To: Erik Latranyi
The study did not use sampling or case histories to assess contamination risks. Rather, it used software and computer modeling to predict how fracking fluids would move over time.That's exactly how we got phony global warming.
2 posted on
05/02/2012 6:34:33 AM PDT by
capt. norm
(Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never run out of material. c)
To: capt. norm
Exactly. Same shiite, different day.
4 posted on
05/02/2012 6:36:13 AM PDT by
ecomcon
To: capt. norm; Erik Latranyi
>
it used software and computer modeling to predict how fracking fluids would move over time. That's exactly how we got phony global warming. Don't waste time trying blame the computer, the software, or the process of modeling per se. They're fine.
The faulty premises and bogus mathematical/geological models -- or more precisely, the assumptions that underlie the models -- are what give garbage results.
And those are the creations of PEOPLE, not of computers.
Garbage in, garbage out.
11 posted on
05/02/2012 6:44:18 AM PDT by
dayglored
(Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
To: capt. norm
15 posted on
05/02/2012 6:56:28 AM PDT by
bigbob
To: capt. norm
With no sampling or case history, it's not a study. It's a computer model where in garbage in = garbage out and, worse, it happened to be paid for by anti-fracking groups. It's worthless.
Funny how "studies" funded by industry or investors are tainted but those funded by activists are Real Scientific Fact™.
37 posted on
05/02/2012 10:48:02 AM PDT by
newzjunkey
(Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson