their articles are far closer to the truth than anything Singer/Morono/Infoe/Kochsuckers/Wattsuphisass will ever put out.
@sbvor Perhaps you didn't hear me. I don't have to google anti-science because I'm not posting anti-science rhetoric. The science speaks for itself. The issues are just beginning to be investigated and fracking is done in wildly different geological formations so what applies in one part of PA doesn't apply in WY or TX. Only someone who is anti-science demands absolute compliance with their political views. There is a little direct evidence, there is growing circumstantial evidence.
Show me ONE example presenting ANY evidence of ANY cause and effect relationship between fracking and ANY degree of drinking water pollution ANYWHERE.
Oops! Sorry! There IS NONE!
Take your counter-productive, counter-scientific hysteria mongering and SHOVE IT!
@sbvor Cited above, the Parsons case. "Fact Check: Contamination Of Groundwater By Fracking Was Documented In 1987". You make repeated appeals to authority, there's an authority that said it was detected in 1987. I'm citing your chosen authority therefore it comes down to just "is so/is not" childishness that you seem to prefer to citing science. It's still not science.
@sbvor I attended a communist party rally in Russia. Fun event, very family oriented. Why do you selectively quote Lisa Jackson? Do you think that's a scientific theory? I thought she was one of those "lying liberals" the anti-science types always rant about? Apparently the political orientation of the person is only problematic when they disagree with you? That doesn't sound very scientific to me. In fact, mixing politics and science sounds very anti-science. Not testable, not science.
@mphello Utter false dichotomy fail. The choices are not limited to either natural gas or "the poor children freeze to death". There are many alternatives to natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wave, wind etc.
@mphello Ah, sorry, I meant that as a description not an attribution. Me speek reel gud English... :) I think no amount of risk is not worth it when simply conserving or changing to renewable sources is less expensive in lives and dollars. We have to get off fossil fuels, no one can argue that. We can either do it now, minimizing the costs and simultaneously reducing AGW or we can wait until gas, oil and coal cost an arm and a leg and we start another world war over access to them.
@ExperienceCounts2 0 is a valid answer for the question of how much risk one is willing to accept from a particular technology. 0 is a number just like any other number!
Republicans don't believe in science remember?....Fracking concerns are fake just like global warming and evolution. The bible didn't mention Fracking therefore its not true...derka dur dur dur doodly dooodley dooo.
@mphello It's not sarcasm if it's the truth. The GOP rejects the scientific theory of evolution, meaning they reject all the sciences because evolution is supported by and relies on all branches of science. The GOP embraces young earth creationism, which violates all the known laws of nature and directly contradicts atomic physics, geophysics, cosmology and - surprise - all the sciences. The GOP pretends it can pick and choose which science is "bad" and which is "good". Science is science.
@mphello They've gone far beyond simply ridiculing the truth, they go well beyond the range where the Insanity Meter pegs. If you want to see how insane, google for Roy Spencer Cornwall Alliance and read the statement that he (and many other Republicans) have signed. The Cornwall Alliance is an extremist fundamentalist group who don't just claim the science is wrong and that there is a global conspiracy, they deny that anything bad *can* happen because their gods would not allow it.
People will justify anything, and I do mean ANYTHING, if they are making $ from it. It doesn't matter how harmful it is to anything or anyone else, as long as they are getting $ from it, they will say it is great.
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
@sbvor You claim to be a scientist? You do realize that Einstein's theory of relativity didn't become accepted science because Einstein continuously wrote about what a fraud Newton was, right? Either present a testable theory in a scientific journal or quit whining. If you're not publishing or challenging the published papers then you're a part of the problem, not a part of any solution. Quit wasting time preaching on yt and act like a scientist. Publish your theory and defend it.
Visit the page you'll arrive at through the Google search below, visit every link and every sub-link. Along the way, count exactly how many examples I offer of directly cited and directly linked to peer reviewed science.
Face the facts, moron -- your theory of CAGW is NOT supported by the science!
@sbvor Yup, you have no theory and no alternative explanation that fits all the available evidence. You shout and pretend it will make your claims of global conspiracy come true. I don't need to google, I am confident that if there were significant problems with AGW theory there would be at least *one* competent scientist, at least *one* scientific academy or group on the planet who would follow up on it in the scientific journals. Keep shouting anti-science, it exposes your bias.
"you have no theory and no alternative explanation that fits all the available evidence."
Quoting Dr. Lindzen, M.I.T. Climatologist:
“The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”
@sbvor An appeal to authority is not an alternative theory nor is it a scientific theory. Lindzen's claims of a global conspiracy are not science. Lindzen's conjecture does not explain ocean acidification. It does not explain why the poles are changing more rapidly. It does not explain temperature distributions land v. water. It does not explain regional variation. The number of lines of evidence Lindzen conspiracy theory doesn't address far outweigh the one he pretends to explain.
As a postscript to my previous comment (wherein I quoted Dr. Lindzen, M.I.T. Climatologist), one need look no further than ONE of the massive oceans for the "alternative explanation" you would prefer to pretend does not exist.
@sbvor I don't have to google anti-science blog spam. You obviously think that a google search and rhetoric substitutes for a reasoned evaluation of the scientific evidence by experts in the field with cross checking by impartial scientific institutes from around the globe. That's your opinion, you're entitled to it no matter how insane it is. You're not entitled to your own facts. Your opinions are not fact. You are not smarter than the NAS and 32 other national academies combined.
@sbvor Your sensationalist blog ad flagged as spam again. Your claims of a global conspiracy involving every scientist on the planet are ridiculous and they are still not substitutes for a testable, falsifiable scientific theory. They never will be. You can shout and scream and insult and kick your feet and pound the floor and hold your breath and none of it will act as a stand-in for a testable theory. That fact is never going to change.
You take that stark raving mad lunatic Bill McKibben seriously?
REALLY?
McKibben is the caricature of a joke! He's a FOOL! Even the core of the climate alarmist cabal skewer McKibben regularly.
But, I get it -- you need a Messiah and a religion. So, you picked the first hysteria monger you found preaching on the street corner. Good luck with that!
To dissect the Propublica Far Left propaganda, Google this:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
Read about "Bush Cheney Loophole" (or"Cheney Loophole", or"Halliburton Loophole"):
"...In 2001,a special task force on energy policy convened by Vice President Dick Cheney recommended that Congress EXEMPT hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. /../
The oil -gas industry is THE ONLY INDUSTRY EXEPT FROM THE SDWA"
google: "Gasland: Dick Cheney Poisons Your Drinking Water Too"
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
2) If you think Forbes is a tool for the (imaginary) vast Right Wing Conspiracy, then Google this, select trib.com entry and watch the words straight from the EPA head honcho:
Html : Video: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson comments on Pavillion
You (laughably) claim I have "misquoted the EPA and NAS", but:
1) In my previous comment, I directed you to a video where you can watch the exact quote emerge from the mouth of the EPA head honcho (Lisa Jackson).
