The scientific consensus is that fracking doesn’t cause health and environmental concerns. You’re not anti-science, are you?[/quote]
While I’d have to see what evidence you have for an explicit scientific consensus on the safety or environmental impact of fracking (water shortages and earthquakes are two recent concerns I remember having read about), I’m happy to see that you have come around and are now supporting science. I take it that means you’ve switched your stance on AGW?
The scientific consensus is that fracking doesn’t cause health and environmental concerns. You’re not anti-science, are you?[/quote]
While I’d have to see what evidence you have for an explicit scientific consensus on the safety or environmental impact of fracking (water shortages and earthquakes are two recent concerns I remember having read about), I’m happy to see that you have come around and are now supporting science. I take it that means you’ve switched your stance on AGW?[/quote]
The correlation between earthquakes is undetermined, and the earthquakes in question are small and usually not even felt anyway. Of course it takes water to frac, but the safety concern is effects on water quality, not quantity. Golf courses, landscaping, daily bathing, and many others can be blamed for water consumption too. This is not a sound argument against fracking. The scientific consensus is that fracking is safe, therefore it is scientific fact and it’s YOUR burden to prove the scientific community wrong. It’s of course impossible for you to do so, because scientific consensus = indisputable scientific fact. What explicit evidence do you have that fracking is unsafe? What is AGW?
I’m on my phone now, and so as far as such evidence, I’ll have to get back to you. But I’d have to disagree that water consumption is not an issue; if anything, what I would agree is that golf courses and other questionable forms of water use ~should~ become bigger issues in the increasingly feast-or-famine water situation we are facing. Further, most of those forms of water consumption don’t produce incredibly toxic waste water requiring disposal.
Regarding the scientific consensus: it is not “indisputable fact”, though I would agree a clear, wide consensus based on multiple lines of evidence is very compelling. My question, though, is what is your evidence that such a consensus exists in this case? Is there something like the WHO’s statement on GMO safety or the IPCC assessment?
“AGW” = anthropogenic global warming
I’m sure you’ll be able to find so-called “scientific” reports on the dangers of fracking, there’s plenty of liberal news sources that have a giant hard-on for it. It’s all junk full of indirect correlations and “potentially harmful” scenarios. Mostly what it comes down to is they’re butt-hurt a carbon source of energy is still being invested in, even though it releases much less carbon when burned than coal. The EPA just published a comprehensive study on fracking and reluctantly acknowledged that the basis for the claim it’s harmful to groundwater is scientifically unfounded. They went on to say it could be “potentially harmful to water” “if” they spilt enough of it on the ground, yaya. And if a nuclear reactor exploded it might be bad also.
Dirty water is collected, retreated, and recycled. Science allows for the safe handling of such things. You’ll find lots of stories about people complaining their water wells near fracking sites got contaminated, and after investigated it always turns out to be something else that caused it. Even though most scientists probably “don’t like” fracking (political feelings), few established scientists would put their reputation on the line by stating the false claim that science shows it’s unsafe. The argument is always “potentially harmful” or “we feel it’s not a good idea.” Sorry, what ifs and feelings don’t count. Science is science
As for AGW, if 51% or more of the scientists think it’s scientific fact, then it’s indisputable scientific fact as far as I’m concerned
[quote=“buzzkill1”]
Dirty water is collected, retreated, and recycled. Science allows for the safe handling of such things. You’ll find lots of stories about people complaining their water wells near fracking sites got contaminated, and after investigated it always turns out to be something else that caused it. [/quote]
Not quite. A small number, which is different from “always”.
EPA report:[quote] Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.[/quote]
[quote=“MikeN”][quote=“buzzkill1”]
Dirty water is collected, retreated, and recycled. Science allows for the safe handling of such things. You’ll find lots of stories about people complaining their water wells near fracking sites got contaminated, and after investigated it always turns out to be something else that caused it. [/quote]
Not quite. A small number, which is different from “always”.
EPA report:[quote] Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.[/quote][/quote]
Ok, you got me on the word “always”
Lets look at Texas where most of the fracking has been taking place:
[quote]— A Texas spreadsheet contains more than 2,000 complaints, and 62 of those allege possible well-water contamination from oil and gas activity, said Ramona Nye, a spokeswoman for the Railroad Commission of Texas, which oversees drilling. Texas regulators haven’t confirmed a single case of drilling-related water-well contamination in the past 10 years, she said.
Experts and regulators agree that investigating complaints of water-well contamination is particularly difficult, in part because some regions also have natural methane gas pollution or other problems unrelated to drilling. A 2011 Penn State study found that about 40% of water wells tested prior to gas drilling failed at least one federal drinking water standard. Pennsylvania is one of only a few states that don’t have private water-well construction standards.[/quote]
You wouldn’t expect the EPA to try and throw a bone for its political base, would you?
