A Study Offers Clues...will conservatives deny the science?

[wirebender]

Someone who thinks reality is a hoax like youreslf should be sent to institutions for being insane

I believe I have asked you before to name one physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as described by climate science. To date, I don't believe you have provided an answer. Off the top of my head, I can name 3 that say it isn't possible.

Who is buying the hoax and who is not in touch with reality?

 

[peach174]

Ohio Earthquake Linked To Fracking Injection Wells | ThinkProgress
^4.0 earthquake in Ohio caused by fracking

USGS Report: Link Between Fracking and Oklahoma Earthquakes | Crooks and Liars
^Fracking responsible for earthquakes/
^Fracking linked to Oklahoma’s historic 5.6 earthquake.
^Fracking responsible for around 50 earthquakes in Oklahoma alone during a year.

So come back when you aren't so clueless

So you think that the Dept. of Interior is clueless?
They did their own study and they say their is no evidence that fracking causes earthquakes.

 

[skookerasbil]

its been proven that fracking causes earth quakes

s0n........I dropped a 60 pound boulder in my yard this past weekend. When should I expect to feel the ground moving, and approximately what kind of magnitude are we talking? Also.......is a tsunami likely? ANd what about aftershocks?

You should acutally go to the docrors and ask them to check when your brain will beign to start thinkinh

s0n......you gotta get yourself one of these. You can find it on late night cable.........keeps the burglers out while you sleep!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo Starcraft.........heres another item you may be interested in. Its called the Turbonator........you put it on the intake of your car and it increases your gas mileage up to 25 miles/gallon. Increase in 100 horsepower too!! A guy like you so concerned about the environment................gotta get yourself one. Also can be found on late night cable TV..............

 

[skookerasbil]

Also Starcraft............have you looked into the purchase of a unicorn? Let me tell you something........they come in real handy during an earthquake. If there is fracking in your area, a personal unicorn is a must buy. Things get your ass out of trouble in short order..........prices are down too, due to the economy...........there is actually a surplus of unicorns which most people are unaware of.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh............and Starcraft.............thought you'd be interested being such a big science guy. According to DRUDGE, they found the remains of a giant in south France last week..................

You should check it out if you get bored with the fracking stuff.............

 

[peach174]

Does starcraftzzz even know that Fracking has been around for 60 years?

The whole anti-fracking movement has its head where the sun doesn’t shine – and here are just ten reasons why.

Hydraulic fracking has been around for 60 years. Developments made by U.S. engineers around 2008-9 have simply made the process much more commercially viable.
Since fracking was introduced in 1949, over 2 million frack treatments have been pumped without a single documented case of treatments polluting a water aquifer.
90 percent of all gas wells drilled in the United States since 1949 have been fracked.
The depth of most shale gas deposits drilled is between 6,000 and 10,000 feet – water aquifers exist at an average depth of 500 feet.
Claims of ‘migration’ between the shale gas layers and water aquifers due to fracking or for any other reason, are patently absurd as the gas would have to pass through millions of tons of impermeable rock. If the rock was that porous, neither the water nor the gas would have been there in the first place. (As the hard data in fig. 1 from a study of 15,000 frac treatments in the Barnett Shale Field reveals plainly.)

Fracture design engineers go to great lengths to avoid fracture growth of even 100 feet to prevent losing production.
The new eco-horror genre flicks like Josh Fox’s Gasland, create impact by making outrageous claims which include suggesting “569 chemicals” are used in a single “toxic cocktail” frack treatment. The reality is that 99.5 percent of the treatment is water and sand. Much of the remainder is made up of a maximum of 12 or so harmless gelling agents, like Guar gum (used in ice cream making), and chemicals commonly used around the house.
Domestic running water faucets being set alight with a match might wow gullible film audiences, but dissolved methane found in well water may well be biogenic (naturally occurring). As the largest component in natural gas, methane is not even regulated as it is not toxic and escapes naturally like soda bubbles.
Hydraulic fracking procedures are heavily regulated and not, as often claimed by eco-activists, exempt from drinking water and other key regulatory laws.
Concerns about using “excessive water resources” in the process are already being assuaged by new developments, including recycling water. And the U.S. Ground Water Protection Council confirms that drilling with compressed air is becoming increasingly common.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warming Shmarming....

Can anyone out there possibly defend pumping more pollution in to our environment?

Cleaner is better. The rest shouldn't matter. It's common courtesy... WE should be willing to give up profits in the now so that our kids have less of a mess in the future. And it's not like those to whom the profits in question matter the most couldn't stand to loose a few pounds.

Can anyone out there possibly defend pumping more pollution in to our environment?

No, but CO2 is not pollution.

 

[peach174]

Ask the experts in science CO2 is not a pollutant.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jXWmgVraeM]Is CO2 a pollutant? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warming Shmarming....