2) In one of my two top rated comments (above), I provide -- verbatim -- the titles of items published by the National Academy of Sciences. Three simple Google searches readily confirm that.
3) Just because you are a bald faced liar does not mean everyone else is.
@mphello He's most definitely not a conservative. The US got some significant conservation laws - like the clean air act, endangered species act etc. from conservative presidents. Jimmy Carter was a conservative. True conservatives are on our side. It's the pro-corporate capitalists/neoconservatives (I refer to them as neoconteapublicans) and the Republican party (which is no longer conservative and is now clearly anti-science on all fronts) that are the real problem.
GOOGLE does fracking contaminate water !! you'll get various opinion . IMO it contaminates water and much more. We NEED alternative renewable energy and NOW !! Like the song.
Sorry, even the environmental extremists at the EPA know you're full of shit.
Google this, pinhead:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
Over 600 chemicals are used in the fracking process. Most unknown (undisclosed), some are known carcinogens. And millions of gallons of water. All of which pollute natural public ground water. Per the documentary "Gas Land"
This video is evidence that even ignorant people have the right to their opinion. They want to talk about all of the "harmful chemicals" used in the fracking process, yet have no idea what "good chemicals" are in their breakfast cereal.
It amazes me how all of a sudden people are against this "new" technology. It's only been around for over 50 years! What's next? A cry out against cars because their washer fluid catches on fire? It's just as likely!
@sbvor That's amusing. You don't seem to know what a metaphor is. Then you attempt to misdirect. Methane is a GHG. It contributes to ocean acidification. Fish and insects change (and may die) in response to higher temperatures and more acidic water. For someone who claims to be a climate scientist, you seem to be ignorant of the literature. Like agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047222.shtml "Rising Arctic Ocean temperatures cause gas hydrate destabilization and ocean acidification"
I'd rather frac in the U.S. than continue to pay the Arabs. We just have to be very careful. Our Chinese friends are also doing a stellar job of polluting. Why aren't the greenies humping China's leg over the pollution issue. China recently became Saudia Arabia's largest customer. U.S. is now a close second.
@ngvconversion Why not conserve energy instead of drilling for more? We can reduce our energy consumption by 25% with simple, low cost and highly effective changes. Reducing energy consumption saves consumers money, which gives them more money to spend on other things. America used to have a spine and just did the right thing regardless of what others did. Pointing at China and saying "well they're doing it too" doesn't solve the problem, does it? We need solutions, not excuses.
@sbvor Cherry picks. Read the responses to the papers. I thought you anti-science types like to claim that AGW "isn't settled science". Your cites certainly aren't. One example from your first cite: biology.duke.edu/jackson/pnas2011r2.html
@sbvor pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108 "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing" as well as their responses biology.duke.edu/jackson/pnas2011r.html And on and on and on. It's called science, and you citing individual scientific papers as "proof" of something is called anti-science. There is always doubt in the world of science, but there is also a thing called preponderance of evidence. Throw in some common sense too.
For those who think the chemicals don't end back up in our water... yes, they pump the chemicals out of the well, but where do you think they go after that? In West Virginia, just outside my cousin's farm, they fold them into tarps and bury the water underground ABOVE the water table. Well, you can imagine what would happen over time -- the tarps leak benzene tainted water into the water table. In one instance the company just dumped it all down the side of the mountain.
Then that's not a drilling, fracking, production problem. That's a dumping problem. Do some lobbying for stricter dumping laws in your state. Be pro-active.
Under "The Report", I found a list of suggested video links. In that list, the first link was to the propaganda video titled "Gasland".
If this organization considers "Gasland" to be credible, then I have to assume they are a political advocacy group which is only pretending to "carry out independent and unbiased research"
Gasland is purely political propaganda which is rife with falsehoods. Google this:
Nearly died laughing when my friend got on the bus singing this. Apparently My teacher wasnt the only to share this video, and thats good because I believe people should watch this.
@Sbvor - why are you shilling for the oil and gas industry? You -seem- to respect science, so why not adhere to the precautionary principle instead of assuming pumping toxins into our water tables are safe until proven otherwise. Capitalism/fascism is rampant right now in this once great nation. It is you who are buying right-wing propaganda. Wake up before its too late!
1) I'm nobody's shill. I am simply exposing the facts -- facts which you stupid, willfully ignorant, environmental extremist nut jobs willfully IGNORE!
2) The precautionary principle is for MORONS. Show me some DATA!
3) Today's Fascism is coming from YOUR environmental extremist camp. Solyndra (and the rest of the so-called "Green Energy" FRAUD) is an example of today's fascism (and crony Capitalism). Fracking is NONE OF THAT!
@sbvor You are clearly a right-winger parroting right-wing/fascist propaganda. If you are not shilling for the oil/gas industry please tell us what it is that you are doing. Fracking in its current and unregulated form is not defensible. On can easily hypothesize likely scenarios where fracking can jeopardize the public good. Therefore, we SHOULD ensure that those scenarios do not occur. Your political ideology is indefensible in so much as it abhors science. Troll.
Fracking is NOT "unregulated". It is (appropriately) regulated at the STATE level (rather than the Federal level).
2) Google this, (double quotes and all):
“stable isotope and gas composition analytical results for your water well”
Select the entry posted by the state of Colorado.
The state regulatory body concluded:
“the methane gas present [in your well water] is the product of natural bacteriologial activity and unrelated to any oil & gas activities in your area”
@sbvor precautionary principle is for MORONS??? If you believe that than you are the true "MORON." For example see Frances Oldham Kelsey banning the drug thalidomide for market in the USA in the 1960s. A perfect example of precaution.
Your argument is for methane, yet clear evidence shows that benzene is in fact what has poisoned the wells in Wyoming. Before you start to just copy paste your same, stale argument on the subject, maybe you should do some research of your own.
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
3) Worried about benzene? Google this, pinhead (double quotes & all):
"A major source of benzene exposure is tobacco smoke"
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
Which part of that did your pea-brain not comprehend?
@sbvor You seem to rely an awful lot on a small group of individuals for your "proof". Guys named Straw Man, Ad Hominem and Non Sequitur. Everyone knows (or should know) that scientists don't "prove" anything, they never have. All you can say about *any* scientific theory is that it hasn't been proven false. Even after huge successes like predicting Bose-Einstein condensate and gravitational lensing they're still looking for gravity waves to see if theory of relativity is valid.
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 asks me for an "alternative explanation" for the warming which stopped in 1998. I provide the rock solid evidence and then Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 suddenly suggests:
"Everyone knows (or should know) that scientists don't 'prove' anything"
Comrade! When the science refutes your CAGW religious cult, you then disavow science? REALLY? What a surprise! NOT!
I'll show you how to properly apply the Precautionary Principle.
Google this, pinhead:
Rising energy bills causing fuel poverty deaths
Now, Google this:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
LIVES are at risk. Water is NOT. Err on the side of precaution! Save LIVES! Support responsible fracking!
There is no pumping of frac water into water tables. They pump frac water, sand, etc. into the fractures a mile below the water table. Then, 95% of that is retrieved during production. The other 5% stays, nestled a mile below the water table. Sometimes, less than 95% is recovered, and the difference remains nested a mile below the water tables. Get a job in the industry, and learn more about it, or do more research so that you can really understand the process.
@Andreas748 The oil and gas aren't likely to last us more than a couple decades, according to most scientific studies. We NEED to find more sustainable energy sources and start phasing out the use of fossil fuels NOW, before we run out and run into a new major energy crisis.
And guess what? Research and production of sustainable energy sources ALSO CREATES JOBS.
Yes, research for alternate forms of energy is important. There still is, however, plenty of fossil fuels to tap into whilst said research is being done. Oil and gas will last more than a couple of decades. Research and production of sustainable energy sources do exist. The fossil fuel research and production jobs pay better. ;)
CanadaFreePress: "Neither report could attribute with any certainty the seismic activity to the local fracking, as that would be nearly impossible to do given the multifactorial nature of seismic activity."
In the extremely unlikely event that fracking actually precipitated an earthquake, it would have simply resulted in a smaller, less damaging quake than mother nature would have otherwise provided (along a fault which was destined to slide anyway)
There is NO EVIDENCE of "public health problems" caused by fracking!
Even the "scientists" whose paper was cited by the purely political propagandists at ProPublica have ADMITTED THIS.
You have NOTHING but rampant SPECULATION from a pack of MORONS who stupidly, ignorantly and reflexively oppose ANYTHING even REMOTELY related to hydrocarbons (because they have been politically indoctrinated to do so).
@adadadad95 google this "EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming Ground Water Investigation for Public Comment and Independent Scientific Review" -- lots of news today
The EPA release dealt with fracking “taking place IN and below the drinking water aquifer”. EPA admits this represents “production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country”.
Yet, even when fracking takes place IN THE AQUIFER, the chemicals in the water are found at levels “below established health and safety standards” and are NOT PROVEN to have resulted from fracking.
Yet, you MORONS want to ban ALL fracking EVERYWHERE. You’re self-destructive IDIOTS!
The purely political, eco-extremist, Socialist bureaucrats at EPA discuss what they imagine might be a methane “migration from areas of gas production” to the Wyoming aquifer they are studying.
By contrast, The National Academy of Sciences reports in their peer reviewed journal:
“Hydraulic fracturing not responsible for methane migration PNAS 2011 108 (37)”
Which do you find more credible? That’s an easy choice for me.
Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. Let's try this again:
The National Academy of Sciences reports in their peer reviewed journal:
“Hydraulic fracturing not responsible for methane migration PNAS 2011 108 (37)”
In a peer reviewed journal, even a letter has to be approved by the review board.
As "proof", I invite you to attempt to get your own gibberish published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) -- good luck with that.
LOL niceee!!!!!!!!!!
lovely05popi 6 hours ago
@sbvor
I happened across this video today which has been posted for quite some time now. It appears that you have very little going on by how often you comment or you work for an oil company. Do yourself a favor and try turning off the computer, phone, and television take off the tinfoil hat and go outside.
Be on the right side of history and be progressive instead of regressive!
austin2ride 2 days ago
@austin2ride,
Are you REALLY so stupid as to embrace the notion that anybody who does not share your ignorance works for an oil company?
Sorry, that was a rhetorical question.
Follow the instructions in the two top rated comments above and EDUCATE your stupid, ignorant, worthless, so-called "progressive" ass!
After that, move out of your momma's basement.
sbvor 2 days ago
Fantastic work on this music video. The typography on this is simply breath taking. Not to mention you get GAPs for using fracking. :D
-HMP
HynMayProductions 3 days ago
Pull the wool back from your eyes, don't let the oil companies tell you these LIES!
austin2ride 3 days ago
@austin2ride,
You're a typical indoctrinated anti-Capitalist IDIOT!
You don't give two flea farts about facts, data or evidence.
You've been indoctrinated to hate "big oil" (and every other aspect of Capitalism).
So, like the good little automaton that you are, just give a pre-programmed knee jerk response to every issue before you.
WAKE UP! MORON!
sbvor 3 days ago
1) Google this:
Gasland director hides full facts
2) To substantiate that deception, Google this, (double quotes and all):
“stable isotope and gas composition analytical results for your water well”
Select the entry posted by the state of Colorado.
The state regulatory body concluded:
“the methane gas present [in your well water] is the product of natural bacteriologial activity and unrelated to any oil & gas activities in your area”
You're being fed a PURELY POLITICAL PACK OF LIES!
sbvor 3 days ago
Comment removed
sbvor 4 days ago
Comment removed
sbvor 4 days ago
Fear mongering at it's best. Good job*.
TurtleboyTom 4 days ago
Numerous beyond numerous sites have been contaminated. Don't let big business brainwash you with their dollars. Stop fracking lest we all have a flammable water supply..
CheesecakeCzar 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CheesecakeCzar,
Sorry pal, even the EPA knows your full of shit. Quoting EPA head honcho Lisa Jackson:
"we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk".
Google this, dumb ass:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
sbvor 5 days ago
@CheesecakeCzar says:
"Numerous beyond numerous sites have been contaminated."
Sorry pal, even the EPA knows you're full of crap.
See the top rated comment above.
sbvor 5 days ago
@sbvor So all the video evidence and testimonies made are... what exactly? There's a reason this nonsense is banned in other countries. Because water that lights on fire is perfectly fine...
CheesecakeCzar 5 days ago
@CheesecakeCzar,
Google this, (double quotes & all):
“stable isotope and gas composition analytical results for your water well”
Select the entry posted by the state of Colorado.
The state regulatory body concluded:
“the methane gas present [in your well water] is the product of natural bacteriologial activity and unrelated to any oil & gas activities in your area”
There is NO PROOF that fracking has caused ANY well water contamination of ANY SORT. There IS proof to the contrary!
sbvor 4 days ago
@CheesecakeCzar,
Furthermore, methane is NOT TOXIC!
As for explosive potential, a little flatulence will add FAR more methane to your home than NATURALLY OCCURRING methane "contamination".
sbvor 4 days ago
@CheesecakeCzar,
Let's see what the peer reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has to say...
1) Google this:
Methane contamination of drinking water caused by hydraulic fracturing remains unproven PNAS 2011 108 (43)
2) Google this:
Lack of data to support a relationship between methane contamination of drinking water wells and hydraulic fracturing PNAS 2011 108 (37)
3) Google this:
Hydraulic fracturing not responsible for methane migration PNAS 2011 108 (37)
sbvor 4 days ago
@sbvor Do you know why the EPA gives hydraulic fracturing the thumbs up? They cave under political and industry pressure. The industry has enough dollars to brainwash people like you into not listening to what the common people in America are saying about fracking. It's not just a coincidence that someone with perfect water before fracking began on or near their property that their water turns undrinkable. Are all these people liars? They see the causation; they see the correlation.
CheesecakeCzar 4 days ago
@CheesecakeCzar,
Oh, so now YouTube video clips trump a peer reviewed journal published by the National Academy of Sciences? REALLY?
Not ONE example exists ANYWHERE documenting that drinking water contamination did not exist before fracking and did exist after fracking. Here in Colorado, we are about to make before and after testing the law. That will settle this stupidity once and for all.
People like you are just too damn stupid to comprehend NATURAL PROCESSES!
sbvor 4 days ago
@sbvor By the way, do you live on this Youtube video comment page? My god, there's a reason there's 1,680 likes here as opposed to 61 dislikes. Luckily one such as you cannot skew the truth, no matter how much you try. Why do we even need fracking in the first place? Green energy is the alternative. You never hear anything about a solar panel putting benzenes and xylenes in people's water. Face it, you're fighting a losing fight. What is it for, anyway?
CheesecakeCzar 4 days ago
@CheesecakeCzar stupidly says:
"Green energy is the alternative"
Really?
Google this and step outside of your ignorant little fantasy world for just one goddamn moment:
SBVOR: Renewable Energy Sources are Not Green
sbvor 4 days ago
what the frack?
PerfectlyUnperfect23 1 week ago
get song, pro fracking
Mr3wheeledbike 1 week ago
Wow. I learned a lot from this!!!! tHank youuuu1!!!!!!
tarcall0912 1 week ago
Bullshit!
Motomboo 1 week ago
Good song ! :D
in my contry fracking goes on D:
and everypeople have no time to see intrested informations because they work to much^^
the people dont wonna believe this $hit
they cant beleive so much lies about toxic & our water!
CHEK THIS multilingual report : GAS MONOPOLY
i found this movy at free-tv broadcaster ARTE
i know those companys have to lie to live,
and all humans should ask ourself why not
(-_(-_(-_-(-_-)-_-)_-)_-)
FreelacerxD 1 week ago 2
Comment removed
sbvor 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
sbvor 2 weeks ago
what the FRACK man, this is great
towerofrebel 2 weeks ago 2
Cracking turns fossilised life into natural gas
JonThm 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fracking releases deep life
JonThm 2 weeks ago
I'd like to comment on the video but I think my words are best saying- Perhaps sbvor really has nothing better to do than to respond to every comment posted on this video.
FwippDeathspeeder 2 weeks ago
I'm debating this topic and this has been very helpful.
Fumblerful 3 weeks ago
@Fumblerful this video has been helpful for a debate?? why not do some reading. this video is entertaining, not reall informative.
gdphdb 3 weeks ago
@gdphdb it gave me a general idea of fracking. I can't use this as evidence so i will always read more about it
Fumblerful 2 weeks ago
what program was used to make this video?....it is great....
czsan08 3 weeks ago
@czsan08,
Q) What program was used to make this video?
A) The "Progressive" Propaganda Lies & Distortions Program!
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: More Fracking Hysteria Mongering
sbvor 3 weeks ago
"0 is a valid answer for the question of how much risk one is willing to accept from a particular technology."
And, there we have a classic example of the fantasy world inhabited by so-called "Progressives".
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor this is twitching words what he is saying is its acceptable for people to demand that. What are you gonna put a number on how much damage you have to cause. You do know that we can use energy that causes no damages that we know of yet. Thats the best kinda energy isntead of using the shit that we just know is gonna fail and destroy the world. Please dont pretend facts arent correct. They are facts
Zaxomio 3 weeks ago
@Zaxomio,
Were you high when you wrote that?
Or, are you always that incoherent?
sbvor 3 weeks ago
1) Google this & watch the EPA administrator herself dispel all this fracking hysteria:
Html : Video: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson comments on Pavillion
2) Google this and get the rest of the story (well beyond just this one quote):
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
NO drinking water @ the Pavillion site was “polluted”.
sbvor 1 month ago 14
Anarchist @sbvor glad to know that you are a big supporter of the EPA and encourage much more funding for the EPA to go after polluters (frackers, coal companies) and throw their CEOs and boards of directors into prison.
mphello 2 weeks ago
BTW folks, please note from the exchanges posts that you can turn anti-science types into self-neutering farce simply by sticking to the science. The science is sparse and it's under review. Logically, fracking represents clear risk to groundwater, whether from injection or accidental spills on the surface. Stick to the science: it has definitely caused contamination from spills and it appears likely in some cases of injection. We have a hunch and we're finding evidence. No smoking gun.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comment removed
sbvor 1 month ago
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2,
Google this:
In 1947, Stanolind Oil conducted the first experimental fracturing
States have been regulating and investigating the process ever since. As you note, even the EPA has been investigating since at LEAST 1987. And yet, after SIXTY-FOUR YEARS of fracking, the BEST you can come up with is ONE example of ONE well ALLEGED (in 1987) to have been contaminated by fracking? REALLY?
Sounds pretty damn safe to me!
sbvor 1 month ago 13
@sbvor You've exposed yourself as an anti-science shill, must you embarrass yourself further in public? From the articles, the old fracking wells did not use the same pressures and volumes as the modern ones do, the process was quite rare (less than 2%) You stated unequivocally and with absolute certainty that it "NEVER happened", I showed your statement false. One has to consider, what other of your absolute claims are false? You can go now, you've embarrassed your cause, that's all I wanted.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@sbvor Why don't you show some EVIDENCE. It is obvious you are a troll from the oil industry. Also, this is a video for those who already know the fracking story. For them it is entertaining. Obviously, as others have stated, if this is the first that one has heard about fracking the hope is that they'd continue to research the science. Only an Oily Troll would posit an idiotic comment like yours. Get Fracked!
H8dogma 2 weeks ago 3
Comrade @H8dogma:
I've shown MOUNTAINS of evidence. But, politically indoctrinated Leftist idiots such as you REFUSE TO EXAMINE the evidence.
1) Google this, pinhead:
Html : Video: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson comments on Pavillion
2) Google this & get the rest of the story:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
sbvor 2 weeks ago 2
@sbvor Global warming is a leftist scam designed to fuel Al Gore's week-long orgies.
Bleumange 1 week ago
"Should fracking stop?
Extracting gas from shale increases the availability of this resource, but the health and environmental risks may be too high."
eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Nature%20Commentary.docx
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
great video!
boycetime 1 month ago
Reality is that fracking isn't guaranteed to contaminate wells. Logical expectations and some data indicate that in some cases it does contaminate. The question isn't "is fracking bad or good", the questions are "what level of risk is acceptable?" and "what is the relative value to *humans* (not oil companies) of continuing to use fossil fuels?" The Koch boys can outspend anyone in a "is so/is not!" shouting match. Change the argument. Is it worth the risk? Is global climate change worth it?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 wildly speculates:
"some data indicate that in some cases it does contaminate"
But, even the environmental extremists at the EPA know Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 is full of shit.
Google this, comrade:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
There is NO evidence of a cause and effect relationship! NONE!
