5 ms·

Who can we trust to tell us the answer? http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/25/climate_deniers_exposed_top_scientist_got http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/25/c

by ptaffs 12y ago

Who can we trust to tell us the answer? http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/25/climate_deniers_exposed_top_scientist_got http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/25/climate_deniers_expose...

jeremyt 12y ago
Instead of ad-hominem, why don't you point out the flaws in his paper?
- clsec 12y ago
  The study only covers methane leakage and says nothing of the chemical slurries used nor the groundwater/aquifer leakage of said slurries. IMO, the Ars article is reverse FUD.
  - briandear 12y ago
    The whole global warming hysteria is FUD.
    - rmxt 12y ago
      >The whole global warming hysteria is FUD. Where does global warming come into play with respect to the GP post or the submitted article at all? Though the topics are closely related, the submitted article isn't attempting to spread ideas about anthropogenic climate change. You're attempting to rally the troops to fight an "enemy" or "hysteria" that isn't present in this discussion. Aside from any concerns about climate change, there are perfectly valid issues to be raised about the impacts of chemical slurries on freshwater supplies -- issues that you've completely disregarded in your haste to dismiss climate change. Following the money trail, like the head comment in this thread suggested, seems to be a valid line of thinking both ways, whether it leads to Gore or a Koch. EDIT: The one mention in the Ars' article that touches upon climate change is merely a mention of methane as a "greenhouse gas." If that gets you riled up, then maybe taking it down a notch would be more conducive to discussion.
      - jeremyt 12y ago
        Well, then you didn't read the whole article. The whole last paragraph is about methane's contribution to greenhouse gases and its effect on fossil fuel policy. Seriously, if it wasn't for the greenhouse impact and its connection to climate policy, what would be the point of the article...or the paper?
- ptaffs 12y ago
  The ars piece opens with "How leaky is shale gas production? Good news—fracking's probably not as leaky as earlier studies suggested.", it continues without much analysis, and my weariness is that it doesn't really address that these studies and findings and reports are very hard to trust on face (or any) value as this topic or industry has a history of funding convenient research and, as with this ars piece, reproduction of the reports as news headlines. I would like to know whether fracking is bad. I'm old enough to remember being told in the 70s that oil would soon run out. Both the 70s and the deadline have passed and now there's so much fossil fuel it's a danger and we should not have the Keystone pipeline because we'll never survive the carbon release. The 70s also bought us the forecast of another ice-age, with hindsight we should take it all with a pinch of salt, but instead we brand each other science deniers or otherwise.
briandear 12y ago
Any time an article headline is "climate deniers.." Then immediately the rest of the article is suspect. Even the attempt at objectivness is absent. In terms of that article, where's the investigation into Al Gore becoming a billionaire from this issue? Are his scientists somehow less influenced by money? Al Gore has been debunked on numerous occasions; weren't the ice caps supposed to have disappeared? Over 5 years ago he made that claim but they're still there. Al Gore has almost godlike status among the global warming crowd yet he flies in private jets with motorcades and has a massive mansion. If he was so worried, why has he done nothing to curb his own carbon use? It's hypocricy at its absurdest.
- daeken 12y ago
  > where's the investigation into Al Gore becoming a billionaire from this issue? Reports put him at between $200-300M. Pretty far cry from billionaire. > Al Gore has been debunked on numerous occasions; weren't the ice caps supposed to have disappeared? Over 5 years ago he made that claim but they're still there. Al Gore has almost godlike status among the global warming crowd yet he flies in private jets with motorcades and has a massive mansion. If he was so worried, why has he done nothing to curb his own carbon use? This whole paragraph is nonsense. Why does Al Gore (a non-scientist) matter in this discussion at all? An Inconvenient Truth was propaganda. It just happens to be propaganda for a side that's backed by the evidence and nearly every climate scientist in the world (the so-called "global warming crowd"). If you want to show research debunking the currently-accepted research, then go for it. Otherwise, this is completely worthless; you're just fighting a celebrity, not the science.
- mikerichards 12y ago
  It's creepy how the global warming crowd uses the term "denier", and that some of them have called for the death penalty for "deniers". Sometimes the mask slips though from what their real political agenda is. Here's some quotes. Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

by ptaffs 12y ago

Who can we trust to tell us the answer? http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/25/climate_deniers_exposed_top_scientist_got http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/25/climate_deniers_expose...