Can anyone out there possibly defend pumping more pollution in to our environment?

Cleaner is better. The rest shouldn't matter. It's common courtesy... WE should be willing to give up profits in the now so that our kids have less of a mess in the future. And it's not like those to whom the profits in question matter the most couldn't stand to loose a few pounds.

Yes, we all want cleaner fuel.
It's just that the technology isn't there yet. We are getting there, it's just going to take about 15 or 20 years (maybe a little less) but we will get cheap and cleaner fuel, just not right now.
Forcing the ones that we have now (like solar and wind) is just too expensive and most do not really work very well.

Bullshit. If the horse and buggy lobby had nearly the influence that carbon based transportation has today the streets would have stunk through the 60's.

I say we favor NO industry in our tax code. Not one. No special treatment in the tax code at all. Fair and simple taxes.

I say we favor NO industry in our tax code. Not one. No special treatment in the tax code at all. Fair and simple taxes.

Sounds good!
As soon as we eliminate the wasteful subsidies for inefficient, expensive, "green" energy, the better off we'll be. Let's start with the stupid ethanol boondogle.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Warming Shmarming....

Can anyone out there possibly defend pumping more pollution in to our environment?

Cleaner is better. The rest shouldn't matter. It's common courtesy... WE should be willing to give up profits in the now so that our kids have less of a mess in the future. And it's not like those to whom the profits in question matter the most couldn't stand to loose a few pounds.

What a moron. Cleaner is not always better. A 0.00001% reduction in pollution that means everything we buy costs twice as much is not better. You behave as if these costs will have no impact on you but only on "corporate profits." Ideas like that are the sure indication of an economic ignoramus. The cost of pollution control impacts the price of everything you buy. It means a lower standard of living for you and your children and your grand children.

Face it: you're too stupid too vote.

The sure sign of a liberal is someone who never considers the cost of their idiotic schemes to improve the world.

Fuck you bripat9643.

If you only knew how childish your posts are, you would be embarrased.

If you EVER want to engage in debate or conversation with me you'll keep the personal insults out of the dialogue.

Face it: You're too abrasive to give a shit about. Like at all.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Yes, we all want cleaner fuel.
It's just that the technology isn't there yet. We are getting there, it's just going to take about 15 or 20 years (maybe a little less) but we will get cheap and cleaner fuel, just not right now.
Forcing the ones that we have now (like solar and wind) is just too expensive and most do not really work very well.

Bullshit. If the horse and buggy lobby had nearly the influence that carbon based transportation has today the streets would have stunk through the 60's.

I say we favor NO industry in our tax code. Not one. No special treatment in the tax code at all. Fair and simple taxes.

I say we favor NO industry in our tax code. Not one. No special treatment in the tax code at all. Fair and simple taxes.

Sounds good!
As soon as we eliminate the wasteful subsidies for inefficient, expensive, "green" energy, the better off we'll be. Let's start with the stupid ethanol boondogle.

See this is the problem you are so stupid that you think green enery costing half of what fossil fuel costs means it is wasteful

 

[starcraftzzz]

Warming Shmarming....

Can anyone out there possibly defend pumping more pollution in to our environment?

Cleaner is better. The rest shouldn't matter. It's common courtesy... WE should be willing to give up profits in the now so that our kids have less of a mess in the future. And it's not like those to whom the profits in question matter the most couldn't stand to loose a few pounds.

Can anyone out there possibly defend pumping more pollution in to our environment?

No, but CO2 is not pollution.

Yep because something that increases cancer, autism, hay fevernd lung ailments isn't pollutant. perhap the problemhere is that you are illiterate and dont know what pollutant means

 

[starcraftzzz]

Does starcraftzzz even know that Fracking has been around for 60 years?

Yep slavery was around for a long time as well

Hydraulic fracking has been around for 60 years. Developments made by U.S. engineers around 2008-9 have simply made the process much more commercially viable.
Since fracking was introduced in 1949, over 2 million frack treatments have been pumped without a single documented case of treatments polluting a water aquifer.

Wall Street Journal Spins Fracking Study To Downplay Risks | Media Matters for America
^A Duke University study found that 81% water wells near Fracking sites were contaminated with ethane, compared to 9% that are not near Fracking sites
^Also methane concentrations were 17 times higher in wells near Fracking sites.

BBC News - Shale gas drilling 'contaminates drinking water'
^ Shale gas drilling contaminates drinking water.

Maryland To Sue Chesapeake Energy For PA Fracking Blowout | ThinkProgress
^Maryland set to sue Chesapeake Energy for PA fracking blowout; which ended up contaminating water drinking supplies.

Congressional report: 29 human carcinogens found in hydraulic fracturing fluids | The Washington Independent
^29 Chemicals used in Fracking are known to cause cancer.