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor You claim to be a scientist then you cite Forbes magazine as a scientific journal or some sort of evidence? You claim to be a scientist but you don't seem to be aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? You keep trying to substitute sensationalist websites, popular media and insult for a scientific theory. You refuse to admit that the few papers you did cite you had to cherry pick phrases from?
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 laughably says:
"You claim to be a scientist then you cite Forbes magazine"
I cite the National Academy of Sciences (and countless other examples of peer reviewed science) and Comrade @ExperienceCounts disavows science.
I cite Forbes and Comrade @ExperienceCounts disavows Forbes. The OBVIOUS fact is that no amount of evidence from ANY source will convince Comrade @ExperienceCounts to disavow his totalitarian, political religious cult. DUH!
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor You cite Forbes as "proof" of something, then I can cite NY Times as "proof" of something. "Fact Check: Contamination Of Groundwater By Fracking Was Documented In 1987" How about quote from your "authority", Lisa Jackson: “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water although there are investigations ongoing.” If investigations are still ongoing then the evidence isn't in yet, is it? I can cite National Enquirer too. Still not science.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2,
Congratulations! You had to go all the way back to 1987. But, you found precisely ONE example where ONE well was ALLEGED to have been contaminated by fracking (and the owner was properly compensated). Is that enough to make you want to ban fracking?
Every year, about 40,000 Americans die on our highways. Should we shutdown the highway system? That would (paradoxically) make a lot more "sense" (in the fantasy utopian world your sort inhabit).
sbvor 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2
= You cite Forbes as "proof" of something, then I can cite NY Times as "proof" of something.=
Exactly. Or PETA News. I cite Peta News.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello I prefer to get my science news from The Onion. Their articles are far closer to the truth than anything Singer/Morono/Infoe/Kochsuckers/Wattsuphisass will ever put out.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Yes, The Onion is awesome. And, yes - I used it as a source for my dissertation. (that was a joke).
I still cannot figure out how The Onion can afford to put out so many funny video clips. Where do they get their funding from?
mphello 1 month ago
@sbvor Perhaps you didn't hear me. I don't have to google anti-science because I'm not posting anti-science rhetoric. The science speaks for itself. The issues are just beginning to be investigated and fracking is done in wildly different geological formations so what applies in one part of PA doesn't apply in WY or TX. Only someone who is anti-science demands absolute compliance with their political views. There is a little direct evidence, there is growing circumstantial evidence.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2,
Show me ONE example presenting ANY evidence of ANY cause and effect relationship between fracking and ANY degree of drinking water pollution ANYWHERE.
Oops! Sorry! There IS NONE!
Take your counter-productive, counter-scientific hysteria mongering and SHOVE IT!
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor Cited above, the Parsons case. "Fact Check: Contamination Of Groundwater By Fracking Was Documented In 1987". You make repeated appeals to authority, there's an authority that said it was detected in 1987. I'm citing your chosen authority therefore it comes down to just "is so/is not" childishness that you seem to prefer to citing science. It's still not science.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@sbvor I attended a communist party rally in Russia. Fun event, very family oriented. Why do you selectively quote Lisa Jackson? Do you think that's a scientific theory? I thought she was one of those "lying liberals" the anti-science types always rant about? Apparently the political orientation of the person is only problematic when they disagree with you? That doesn't sound very scientific to me. In fact, mixing politics and science sounds very anti-science. Not testable, not science.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 You mean, HOW MUCH risk is worth it.
How many children will die not getting heat from natural gas vs die from poisoned water.
But, not just HOW MANY but WHO/WHO specifically:
Koch boys will ALWAYS try to pit the poor against the poor: one poor family denied heat vs one poor family denied clean water.
Force that choice on the Koch boys: poison THEIR water. Take away THEIR heat.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello Utter false dichotomy fail. The choices are not limited to either natural gas or "the poor children freeze to death". There are many alternatives to natural gas, nuclear, geothermal, solar, wave, wind etc.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 Exactly. I just said its the coal-fracking-fossil fuel bots who force these false dichotomies onto the poor or powerless, not I.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello Ah, sorry, I meant that as a description not an attribution. Me speek reel gud English... :) I think no amount of risk is not worth it when simply conserving or changing to renewable sources is less expensive in lives and dollars. We have to get off fossil fuels, no one can argue that. We can either do it now, minimizing the costs and simultaneously reducing AGW or we can wait until gas, oil and coal cost an arm and a leg and we start another world war over access to them.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2 0 is a valid answer for the question of how much risk one is willing to accept from a particular technology. 0 is a number just like any other number!
mphello 1 month ago
Republicans don't believe in science remember?....Fracking concerns are fake just like global warming and evolution. The bible didn't mention Fracking therefore its not true...derka dur dur dur doodly dooodley dooo.
wrathofme03 1 month ago
@wrathofme03 Please be sarcastic.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello It's not sarcasm if it's the truth. The GOP rejects the scientific theory of evolution, meaning they reject all the sciences because evolution is supported by and relies on all branches of science. The GOP embraces young earth creationism, which violates all the known laws of nature and directly contradicts atomic physics, geophysics, cosmology and - surprise - all the sciences. The GOP pretends it can pick and choose which science is "bad" and which is "good". Science is science.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@ExperienceCounts2
= It's not sarcasm if it's the truth.=
An ignorant person is sarcastic if they ridicule the truth in the hopes of making others believe their crap. I see it all the time on the internet.
wrathofme03 pointed out an example of Republicans doing just that with evolution, fracking risks, and GW.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello They've gone far beyond simply ridiculing the truth, they go well beyond the range where the Insanity Meter pegs. If you want to see how insane, google for Roy Spencer Cornwall Alliance and read the statement that he (and many other Republicans) have signed. The Cornwall Alliance is an extremist fundamentalist group who don't just claim the science is wrong and that there is a global conspiracy, they deny that anything bad *can* happen because their gods would not allow it.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
People will justify anything, and I do mean ANYTHING, if they are making $ from it. It doesn't matter how harmful it is to anything or anyone else, as long as they are getting $ from it, they will say it is great.
Zaxxen69 1 month ago
What the frack! Ban it.
garic2k 1 month ago
Frack, Frack, Frack till the break of dawn
Skidblanar 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google this, pinheads:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
sbvor 1 month ago 10
Comrade @xEpicOmen,
A climate scientist whom I trust? That would be me.
Google the following and expose the single biggest (and most profitable) fraud EVER perpetrated:
SBVOR: How the AMO killed the CAGW cult
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor You claim to be a scientist? You do realize that Einstein's theory of relativity didn't become accepted science because Einstein continuously wrote about what a fraud Newton was, right? Either present a testable theory in a scientific journal or quit whining. If you're not publishing or challenging the published papers then you're a part of the problem, not a part of any solution. Quit wasting time preaching on yt and act like a scientist. Publish your theory and defend it.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2,
Do me a favor, pinhead...
Visit the page you'll arrive at through the Google search below, visit every link and every sub-link. Along the way, count exactly how many examples I offer of directly cited and directly linked to peer reviewed science.
