Skip to comments.Scientists Discover Gassy Liberal Pseudo-Science
Posted on 01/12/2012 5:15:22 AM PST by Kaslin
The science portal New Scientist reported yesterday that the much-publicized risks involved in the natural gas recovery method of fracking have been exaggerated according to British geologists.
Frack away, there's no reason not to, writes New Scientist. Two of the main objections to fracking- [earthquakes and well-water contamination] - have been blown out of proportion, according to British geologists We think the risk is pretty low, said Mike Stephenson, head of energy science at the British Geological Survey at a press briefing in London on Tuesday.
Fracking involves boring into shale deposits with water, chemicals and particulates in order to open seams to allow the escape of natural gas, oil and other fossil gases for recovery as fuel. Huge new reserves of energy have been found in the US over the last decade that can only be recovered by fracking. These reserves have the potential to supply hundreds of years of energy for the US, meaning the country can import less energy from foreign sources, even if domestic sources are only partially developed. The discovery is a threat to liberals because it could upset the bedrock liberal scam that we have to ration everything, including energy.
As conservative George Will noted at the beginning of the year:
Because progressivism exists to justify a few people bossing around most people and because progressives believe that only governments energy should flow unimpeded, they crave energy scarcities as an excuse for rationing by them that produces ever-more-minute government supervision of Americans behavior.
Accordingly, liberals have been pushing for a ban on fracking, also called hydraulic fracturing, because of supposed health and environmental risks the method poses. Those risks have been widely hyped via the liberals new scientific peer-reviewed media of the docu-drama.
Following the stunning success of Al Gores fictional docu-drama, An Inconvenient Truth, a movie about- gasp!- GLOBAL WARMING, a film that relied more on hyperbole than on hypothesis- one science site counted 35 scientific errors in the film before they got through the opening credits- liberals have made a cottage industry of creating pseudo-science through the media magic of the docu-drama.
Peer-review for such efforts have widely consisted of 1) Approval by the Nobel Committee, which is controlled by the Labour and Socialist parties of Norway (really) and; 2) Glowing reviews by the New York Times, which publication is probably way too conservative for the Labour and Socialist parties of Norway.
One such film is Gasland, an expose that uses pyrotechnic effects to prove that fracking is turning water into fire around the country. The film, created by Josh Fox, an actor who the New York Times called "one of the most adventurous impresarios of the New York avant-garde," is an avant-garde and adventurous look at the science behind hydraulic fracturing- that is, if you translate avant-garde as completely fictionalized.
Liberals dont think its necessary to have scientists investigate the claims made in Gasland, especially when they can "prove" the claims by movie magic created by a celebrated actor, playing a pseudo-scientist-slash-activist who is supported in part by five grants from the National Endowment for the Arts and enjoys support from the nephew of George Soros. Really.
Speaking scientifically, that's really impressive. Who needs scientists when you have "brilliantly resourceful mastery of stagecraft" that Josh Fox brings and the popcorn is paid for by taxpayers? Science no longer represents the quest for truth, but only what you con someone into believing. Then all you have to do is manipulate data until you get the result you want.
Well apparently, at least New Scientist still has room for, um, old-fashioned science that relies on objective data.
The idea that fracked methane leaks into drinking water was popularised by the documentary film Gasland, in which a resident of Pennsylvania sets his tap water alight. On Tuesday, Stephenson said he could not comment on this specific case, but that such contamination is unlikely.
Peer-reviewed research on methane contamination is scarce but what little there is suggests fracking is not to blame.
The publication also points out that earthquakes that have been blamed on fracking have been exaggerated.
While earthquakes have happened as a result of fracking, they have been no different than similar temblors caused by- gasp!- COAL MINING. Remember: COAL MINING has been linked to GLOBAL WARMING by ALGORE in a peer-reviewed movie.
Still, the settled science on fracking has not stopped states from banning fracking or investigating the banning of fracking. Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey recently pushed through a ban on fracking in the state of New Jersey. Ohio and New York banned fracking as well. Municipalities in Colorado have asked the state to allow them to ban fracking locally since the state is likely to allow fracking to continue. The docu-drama that currently masquerades as the country of France has also banned fracking.
Instead they prefer to import oil from Libya.
The 30,000 killed, 20,000 wounded in Libya, I guess, is a better price to pay than acknowledging the flaws in the scientific non-science from the left presented on TV, at the theater and in the news.
It may not be true, but it sure is brilliantly resourceful stagecraft.
For liberals who have oh'ed and aw'ed at the Styrofoam columns that have held up Obama's presidency, truth isn't wanted, only stagecraft.
we have been fracing for 60 years. People are jumping on the gaslands puesdodocumentary written by someone that probably bought off by the coal industry or the saudis.
I heard a report on NPR about fracking that talked about the earthquake risks. They talked about all these ~2.5 quakes caused by fracking and I thought, “wait a minute! Don’t heavy trucks on the highway and Kiss concerts create more vibrations than that?”