Besides, the technology and pollution controls have already improved since many of the cases under scrutiny. A lot of it comes down to state laws, which have their own standards for well operations. For instance, in Colorado the entire well site is placed on an environmental barrier, not one drop of frac water is permitted on the soil. Potential contamination is a matter of implementing proper controls, not because the science of fracking places an inherent risk to public health
The liberals raising a ruckus that “fracking will poison all our water and I have the charts to prove it” are completely belligerent and deranged. I’m surprised if there’s anyone still out there who listens to them. It’s not about safe water at all. They’re environmental fear mongers without a leg to stand on and thrive on emotionalism and ignorance in their fight for political control over resources
Coincidentally that report popped up on my FB feed not long ago; will read it later. It’s worth remembering though that this is one study; the latest IPCC assessment, by comparison, reviewed over 9,000. I’m not intrinsically opposed to fracking, but do worry about a water-intensive source of energy, given current circumstances. There is also the issue of methane leakage, but to my understanding, methane is the lesser of two evils, since it stays in the atmosphere such a relatively short time compared to carbon.
Would also like to say it’s refreshing to hear that a conservative is so passionate about support for science- in that we are in accord.
The EPA study was hardly a brush-through. It was a comprehensive evaluation that took 5 years to complete
[quote=“Vay”]
Would also like to say it’s refreshing to hear that a conservative is so passionate about support for science- in that we are in accord.[/quote]
Why do people keep calling me that? 
Actually, for the most part I oppose fracking. I just thought I’d argue the other side for a change. Only about 50% of the water pumped down ever actually resurfaces through flow-back channels. It’s said to remain far below the water table, but whose to say it can’t migrate up over time?
Anyway, I guess I’m worried for nothing because the scientific consensus says it’s ok, and scientific consensus is always indisputable. These are trained experts we’re talking about. Who am I to argue against top experts with only my own instincts and common sense?
Step 1) Make a blanket statement without substantiating it with a thing, and throw the word scientific in there for effect:
You mean besides the fact that we’re using a scarce and important resource (water) to access an unnecessary and dirty energy source (oil) that directly contributes to the destruction of our planet? You mean besides that there’s no concerns?
Step 2) Muddy the waters by making random comments about completely unrelated issues:
I see, so if we can find other things that also contribute to the problem, it should be fair game for anybody else to do it as well right? I’ve not seen that way of thinking work out very many times, but hey maybe this time it will.
Step 3) Acknowledge that there is in fact plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary, but summarily (and again without substantiation) dismiss them as idiots. It also helps to throw in the word liberal as well.
Where have I seen this trick before? Every scientific report that shows we should be concerned with the negative effects of fracking is of course liberal nonsense. :loco:
That was some good work my friend, a solid B+ 
I would have given you an A if you had tried to draw some kind of non existent correlations between AGW and fracking, but understandably that wasn’t going to happen because you didn’t know what AGW was.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we as humanity, just once decided that we didn’t need to go through 30 years of harming our planet for monetary gains? That we, just once could say you know what, clearly this isn’t a good idea. Maybe, just maybe, we should focus time effort and money to clean sustainable energy. Nah screw it, let’s frack !
[quote=“BrentGolf”]Step 1) Make a blanket statement without substantiating it with a thing, and throw the word scientific in there for effect:
You mean besides the fact that we’re using a scarce and important resource (water) to access an unnecessary and dirty energy source (oil) that directly contributes to the destruction of our planet? You mean besides that there’s no concerns?
Step 2) Muddy the waters by making random comments about completely unrelated issues:
I see, so if we can find other things that also contribute to the problem, it should be fair game for anybody else to do it as well right? I’ve not seen that way of thinking work out very many times, but hey maybe this time it will.
Step 3) Acknowledge that there is in fact plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary, but summarily (and again without substantiation) dismiss them as idiots. It also helps to throw in the word liberal as well.
Where have I seen this trick before? Every scientific report that shows we should be concerned with the negative effects of fracking is of course liberal nonsense. :loco:
That was some good work my friend, a solid B+ I would have given you an A if you had tried to draw some kind of non existent correlations between AGW and fracking, but understandably that wasn’t going to happen because you didn’t know what AGW was.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if we as humanity, just once, decided that we didn’t need to go through 30 years of harming our planet for monetary gains. That we, just once could say you know what, clearly this isn’t a good idea. Maybe, just maybe, we should focus time, effort, and money, to clean sustainable energy.[/quote]
There you are, I’ve missed you 
As usual, more blubbering nonsense. But that’s why we love you 
I see you got all defensive when I mentioned golf courses :roflmao:
Indeed. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just say: we’re not going to do that because it’s f-ing stupid? It drives me mad how politicians can append the word ‘science’ to pretty much any random statement and expect people to swallow it without any more questions. Back in the old days, they had to work a lot harder than that to get people to believe their bullshit.
