Flaming Water in Texas Around BEFORE Fracking!

[JiggsCasey]

One key difference. I am paid for my opinion on these topics.

LOL!!!!

So is Daniel Yergin. And he's been effectively laughed out of the discussion.

 

[RGR]

One key difference. I am paid for my opinion on these topics.

LOL!!!!

So is Daniel Yergin. And he's been effectively laughed out of the discussion.

Versus TOD which fled the field in embarrassment?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Versus TOD which fled the field in embarrassment?

if punting to the straw man of ToD is all you have, I'll accept your white flag now. ... They were one of a dozen references, and they aren't deleting anything. The premise that we're at peak is still right there, tea-bagging your industry mercilessly.

You'll need to do better. Right now, you're struggling badly.

 

[RGR]

Versus TOD which fled the field in embarrassment?

if punting to the straw man of ToD is all you have, I'll accept your white flag now. ..

Yeah, for some reason you are always claiming the other guy has lost, is that standard peak-dogma now...pretend it hasn't been predicted for most of this century, ignore the times it happened before, and just claim victory in the hopes that the current kick the can exercise works out?

 

[gnarlylove]

Nothing to see here. Fracking hurts nobody! We don't need no "Clean Water Act". Nothing to see here except cancer and god knows what else.

Nothing to see here indeed. Move along people who wish to have a decent future.

The boom in fracking in the central United States has paralleled an uptick in seismicity, with moderate-size earthquakes increasing in Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio and Arkansas. The number of quakes in the central United States has jumped 11-fold in the past 30 years, according to the March 2013 Geology study.

Wastewater Injection Triggered Oklahoma's Earthquake Cascade | LiveScience

Yep, there is no way humanity can effect the environment negatively. And even if we could (like say by causing increase in trimmers and earthquakes) there is no reason to think we cannot continue this indefinitely. Or, well, there is, but we're suppose to ignore that.

 

[RGR]

Yep, there is no way humanity can effect the environment negatively.

You don't seem to mind using fossil fuels to gab on the internet, the negative effects on the environment notwithstanding.

Your very breath has been labeled a pollutant, yet such negative environmental impact doesn't appear to bother you enough to even do anything about it.

And even if we could (like say by causing increase in trimmers and earthquakes) there is no reason to think we cannot continue this indefinitely. Or, well, there is, but we're suppose to ignore that.

Good enough for you to ignore, certainly it is only fair that the rest of us can as well.

 

[gnarlylove]

Essential human breathing is not pollution. No one thinks this, no scientist, no human. CO2 is not inherent pollution, no one claims that. Excess amounts become deadly: Your childish understanding of CO2 results from your unwillingness to think about these issues with any sincerity. You prefer your false caricature to what everyone is really saying.

 

[RGR]

Essential human breathing is not pollution. No one thinks this, no scientist, no human. CO2 is not inherent pollution, no one claims that.

CO2 has been labeled a pollutant by the head of EPA, Jackson.

EPA Chief Resigns: Declared Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant - Forbes

Certainly Lisa is a human, in a position of power. How about the Supreme Court, they are people aren't they?

On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act.

Your childish understanding of CO2 results from your unwillingness to think about these issues with any sincerity. You prefer your false caricature to what everyone is really saying.

You should run right off and tell the Supreme's how wrong they are, and maybe tell Lisa the same. In the meantime, with every breath you take....you dear friend...are as much a CO2 pollutant emitting biologic as I am.

 

[gnarlylove]

Citing your enemies in support of your position typically shows how little concerned you are with the truth. Less than .000000000000000000000001% of the total CO2 emissions comes from breathing.

Human breathing is not pollution because CO2 is not by its nature, pollution. Only when CO2 is excessive, like industrial human activity, does CO2 begin to build up in the atmosphere and become hazardous. But please cite one source that says human breath is pollution. I would love to read that scholarly article. Let me save you the trouble of googling it, there is no such article. You are fucked in the head if you think CO2 is inherently evil.

No one is claiming that but you. CO2 becomes bad through excess output, which is not inherent to CO2. It is the result of human industrial activity, not the result of breathing which does not even register on any intelligible CO2 scale of measurement.

So I guess before 2007 CO2 wasn't pollution DAMN! If only I could have had this argument with you before then I would be right! Now, all of a sudden, as a result of non-scientific declarations, CO2 is a pollutant in all forms including the necessary acts of living. How stupid do you need to be to justify the idea that human breath is pollution? You have to be pretty desperate and out of reasons to resort to such incredibly worthless thoughts.

Well, I still won since before 2007 I was right and that includes 4.3 billion years. You only have a measly 7 years on your side. I definitely won this argument.