REPORT: Seven States Where Republicans Are Ruining The Environment | ThinkProgress
^Water tests in fracking have discovered that due to fracking drinking and other water supplies now contain unhealthy levels of radon, mercury, sulfates, carbonates and nitrates.
^Fracking also has been known to cause small earthquakes.


Daily Kos: Fracked Water Not Fit to Drink
^The 71,000 fracking gas wells in Penn. has resulted in 1.3 billion gallons of highly polluted water to be produced over 3 years.
^In Texas areas that saw around a 40% increase in natural gas wells has resulted in children having around 4 times the risk to have asthma.

why is that all your posts consiste of you lying and posting pure bullshit?

The new eco-horror genre flicks like Josh Fox’s Gasland, create impact by making outrageous claims which include suggesting “569 chemicals” are used in a single “toxic cocktail” frack treatment. The reality is that 99.5 percent of the treatment is water and sand.

I see so you are so stupid that you think .5% of millions of gallons can't contain toxic chemicals

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does starcraftzzz even know that Fracking has been around for 60 years?

Yep slavery was around for a long time as well

Hydraulic fracking has been around for 60 years. Developments made by U.S. engineers around 2008-9 have simply made the process much more commercially viable.
Since fracking was introduced in 1949, over 2 million frack treatments have been pumped without a single documented case of treatments polluting a water aquifer.

Wall Street Journal Spins Fracking Study To Downplay Risks | Media Matters for America
^A Duke University study found that 81% water wells near Fracking sites were contaminated with ethane, compared to 9% that are not near Fracking sites
^Also methane concentrations were 17 times higher in wells near Fracking sites.

BBC News - Shale gas drilling 'contaminates drinking water'
^ Shale gas drilling contaminates drinking water.

Maryland To Sue Chesapeake Energy For PA Fracking Blowout | ThinkProgress
^Maryland set to sue Chesapeake Energy for PA fracking blowout; which ended up contaminating water drinking supplies.

Congressional report: 29 human carcinogens found in hydraulic fracturing fluids | The Washington Independent
^29 Chemicals used in Fracking are known to cause cancer.

REPORT: Seven States Where Republicans Are Ruining The Environment | ThinkProgress
^Water tests in fracking have discovered that due to fracking drinking and other water supplies now contain unhealthy levels of radon, mercury, sulfates, carbonates and nitrates.
^Fracking also has been known to cause small earthquakes.


Daily Kos: Fracked Water Not Fit to Drink
^The 71,000 fracking gas wells in Penn. has resulted in 1.3 billion gallons of highly polluted water to be produced over 3 years.
^In Texas areas that saw around a 40% increase in natural gas wells has resulted in children having around 4 times the risk to have asthma.

why is that all your posts consiste of you lying and posting pure bullshit?

The new eco-horror genre flicks like Josh Fox’s Gasland, create impact by making outrageous claims which include suggesting “569 chemicals” are used in a single “toxic cocktail” frack treatment. The reality is that 99.5 percent of the treatment is water and sand.

I see so you are so stupid that you think .5% of millions of gallons can't contain toxic chemicals

 

[peach174]

Does starcraftzzz even know that Fracking has been around for 60 years?

Yep slavery was around for a long time as well

Hydraulic fracking has been around for 60 years. Developments made by U.S. engineers around 2008-9 have simply made the process much more commercially viable.
Since fracking was introduced in 1949, over 2 million frack treatments have been pumped without a single documented case of treatments polluting a water aquifer.

Wall Street Journal Spins Fracking Study To Downplay Risks | Media Matters for America
^A Duke University study found that 81% water wells near Fracking sites were contaminated with ethane, compared to 9% that are not near Fracking sites
^Also methane concentrations were 17 times higher in wells near Fracking sites.

BBC News - Shale gas drilling 'contaminates drinking water'
^ Shale gas drilling contaminates drinking water.

Maryland To Sue Chesapeake Energy For PA Fracking Blowout | ThinkProgress
^Maryland set to sue Chesapeake Energy for PA fracking blowout; which ended up contaminating water drinking supplies.

Congressional report: 29 human carcinogens found in hydraulic fracturing fluids | The Washington Independent
^29 Chemicals used in Fracking are known to cause cancer.

REPORT: Seven States Where Republicans Are Ruining The Environment | ThinkProgress
^Water tests in fracking have discovered that due to fracking drinking and other water supplies now contain unhealthy levels of radon, mercury, sulfates, carbonates and nitrates.
^Fracking also has been known to cause small earthquakes.


Daily Kos: Fracked Water Not Fit to Drink
^The 71,000 fracking gas wells in Penn. has resulted in 1.3 billion gallons of highly polluted water to be produced over 3 years.
^In Texas areas that saw around a 40% increase in natural gas wells has resulted in children having around 4 times the risk to have asthma.

why is that all your posts consist of you lying and posting pure bullshit?