So far, nobody has mentioned the fact that oil or gas extracted by fracking is more expensive than the renewable alternatives, particularly if the end application is transport or heating. What you’ve got here are people legislating to make sure the expensive product is the only one on the market so that they can make profits and other people can’t. What a novel idea. That’s never been done before, right?
[quote=“buzzkill1”]
[quote]— A Texas spreadsheet contains more than 2,000 complaints, and 62 of those allege possible well-water contamination from oil and gas activity, said Ramona Nye, a spokeswoman for the Railroad Commission of Texas, which oversees drilling. Texas regulators haven’t confirmed a single case of drilling-related water-well contamination in the past 10 years, she said.
Experts and regulators agree that investigating complaints of water-well contamination is particularly difficult, in part because some regions also have natural methane gas pollution or other problems unrelated to drilling. A 2011 Penn State study found that about 40% of water wells tested prior to gas drilling failed at least one federal drinking water standard. Pennsylvania is one of only a few states that don’t have private water-well construction standards.[/quote]
You wouldn’t expect the EPA to try and throw a bone for its political base, would you?[/quote]
Unlike the Texas Railroad Commission, which, despite its name, is a wholly owned creature of the oil business?
[quote=“buzzkill1”]The EPA study was hardly a brush-through. It was a comprehensive evaluation that took 5 years to complete
[quote=“Vay”]
Would also like to say it’s refreshing to hear that a conservative is so passionate about support for science- in that we are in accord.[/quote]
Why do people keep calling me that?
Actually, for the most part I oppose fracking. I just thought I’d argue the other side for a change. Only about 50% of the water pumped down ever actually resurfaces through flow-back channels. It’s said to remain far below the water table, but whose to say it can’t migrate up over time?
Anyway, I guess I’m worried for nothing because the scientific consensus says it’s ok, and scientific consensus is always indisputable. These are trained experts we’re talking about. Who am I to argue against top experts with only my own instincts and common sense?[/quote]
Oh, so that was all said in sarcasm? Should’ve guessed. But you’re off target. Re-read what I said regarding the IPCC assessment vs the EPA study, and you’ll get the sense of what an actual “consensus” entails. Also, note it is based in the scientific ~literature~ and not just a show of hands by scientists.
[quote=“Vay”][quote=“buzzkill1”]The EPA study was hardly a brush-through. It was a comprehensive evaluation that took 5 years to complete
[quote=“Vay”]
Would also like to say it’s refreshing to hear that a conservative is so passionate about support for science- in that we are in accord.[/quote]
Why do people keep calling me that?
Actually, for the most part I oppose fracking. I just thought I’d argue the other side for a change. Only about 50% of the water pumped down ever actually resurfaces through flow-back channels. It’s said to remain far below the water table, but whose to say it can’t migrate up over time?
Anyway, I guess I’m worried for nothing because the scientific consensus says it’s ok, and scientific consensus is always indisputable. These are trained experts we’re talking about. Who am I to argue against top experts with only my own instincts and common sense?[/quote]
Oh, so that was all said in sarcasm? Should’ve guessed. But you’re off target. Re-read what I said regarding the IPCC assessment vs the EPA study, and you’ll get the sense of what an actual “consensus” entails. Also, note it is based in the scientific ~literature~ and not just a show of hands by scientists.[/quote]
Oh please, the IPCC? 
Are we talking about the safety of fracking or AGW? Perhaps need to change the title to another global warming thread? Like I said, the real objection to fracking has nothing to do with water safety, just butt-hurt liberals who don’t like carbon-based energy and want to scare people into thinking their water will get poisoned
Even Scientific American has an article on how fracking can be done safely. Are you now claiming the scientific consensus is that fracking is not safe? Based on what? I thought you were pro-science
If your main concern is AGW then why not just come out and say it? Why pretend it might be about something else. If natural gas was used to replace coal it would make the transition to a carbon-free society that much more seamless, but most liberals are too belligerent to think it through that carefully. They would rather complain about natural gas while coal is still being burned for electricity.
I wonder, how many of those liberals who complain about fracking using too much water have green lawns in their yards or swimming pools? How many take the occasional hot bath instead of a quick shower? How many of them are having resources-grubbing offspring who will continue to pollute the earth with their carbon footprint who will also likely have offspring of their own someday? Anyone who chooses to have children and complains about the environment is the epitome of a hypocrite. It’s the single worse thing you could do to the planet. Do you have any children, Vay?
dude. You just told me you were playing devil’s advocate. Am I misunderstanding that your intention was to make fun of the use of scientific consensus in such arguments? It sure seemed like that’s what you were saying. In any case, my point about the IPCC is that there is a very explicit and broad-based consensus on the subject of AGW. So far I haven’t seen any evidence that such a consensus exists on fracking. If there is, I’ll accept it. As I said above, I’m not inherently opposed to fracking. And if you don’t want to be labeled conservative, I’d suggest staying away from terms like “butt-hurt liberal”. That’s a dead giveaway.