Face the facts, moron -- your theory of CAGW is NOT supported by the science!
Now, Google this and start counting, dumb ass:
SBVOR: Climate Change Science - an Overview
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor Yup, you have no theory and no alternative explanation that fits all the available evidence. You shout and pretend it will make your claims of global conspiracy come true. I don't need to google, I am confident that if there were significant problems with AGW theory there would be at least *one* competent scientist, at least *one* scientific academy or group on the planet who would follow up on it in the scientific journals. Keep shouting anti-science, it exposes your bias.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 falsely claims:
"you have no theory and no alternative explanation that fits all the available evidence."
Quoting Dr. Lindzen, M.I.T. Climatologist:
“The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor An appeal to authority is not an alternative theory nor is it a scientific theory. Lindzen's claims of a global conspiracy are not science. Lindzen's conjecture does not explain ocean acidification. It does not explain why the poles are changing more rapidly. It does not explain temperature distributions land v. water. It does not explain regional variation. The number of lines of evidence Lindzen conspiracy theory doesn't address far outweigh the one he pretends to explain.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2,
As a postscript to my previous comment (wherein I quoted Dr. Lindzen, M.I.T. Climatologist), one need look no further than ONE of the massive oceans for the "alternative explanation" you would prefer to pretend does not exist.
Google this, moron:
SBVOR: How the AMO killed the CAGW cult
Then, Google this, moron:
SBVOR: Catastrophic Warming -- PANIC NOW!
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor I don't have to google anti-science blog spam. You obviously think that a google search and rhetoric substitutes for a reasoned evaluation of the scientific evidence by experts in the field with cross checking by impartial scientific institutes from around the globe. That's your opinion, you're entitled to it no matter how insane it is. You're not entitled to your own facts. Your opinions are not fact. You are not smarter than the NAS and 32 other national academies combined.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ExperienceCounts2 says (like the well indoctrinated automaton that he/she is):
"You are not smarter than the NAS and 32 other national academies combined"
You fell for THAT bit of shameless propaganda? REALLY? How surprising! NOT!
There are soooo many holes in that lie, it's pathetic.
Start with the FACT that not ONE academy has polled it's members.
Google this, read it thoroughly and fully debunk that bald faced LIE:
SBVOR: Meteorologists are (rightly) skeptical on CAGW
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor Your sensationalist blog ad flagged as spam again. Your claims of a global conspiracy involving every scientist on the planet are ridiculous and they are still not substitutes for a testable, falsifiable scientific theory. They never will be. You can shout and scream and insult and kick your feet and pound the floor and hold your breath and none of it will act as a stand-in for a testable theory. That fact is never going to change.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comment removed
SteamboatSkibum1 1 month ago
Comment removed
SteamboatSkibum1 1 month ago
Comrade @xEpicOmen,
You take that stark raving mad lunatic Bill McKibben seriously?
REALLY?
McKibben is the caricature of a joke! He's a FOOL! Even the core of the climate alarmist cabal skewer McKibben regularly.
But, I get it -- you need a Messiah and a religion. So, you picked the first hysteria monger you found preaching on the street corner. Good luck with that!
sbvor 1 month ago
hahaha, you fags keep blaming bush..hahahahaha, sucker
Thexxhellcatxx 1 month ago
I want this video on my GD310 phone.
reggielittle25 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSwedanes,
Bullshit!
To dissect the Propublica Far Left propaganda, Google this:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
sbvor 1 month ago 9
GAS GATE: Dark Gas in the White House
Before You'll be killed by Poison Water…
DON'T WAIT !!!
Read about "Bush Cheney Loophole" (or"Cheney Loophole", or"Halliburton Loophole"):
"...In 2001,a special task force on energy policy convened by Vice President Dick Cheney recommended that Congress EXEMPT hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. /../
The oil -gas industry is THE ONLY INDUSTRY EXEPT FROM THE SDWA"
google: "Gasland: Dick Cheney Poisons Your Drinking Water Too"
Yumar9 1 month ago
Близо е деньо
Руски гъз че рупа праз!
Щом бликне шистовият газ!
viktortopliyski 1 month ago
sbvor is a conservative extremist, like all conservatives are.
mphello 1 month ago
Comrade @mphello,
I have simply reported (in my two top rated comments):
1) A direct quote from the head honcho at the EPA.
2) Directly cited & directly linked to publications from the National Academy of Sciences
If your sort regard that as "extremist", I think that says a great deal about how extreme your sort are.
sbvor 1 month ago
@sbvor No, you haven't. You lied and misquoted the EPA and NAS.
And, even if you are correct on that point,
does not change the fact that you are an extremist with your bigotry and hatred towards socialists and communists.
Far better to be a socialist than a dumbshit christian or muslim conservative.
mphello 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Comrade @mphello,
1) Google this:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
2) If you think Forbes is a tool for the (imaginary) vast Right Wing Conspiracy, then Google this, select trib.com entry and watch the words straight from the EPA head honcho:
Html : Video: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson comments on Pavillion
sbvor 1 month ago
Comrade @mphello,
You (laughably) claim I have "misquoted the EPA and NAS", but:
1) In my previous comment, I directed you to a video where you can watch the exact quote emerge from the mouth of the EPA head honcho (Lisa Jackson).
2) In one of my two top rated comments (above), I provide -- verbatim -- the titles of items published by the National Academy of Sciences. Three simple Google searches readily confirm that.
3) Just because you are a bald faced liar does not mean everyone else is.
sbvor 1 month ago
@mphello He's most definitely not a conservative. The US got some significant conservation laws - like the clean air act, endangered species act etc. from conservative presidents. Jimmy Carter was a conservative. True conservatives are on our side. It's the pro-corporate capitalists/neoconservatives (I refer to them as neoconteapublicans) and the Republican party (which is no longer conservative and is now clearly anti-science on all fronts) that are the real problem.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Hey, sbvor: you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that anti-fracking people or environmentalists are "hard left" wingers or "socialists" or "communists".
Only subhuman anti-American unpatriotic shitheads believe that lunatic conspiracy theories like that.
mphello 1 month ago
OCCUPY THE FRACKING WELLS!
facebook.com/pages/Occupy-the-Fracking-wells/250444351691125
matt608blog 1 month ago
GOOGLE does fracking contaminate water !! you'll get various opinion . IMO it contaminates water and much more. We NEED alternative renewable energy and NOW !! Like the song.
homer2too 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@homer2too,
Sorry, even the environmental extremists at the EPA know you're full of shit.
Google this, pinhead:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
sbvor 1 month ago
@homer2too
I completely agree with you.
How did sbvor even get a top comment?
Happy2bLorthermar 1 month ago
Such a good video now my favorite song ever listen to it while doing homework
love2lola 1 month ago
Over 600 chemicals are used in the fracking process. Most unknown (undisclosed), some are known carcinogens. And millions of gallons of water. All of which pollute natural public ground water. Per the documentary "Gas Land"
w00zyhead 1 month ago
Let's keep it out of our water. Are most precise recorce!
