Good for Texas

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 12:41 AM GMT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html?_r=1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 1:05 AM GMT
    good for TX. seriously, my future wellbeing depends on the oil/gas industry
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 1:11 AM GMT
    So does your requirements for fresh drinkable water, ax. It's good to see the Texas gov't being aware of this. What they do to protect it is another matter entirely.

    "As evidence mounts that fracking poses risks to water supplies, the federal government and regulators in various states are considering tighter regulations on it."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 2:59 AM GMT
    Those mother frackers will get this figured out and do this safely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 3:30 AM GMT
    meninlove said So does your requirements for fresh drinkable water, ax. It's good to see the Texas gov't being aware of this. What they do to protect it is another matter entirely.

    "As evidence mounts that fracking poses risks to water supplies, the federal government and regulators in various states are considering tighter regulations on it."


    Note that the article does not provide any support for this statement. Note that the EPA on May 24 provided testimony (despite the source - the actual video is embedded) - that the risks are practically non-existent - though they do use significant quantities of water:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/video-epa-administrator-confirms-no-fracking-water-contamination/

    Note further the outright fraud by some environmentalists who have been scaremongering:
    http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/plentiful-fuel.html
    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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 4:25 AM GMT
    Note who immediately got in a huge flap (riddler). Sorry, quoting article; take it up with them.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 4:42 AM GMT
    meninlove said Note who immediately got in a huge flap (riddler). Sorry, quoting article; take it up with them.


    Simply pointing out that that the quote/claim isn't actually grounded in any third party facts (while other points are). The New York Times has a tendency to interject opinion where there should be fact - so skepticism both for and against any issue should be used.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 1:42 PM GMT
    The trouble is, you look at these topics as some kind of bizarre pissing contest. So do a few others.

    I don't.

    Here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108.abstract

    We all know you despise environmental concerns and those that voice them. Indeed you border on conspiracy thinking. The fact is, the people of Texas have every right to pass any regulations they see fit.

    It's just the way it is.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 2:02 PM GMT
    meninlove saidThe trouble is, you look at these topics as some kind of bizarre pissing contest. So do a few others.

    I don't.

    Here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108.abstract

    We all know you despise environmental concerns and those that voice them. Indeed you border on conspiracy thinking. The fact is, the people of Texas have every right to pass any regulations they see fit.

    It's just the way it is.




    Another left wing drama queen.

    Despise is just a bit strong doncha think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 2:07 PM GMT
    meninlove saidThe trouble is, you look at these topics as some kind of bizarre pissing contest. So do a few others.

    I don't.

    Here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108.abstract

    We all know you despise environmental concerns and those that voice them. Indeed you border on conspiracy thinking. The fact is, the people of Texas have every right to pass any regulations they see fit.

    It's just the way it is.





    Sorry, you might have more credibility if you didn't create strawmen at every turn or ever saw a piece of regulation you didn't like. The people of Texas have every right to pass any regulations they see fit - and I'm sure they will and do. I personally think it's important that these things are examined in detail - and if there's evidence to actually back it up - and at least insofar as fracking is concerned - many of those concerns have be manufactured over the years - so it's actually useful you actually bothered to do something the authors of this article chose not to do.

    As noted however the EPA through an Obama appointee, has testified that there is no proof that exists that fracking harms drinking water. So either she hasn't read that study or she didn't feel the evidence here isn't significant - both of which are important to consider.

    Your lack of skepticism when it comes to claims that support your views is often breathtaking (e.g take for instance your agreement the claim that if social security was like a ponzi scheme so was banking or insurance despite the fact you presumably should know better). Whenever you take a ridiculous position I note that you seem to feel the compulsion to use the word "we" as a safety blanket as if this adds credibility to them. It doesn't. Thank you however for choosing to add to the debate this time by digging up evidence as opposed to simply relying on your feelings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    "to add to the debate this time"

    And this is why I don't often bother with you riddler.

    I never rely on just my feelings. The article I linked to is an example I decided this time to give you, although normally I think you not worth the time or effort.

    As for we, all I had to do was look at many reactions to some of your other posts on other topics.

    The OP's article is good news for Texas. They could use the money.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 2:35 PM GMT
    meninlove said "to add to the debate this time"

    And this is why I don't often bother with you riddler.

    I never rely on just my feelings. The article I linked to is an example I decided this time to give you, although normally I think you not worth the time or effort.

    As for we, all I had to do was look at many reactions to some of your other posts on other topics.

    The OP's article is good news for Texas. They could use the money.




    I'm sorry if you take issue with your own profound lack of skepticism on a variety of issues. The reason I place little value on your opinions when it comes to substantive issues is not only because of this, but because it goes further in what boils down to weak emotionally charged logic. As I've noted, I think you give perfectly sound and good personal advice.

    I'm glad you are at least taking responsibility for your own opinions this time rather than relying on your royal "we" particularly given your own previous postings.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 2:46 PM GMT
    "The reason I place little value on your opinions when it comes to substantive issues.."

    Yet it was me you addressed directly. icon_rolleyes.gif

    As well, all I stated was that it was good to see Texas and the federal gov't being aware of their water. Did I say they should pass regulations?
    Nope.
    Did I say anything like 'oh no, the water is going to poison people!'
    Nope again.

    However, I saw a VERY reasonable post that I quite agree with after mine which said,

    "Those mother frackers will get this figured out and do this safely."

    At this time I'm tired of taking your bait, so good day.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 30, 2011 2:57 PM GMT
    meninlove said "The reason I place little value on your opinions when it comes to substantive issues.."

    Yet it was me you addressed directly. icon_rolleyes.gif

    As well, all I stated was that it was good to see Texas and the federal gov't being aware of their water. Did I say they should pass regulations?
    Nope.
    Did I say anything like 'oh no, the water is going to poison people!'
    Nope again.

    However, I saw a VERY reasonable post that I quite agree with after mine which said,

    "Those mother frackers will get this figured out and do this safely."

    At this time I'm tired of taking your bait, so good day.



    You seem to enjoy clouding the issues. Yes, I did respond to your comment - with evidence to the contrary and pointing out that unlike other claims in the article, it was not substantiated, which was not directed at you personally. You however responded with a personal attack. Again, I hesitate to criticize you in this case as it is one of the few times you've actually chosen to post evidence/facts rather than rely on your feelings but I do thank you for it. I do hope you have a good day.