I fully support golf courses being restricted in how much water they can use, and if in the future the problem gets worse (which I strongly suspect it will) I will fully support golf courses being the first on the chopping block to be eliminated. Just because I love golfing doesn’t mean I support the endless use of water so our precious golf courses look pretty and green. That’s just stupid. We could easily, EASILY cut back on 50 - 75% of the water golf courses use and people would still be able to enjoy playing the game just as much as before. There’s plenty of grass types that require far less water and fertilizer to grow. Part of the problem is elites in the golfing world are too hung up on trying to grow exotic, non naturally occuring grass types that just require too much maintanence.
So we’re going to help kill our planet so our 10 foot putts roll a little smoother on grass that looks greener? Really? :loco:
This thread is just yet another example of people just not using their 2015 brains. If this was 1970, sure we could have a debate on whether fracking was very harmful to the environment, or only mildly harmful to the environment. I say that because I don’t think it takes a genius to see that injecting a valuable resource like water, coupled with a shit mix of sand and chemicals that aren’t naturally occurring in the area’s water table, and pressure fracturing the bedrock beneath us just to extract some dirty oil is at the very least partially harmful. But sure, 50 years ago maybe we could have that debate. We could go back and forth one-upping each other with our scientific research paper of choice…
But this is 2015. Never mind the fact that we have a massive oil supply glut, but in 2015 we have the intelligence, means, and technology to move to alternative clean energy sources that are not harmful and in the long run would actually be cheaper. It’s a total f’ing no brainer. Yet there’s always going to be buzzkills that want to push on forward. More oil, more oil, march on folks, it’s totally safe ! Someone’s not using their 2015 brain 
I’ll take ignorant things people say for 200 Alex
No, but it takes a moron to think fracking involves injecting anything in an area’s water table. Fracking is done far below the water table, in case you need that little fact for future reference. Maybe instead of focusing on a 2015 brain you should work on a brain of any vintage that might be fully functional
Wanted to add a comment on a couple points:
I think maybe you missed what I said above. There is methane leakage associated with fracking. How much is still a question of study, but in any case, the benefit seems to outweigh the cost in terms of climate for the reason I already pointed out above. That said, would I rather see focus on technologies that don’t involve intensive water use when water is increasingly precious? Yup. Especially when there is toxic waste-water by-product involved, some of which has to be stored and some of which, as you yourself point out, stays underground… a dubious consolation.
Ok, here’s the old ‘you’re a hypocrite, therefore your argument is invalid’ approach. I don’t buy it. Do I have offspring? Guilty as charged. Do I own a car, appliances, even occasionally fly? Guilty again. Do I agree that one must be an environmental saint in order to be concerned about the future of the world that my daughter will grow up in? No I do not. By this logic, practically everyone alive should just shut up and let them pave over the world because we don’t know how to weave our own hammocks. Do I try to save energy, use public transportation as often as possible (well, more often than is convenient, anyway), teach my daughter to avoid waste, etc? Yes. But do I think any amount of such individual sacrifices will achieve the goal of solving climate change? Again, no I do not. On a world of seven billion, that’s a fool’s fantasy. I cannot foresee that way, but one important and very obvious step which is really what the whole conservative denial on the issue comes down to is this: put a fucking price on carbon commensurate to the cost incurred by society.
Huh? What logic. You destroying the planet has nothing to do with anyone paving over the world. It does have a lot to do with living a lifestyle that is destroying the planet, however. You mean if everyone else is polluting the planet you might as well also? If it’s 20 guys instead of 5 in a gang rape it matters less if you join them? Ever think about your own moral integrity? If you want to use logic you could say your legacy in life is ushering in the extinction of humanity
You could be Satan
Buzzkill: Way to avoid all the substantive points and focus on a non-issue. I live a typical first-world life and am not willing to make huge sacrifices to no effect - therefore I have no right to an opinion about climate change or other environmental issues. What utter bullshit.
Explain to me how the hell ‘personal initiative’ is going to solve a problem like climate change on a planet of 7 billion. Ever heard of the free rider problem? What’s needed is wide-spread action on a social level. I’m perfectly willing to feel some pain - if and only if I know others aren’t gonna get a free ride while I make that sacrifice.
Take as an example the stupid airline policy of voluntary carbon offsets. This is basically a self-imposed sin tax that accomplishes nothing except to cleanse the consciences of guilty fliers who can afford it - and makes the airlines look like they are doing something about climate change, when they aren’t. Anyone with a brain knows that people who buy those offsets are suckers; non-purchasers may even feel better about their own non-offset air travel because of the existence of such suckers.
Solution? Fucking ~mandatory offsets~. No free riders, and an ~actual~ impact.