The new eco-horror genre flicks like Josh Fox’s Gasland, create impact by making outrageous claims which include suggesting “569 chemicals” are used in a single “toxic cocktail” frack treatment. The reality is that 99.5 percent of the treatment is water and sand.

I see so you are so stupid that you think .5% of millions of gallons can't contain toxic chemicals

I can't help it if your can't accept facts and truth or even opposing views and want to believe the lie's that you just posted, Starcraft
You have a problem with our own Gov. Dept. of DOI who says that fracking has not been proven that it causes quakes

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bullshit. If the horse and buggy lobby had nearly the influence that carbon based transportation has today the streets would have stunk through the 60's.

I say we favor NO industry in our tax code. Not one. No special treatment in the tax code at all. Fair and simple taxes.

I say we favor NO industry in our tax code. Not one. No special treatment in the tax code at all. Fair and simple taxes.

Sounds good!
As soon as we eliminate the wasteful subsidies for inefficient, expensive, "green" energy, the better off we'll be. Let's start with the stupid ethanol boondogle.

See this is the problem you are so stupid that you think green enery costing half of what fossil fuel costs means it is wasteful

What green energy do you feel costs half of what fossil fuels cost.

And then, after you get your feelings out of the way, show the math. Thanks!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warming Shmarming....

Can anyone out there possibly defend pumping more pollution in to our environment?

Cleaner is better. The rest shouldn't matter. It's common courtesy... WE should be willing to give up profits in the now so that our kids have less of a mess in the future. And it's not like those to whom the profits in question matter the most couldn't stand to loose a few pounds.

Can anyone out there possibly defend pumping more pollution in to our environment?

No, but CO2 is not pollution.

Yep because something that increases cancer, autism, hay fevernd lung ailments isn't pollutant. perhap the problemhere is that you are illiterate and dont know what pollutant means

CO2 causes cancer and autism?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does starcraftzzz even know that Fracking has been around for 60 years?

Yep slavery was around for a long time as well


Wall Street Journal Spins Fracking Study To Downplay Risks | Media Matters for America
^A Duke University study found that 81% water wells near Fracking sites were contaminated with ethane, compared to 9% that are not near Fracking sites
^Also methane concentrations were 17 times higher in wells near Fracking sites.

BBC News - Shale gas drilling 'contaminates drinking water'
^ Shale gas drilling contaminates drinking water.

Maryland To Sue Chesapeake Energy For PA Fracking Blowout | ThinkProgress
^Maryland set to sue Chesapeake Energy for PA fracking blowout; which ended up contaminating water drinking supplies.

Congressional report: 29 human carcinogens found in hydraulic fracturing fluids | The Washington Independent
^29 Chemicals used in Fracking are known to cause cancer.

REPORT: Seven States Where Republicans Are Ruining The Environment | ThinkProgress
^Water tests in fracking have discovered that due to fracking drinking and other water supplies now contain unhealthy levels of radon, mercury, sulfates, carbonates and nitrates.
^Fracking also has been known to cause small earthquakes.


Daily Kos: Fracked Water Not Fit to Drink
^The 71,000 fracking gas wells in Penn. has resulted in 1.3 billion gallons of highly polluted water to be produced over 3 years.
^In Texas areas that saw around a 40% increase in natural gas wells has resulted in children having around 4 times the risk to have asthma.

why is that all your posts consiste of you lying and posting pure bullshit?

The new eco-horror genre flicks like Josh Fox’s Gasland, create impact by making outrageous claims which include suggesting “569 chemicals” are used in a single “toxic cocktail” frack treatment. The reality is that 99.5 percent of the treatment is water and sand.

I see so you are so stupid that you think .5% of millions of gallons can't contain toxic chemicals

Yup, he's hitting the nail on his head alright!

 

[starcraftzzz]

I say we favor NO industry in our tax code. Not one. No special treatment in the tax code at all. Fair and simple taxes.

Sounds good!
As soon as we eliminate the wasteful subsidies for inefficient, expensive, "green" energy, the better off we'll be. Let's start with the stupid ethanol boondogle.

See this is the problem you are so stupid that you think green enery costing half of what fossil fuel costs means it is wasteful

What green energy do you feel costs half of what fossil fuels cost.

And then, after you get your feelings out of the way, show the math. Thanks!

Coal Does More Harm Than Good in Kentucky: $62 Million for Asthma Costs, $10 Billion for Lost Lives | ThinkProgress
^Another study finds that coal mining in Kentucky has a negative impact overall on the economy

Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.

Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.

Coal Is Cheap Because Of The Massive Unpriced Externalities | ThinkProgress
Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.: study | Reuters
^Coals negative impact on health and the environment is estimated to cost the united states over 400 billion dollars yearly.