jeremyt 12y ago

Instead of ad-hominem, why don't you point out the flaws in his paper?

clsec 12y ago
The study only covers methane leakage and says nothing of the chemical slurries used nor the groundwater/aquifer leakage of said slurries. IMO, the Ars article is reverse FUD.
- briandear 12y ago
  The whole global warming hysteria is FUD.
  - rmxt 12y ago
    >The whole global warming hysteria is FUD. Where does global warming come into play with respect to the GP post or the submitted article at all? Though the topics are closely related, the submitted article isn't attempting to spread ideas about anthropogenic climate change. You're attempting to rally the troops to fight an "enemy" or "hysteria" that isn't present in this discussion. Aside from any concerns about climate change, there are perfectly valid issues to be raised about the impacts of chemical slurries on freshwater supplies -- issues that you've completely disregarded in your haste to dismiss climate change. Following the money trail, like the head comment in this thread suggested, seems to be a valid line of thinking both ways, whether it leads to Gore or a Koch. EDIT: The one mention in the Ars' article that touches upon climate change is merely a mention of methane as a "greenhouse gas." If that gets you riled up, then maybe taking it down a notch would be more conducive to discussion.
    - jeremyt 12y ago
      Well, then you didn't read the whole article. The whole last paragraph is about methane's contribution to greenhouse gases and its effect on fossil fuel policy. Seriously, if it wasn't for the greenhouse impact and its connection to climate policy, what would be the point of the article...or the paper?
ptaffs 12y ago
The ars piece opens with "How leaky is shale gas production? Good news—fracking's probably not as leaky as earlier studies suggested.", it continues without much analysis, and my weariness is that it doesn't really address that these studies and findings and reports are very hard to trust on face (or any) value as this topic or industry has a history of funding convenient research and, as with this ars piece, reproduction of the reports as news headlines. I would like to know whether fracking is bad. I'm old enough to remember being told in the 70s that oil would soon run out. Both the 70s and the deadline have passed and now there's so much fossil fuel it's a danger and we should not have the Keystone pipeline because we'll never survive the carbon release. The 70s also bought us the forecast of another ice-age, with hindsight we should take it all with a pinch of salt, but instead we brand each other science deniers or otherwise.

briandear 12y ago

Any time an article headline is "climate deniers.." Then immediately the rest of the article is suspect. Even the attempt at objectivness is absent. In terms of that article, where's the investigation into Al Gore becoming a billionaire from this issue? Are his scientists somehow less influenced by money? Al Gore has been debunked on numerous occasions; weren't the ice caps supposed to have disappeared? Over 5 years ago he made that claim but they're still there. Al Gore has almost godlike status among the global warming crowd yet he flies in private jets with motorcades and has a massive mansion. If he was so worried, why has he done nothing to curb his own carbon use? It's hypocricy at its absurdest.

daeken 12y ago
> where's the investigation into Al Gore becoming a billionaire from this issue? Reports put him at between $200-300M. Pretty far cry from billionaire. > Al Gore has been debunked on numerous occasions; weren't the ice caps supposed to have disappeared? Over 5 years ago he made that claim but they're still there. Al Gore has almost godlike status among the global warming crowd yet he flies in private jets with motorcades and has a massive mansion. If he was so worried, why has he done nothing to curb his own carbon use? This whole paragraph is nonsense. Why does Al Gore (a non-scientist) matter in this discussion at all? An Inconvenient Truth was propaganda. It just happens to be propaganda for a side that's backed by the evidence and nearly every climate scientist in the world (the so-called "global warming crowd"). If you want to show research debunking the currently-accepted research, then go for it. Otherwise, this is completely worthless; you're just fighting a celebrity, not the science.
mikerichards 12y ago
It's creepy how the global warming crowd uses the term "denier", and that some of them have called for the death penalty for "deniers". Sometimes the mask slips though from what their real political agenda is. Here's some quotes. Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore." Quote by David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”