4675797 1 month ago
@sbvor... hey! Google this. GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!
TheNonTriumph92 1 month ago
so it goes...
opensourcecleantech.blogspot.com
felixhoenikker9 1 month ago in playlist I-9 Felix
This video went viral on Papua New Guinea
urtismcdona13c 2 months ago
This video is evidence that even ignorant people have the right to their opinion. They want to talk about all of the "harmful chemicals" used in the fracking process, yet have no idea what "good chemicals" are in their breakfast cereal.
It amazes me how all of a sudden people are against this "new" technology. It's only been around for over 50 years! What's next? A cry out against cars because their washer fluid catches on fire? It's just as likely!
kevinweese 2 months ago
56 ppl can go Frack themselves.
Amadmaniac1 2 months ago
@Amadmaniac1,
You're a good example of the level of intellect (or, lack thereof) which falls for the purely political propaganda in this video.
For example, in the video, a methane molecule causes both a butterfly & a fish to keel over dead.
Want to know why that is a very good example of purely political propaganda (and bald faced LIES)? Google this, moron:
Methane is not toxic
Flatulence will add more methane to your home than NATURALLY OCCURRING methane contaminated well water.
sbvor 2 months ago
@sbvor I just like the damn song, leave me alone!
Amadmaniac1 1 month ago
@sbvor That's amusing. You don't seem to know what a metaphor is. Then you attempt to misdirect. Methane is a GHG. It contributes to ocean acidification. Fish and insects change (and may die) in response to higher temperatures and more acidic water. For someone who claims to be a climate scientist, you seem to be ignorant of the literature. Like agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047222.shtml "Rising Arctic Ocean temperatures cause gas hydrate destabilization and ocean acidification"
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
I'd rather frac in the U.S. than continue to pay the Arabs. We just have to be very careful. Our Chinese friends are also doing a stellar job of polluting. Why aren't the greenies humping China's leg over the pollution issue. China recently became Saudia Arabia's largest customer. U.S. is now a close second.
ngvconversion 2 months ago
@ngvconversion Why not conserve energy instead of drilling for more? We can reduce our energy consumption by 25% with simple, low cost and highly effective changes. Reducing energy consumption saves consumers money, which gives them more money to spend on other things. America used to have a spine and just did the right thing regardless of what others did. Pointing at China and saying "well they're doing it too" doesn't solve the problem, does it? We need solutions, not excuses.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comment removed
WalkFoley 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Three items published by the National Academy of Sciences:
1) Google this:
Methane contamination of drinking water caused by hydraulic fracturing remains unproven PNAS 2011 108 (43)
2) Google this:
Lack of data to support a relationship between methane contamination of drinking water wells and hydraulic fracturing PNAS 2011 108 (37)
3) Google this:
Hydraulic fracturing not responsible for methane migration PNAS 2011 108 (37)
sbvor 2 months ago 24
@sbvor Cherry picks. Read the responses to the papers. I thought you anti-science types like to claim that AGW "isn't settled science". Your cites certainly aren't. One example from your first cite: biology.duke.edu/jackson/pnas2011r2.html
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
@sbvor pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108 "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing" as well as their responses biology.duke.edu/jackson/pnas2011r.html And on and on and on. It's called science, and you citing individual scientific papers as "proof" of something is called anti-science. There is always doubt in the world of science, but there is also a thing called preponderance of evidence. Throw in some common sense too.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
For those who think the chemicals don't end back up in our water... yes, they pump the chemicals out of the well, but where do you think they go after that? In West Virginia, just outside my cousin's farm, they fold them into tarps and bury the water underground ABOVE the water table. Well, you can imagine what would happen over time -- the tarps leak benzene tainted water into the water table. In one instance the company just dumped it all down the side of the mountain.
WalkFoley 2 months ago
Comrade @WalkFoley,
That's nothing!
I have a cousin who -- for the last 3 decades -- has been living on the dark side of the moon.
Yeah, I'm joking (to make a point).
Your utterly unsubstantiated assertions have even less credibility than the absurd falsehood I suggested above.
SHOW ME SOME DATA! Oops! You've GOT NONE! So you just make stuff up.
sbvor 2 months ago
@WalkFoley
Then that's not a drilling, fracking, production problem. That's a dumping problem. Do some lobbying for stricter dumping laws in your state. Be pro-active.
crescendo2020 2 months ago
check out "Frackingresearch,org"
rojclancy27 2 months ago
@rojclancy27,
I examined the site you suggested.
Under "The Report", I found a list of suggested video links. In that list, the first link was to the propaganda video titled "Gasland".
If this organization considers "Gasland" to be credible, then I have to assume they are a political advocacy group which is only pretending to "carry out independent and unbiased research"
Gasland is purely political propaganda which is rife with falsehoods. Google this:
GASLAND FACT SHEET - BIPAC
sbvor 2 months ago
Nearly died laughing when my friend got on the bus singing this. Apparently My teacher wasnt the only to share this video, and thats good because I believe people should watch this.
Its even my ringtone now, such a catchy song!
justgivemeahotdog 2 months ago
@justgivemeahotdog,
Congratulations -- You and your peers have been politically indoctrinated by purely political propagandists posing as a "teachers".
sbvor 2 months ago
@Sbvor - why are you shilling for the oil and gas industry? You -seem- to respect science, so why not adhere to the precautionary principle instead of assuming pumping toxins into our water tables are safe until proven otherwise. Capitalism/fascism is rampant right now in this once great nation. It is you who are buying right-wing propaganda. Wake up before its too late!
feralcamero 2 months ago
@feralcamero,
1) I'm nobody's shill. I am simply exposing the facts -- facts which you stupid, willfully ignorant, environmental extremist nut jobs willfully IGNORE!
2) The precautionary principle is for MORONS. Show me some DATA!
3) Today's Fascism is coming from YOUR environmental extremist camp. Solyndra (and the rest of the so-called "Green Energy" FRAUD) is an example of today's fascism (and crony Capitalism). Fracking is NONE OF THAT!
WISE UP MORON!
sbvor 2 months ago
@sbvor You are clearly a right-winger parroting right-wing/fascist propaganda. If you are not shilling for the oil/gas industry please tell us what it is that you are doing. Fracking in its current and unregulated form is not defensible. On can easily hypothesize likely scenarios where fracking can jeopardize the public good. Therefore, we SHOULD ensure that those scenarios do not occur. Your political ideology is indefensible in so much as it abhors science. Troll.
feralcamero 2 months ago
@feralcamero,
1) You LIE!
Fracking is NOT "unregulated". It is (appropriately) regulated at the STATE level (rather than the Federal level).
2) Google this, (double quotes and all):
“stable isotope and gas composition analytical results for your water well”
Select the entry posted by the state of Colorado.