First, my impression was that a “small” earthquake will reduce stress and actually prevent its buildup which would cause bigger quakes. Second, based on my understanding of the Richter scale, and the fact that most people do not even feel a 4.0 quake, how bad, exactly, is a 2.5 quake? Do we care, and if we do, why?
IOW, after presenting all their facts, the NPR story convinced me that earthquakes are not a problem with fracking, regardless of their own “desperate danger” tone.
“The docu-drama that currently masquerades as the country of France...”
I don’t care who you are. That right there is funny as hell. :)
Can't the Repugnicans find one leader that isn't an idiot!
For crying-out-loud, someone read a science book, would ya'!
Yea, that made me chuckle as well. He skewered several sacred cows very well in that article.
I watched about 20 minutes of Gasland last night. In it, I watched homeowners turn on their faucets and then light the water on fire. I also saw the gas companies lists of chemical used in the wells, most of which were toxic, cannot be filtered out by reverse osmosis systems, and are used for the life of the well.
Now, I am a bedrock conservative and I support energy independence; if anyone would like to dispute this, take a glance at my posting history. That being said, the article above is long on claims but short on quotes, links, and enumerated evidence... which is exactly the claim that the article levels at the documentary. Do environmentalists exaggerate? Are they emotionally driven rather than rationally driven? Of course, and the myth of AGW underscores these facts. In the case that of fracking, however, the complaints are coming from ordinary Americans who no longer have access to clean water and who are developing health problems that are ostensibly linked to environmental abuse by the gas companies.
The point is this: any system that has human beings in it is subject to corruption of the truth at many different levels, and this distortion is non-ideological. Just as there are environmentalists who lie, there are corporations who do the same thing.
If there is a serious, evidenced-based case to be made against Gaslands, make it. Anything else just undermines our cause, which is freedom and with it the pursuit of the truth.
First, the movie implies that nasty chemicals get into the water table. That seems logical, since they shoot them down into gas wells. But it turns out that the shale gas wells are thousands of feet below the water table. Do the chemicals flow up — against gravity?
But then what’s the explanation for the most dramatic part of the movie: tap water so laden with gas that people can set it on fire?
It turns out that has little to do with fracking. In many parts of America, there is enough methane in the ground to leak into people’s well water. The best fire scene in the movie was shot in Colorado, where the filmmaker is in the kitchen of a man who lights his faucet. But Colorado investigators went to that man’s house, checked out his well and found that fracking had nothing to do with his water catching fire. His well-digger had drilled into a naturally occurring methane pocket.
Repugnians is a term the Rats use. I suggest you crawl back into your whole from which you crawled out from
Thanks, I’ll check out the link.
In the part of the movie that I watched, there were several homes that had “flammable” water and other homes that had different pollution issues, and in most cases they had never had issues with the water table until after the fracking had started.
With respect to the chemicals that people are finding: the thing that are showing up in the water table are synthesized compounds like ethylene glycol (if I’m remembering correctly)... chemicals that do not occur naturally.
Again, I’m not really interested in what one particular movie has to say, but in the larger issue at hand: a) is there really a tangible, widespread problem, and; b) if there is, who is at fault? Both parties have an agenda, and only one can be telling the truth.
The point of the article is that Gasland is a special-effects movie masquerading as a documentary. The effects in the movie are whole-cloth lies.
You are essentially asking that evidence be presented to debunk hollywood invention, and treating that invention as if it were actual evidence itself.
John Lennon: "Avant-garde--that's french for bullshit."
I defy anyone to explain to me how drilling at 6000 feet will allow gas to migrate upward through a mile of nonporous rock and pollute a well at 150 feet, especially since the upper part of the gas well is cased to a depth well below the water table.
Anyone who thinks there is a measurable risk here is an idiot or a deliberate saboteaur of America's energy industry.
Rest easy. Nobody is lighting their water.
Then please link to articles, etc. that prove, conclusively, that “The effects in the movie are whole-cloth lies.” My point is that this article makes the allegations but offers virtually nothing in the way of evidence to support those allegations.
What I am trying to find out is if there is any truth to statements like yours, just as I’m trying to find out if there is any truth to the movie. Just saying something “is” or “isn’t” doesn’t make it truth any more than anyone else making the opposite claims without evidence.
What I’ll be looking into will be scientific data regarding the strata of the formations involved, and what the possibility is that the strata in question could be fractured enough to send pollutants to the water table. I’ll also be trying to find out if there are any industry reports on the pollutants in the water table, and also any reports on failures of the wells/casings themselves that could lead to contamination.
Ohio is being destroyed by never before seen earthquakes, obviously caused by fracking.........
That's a resonable request that deserves an equally reasonable and civil response.........(good luck with that.)
Sorry, forgot the sarcasm tag....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.