The state regulatory body concluded:
“the methane gas present [in your well water] is the product of natural bacteriologial activity and unrelated to any oil & gas activities in your area”
sbvor 2 months ago
@sbvor precautionary principle is for MORONS??? If you believe that than you are the true "MORON." For example see Frances Oldham Kelsey banning the drug thalidomide for market in the USA in the 1960s. A perfect example of precaution.
Your argument is for methane, yet clear evidence shows that benzene is in fact what has poisoned the wells in Wyoming. Before you start to just copy paste your same, stale argument on the subject, maybe you should do some research of your own.
ACEdeBASS 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ACEdeBASS,
1) Benzene is NATURALLY OCCURRING!
There is NO EVIDENCE fracking is to blame.
2) Google this:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
3) Worried about benzene? Google this, pinhead (double quotes & all):
"A major source of benzene exposure is tobacco smoke"
sbvor 2 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
Comrade @ACEdeBASS,
Google this, pinhead:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
Which part of that did your pea-brain not comprehend?
sbvor 2 months ago
@sbvor You seem to rely an awful lot on a small group of individuals for your "proof". Guys named Straw Man, Ad Hominem and Non Sequitur. Everyone knows (or should know) that scientists don't "prove" anything, they never have. All you can say about *any* scientific theory is that it hasn't been proven false. Even after huge successes like predicting Bose-Einstein condensate and gravitational lensing they're still looking for gravity waves to see if theory of relativity is valid.
ExperienceCounts2 1 month ago
Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 asks me for an "alternative explanation" for the warming which stopped in 1998. I provide the rock solid evidence and then Comrade @ExperienceCounts2 suddenly suggests:
"Everyone knows (or should know) that scientists don't 'prove' anything"
Comrade! When the science refutes your CAGW religious cult, you then disavow science? REALLY? What a surprise! NOT!
Google this, moron:
SBVOR: Catastrophic Warming -- PANIC NOW! (Part II)
sbvor 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@feralcamero,
I'll show you how to properly apply the Precautionary Principle.
Google this, pinhead:
Rising energy bills causing fuel poverty deaths
Now, Google this:
Forbes: After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”?
LIVES are at risk. Water is NOT. Err on the side of precaution! Save LIVES! Support responsible fracking!
sbvor 2 months ago 2
@feralcamero
There is no pumping of frac water into water tables. They pump frac water, sand, etc. into the fractures a mile below the water table. Then, 95% of that is retrieved during production. The other 5% stays, nestled a mile below the water table. Sometimes, less than 95% is recovered, and the difference remains nested a mile below the water tables. Get a job in the industry, and learn more about it, or do more research so that you can really understand the process.
crescendo2020 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we need the oil and gas. And the jobs. Sometimes you gotta break some eggs when making a cake. Quit crying and buy some energy co stocks....
Andreas748 2 months ago
@Andreas748 Are eggs precious? Do we NEED to make cake?
Maybe we could find a better solution or at least a substitute
WillYum97 2 months ago
@Andreas748 The oil and gas aren't likely to last us more than a couple decades, according to most scientific studies. We NEED to find more sustainable energy sources and start phasing out the use of fossil fuels NOW, before we run out and run into a new major energy crisis.
And guess what? Research and production of sustainable energy sources ALSO CREATES JOBS.
Ongarukat 2 months ago
Comrade @Ongarukat,
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Renewable Energy Sources are Not Green
sbvor 2 months ago
Comrade @Ongarukat,
Google this, pinhead:
SBVOR: Peak Oil & Oil Shale
sbvor 2 months ago
@Ongarukat
Yes, research for alternate forms of energy is important. There still is, however, plenty of fossil fuels to tap into whilst said research is being done. Oil and gas will last more than a couple of decades. Research and production of sustainable energy sources do exist. The fossil fuel research and production jobs pay better. ;)
crescendo2020 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gravesclay,
Google this, pinhead:
CanadaFreePress: "Neither report could attribute with any certainty the seismic activity to the local fracking, as that would be nearly impossible to do given the multifactorial nature of seismic activity."
In the extremely unlikely event that fracking actually precipitated an earthquake, it would have simply resulted in a smaller, less damaging quake than mother nature would have otherwise provided (along a fault which was destined to slide anyway)
sbvor 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
sbvor 2 months ago
Comment removed
sbvor 2 months ago
I hesitate (in my previous comment) to use the term “methane contamination”. The FACT is that water is more toxic than methane.
Google this:
Methane is not toxic
Google this:
Fatal water intoxication
As for explosive potential…
You would be FAR more likely to blow your house up with “methane contaminated” farts! MORONS!
sbvor 2 months ago
@sbvor
Fatal water intoxication and explosive farts? Is this really the best you can do for public health problems? You really are a fucking idiot.
mhjunt 2 months ago
Comrade @mhjunt,
watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA
sbvor 2 months ago
Comrade @mhjunt,
There is NO EVIDENCE of "public health problems" caused by fracking!
Even the "scientists" whose paper was cited by the purely political propagandists at ProPublica have ADMITTED THIS.
You have NOTHING but rampant SPECULATION from a pack of MORONS who stupidly, ignorantly and reflexively oppose ANYTHING even REMOTELY related to hydrocarbons (because they have been politically indoctrinated to do so).
sbvor 2 months ago
Tell me what are the 900 chemicals they use for fracking? If you can answer that, well, you'll see what we're saying.
adadadad95 2 months ago
@adadadad95 google this "EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming Ground Water Investigation for Public Comment and Independent Scientific Review" -- lots of news today
mhjunt 2 months ago
@mhjunt,
The EPA release dealt with fracking “taking place IN and below the drinking water aquifer”. EPA admits this represents “production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country”.
Yet, even when fracking takes place IN THE AQUIFER, the chemicals in the water are found at levels “below established health and safety standards” and are NOT PROVEN to have resulted from fracking.
Yet, you MORONS want to ban ALL fracking EVERYWHERE. You’re self-destructive IDIOTS!
sbvor 2 months ago
@mhjunt,
The purely political, eco-extremist, Socialist bureaucrats at EPA discuss what they imagine might be a methane “migration from areas of gas production” to the Wyoming aquifer they are studying.
By contrast, The National Academy of Sciences reports in their peer reviewed journal:
“Hydraulic fracturing not responsible for methane migration PNAS 2011 108 (37)”
Which do you find more credible? That’s an easy choice for me.
sbvor 2 months ago
@sbvor
Wrong again. That reference from PNAS is from a letter...not a refereed article, not a study, just an opinion. You are a joke.
mhjunt 2 months ago
Comrade @mhjunt,
Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. Let's try this again:
The National Academy of Sciences reports in their peer reviewed journal:
“Hydraulic fracturing not responsible for methane migration PNAS 2011 108 (37)”
In a peer reviewed journal, even a letter has to be approved by the review board.
As "proof", I invite you to attempt to get your own gibberish published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) -- good luck with that.
sbvor 2 months ago
@sbvor
"In a peer reviewed journal, even a letter has to be approved by the review board."
Wrong again. You clearly have no understanding of the peer-review system.
mhjunt 2 months ago