OT: Fracking banned in NY State

[gdw]

My point is simple, often times the people working at agencies such as the USGS have agendas and reports such as this one should be viewed with healthy skepticism.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by gdw

My point is simple, often times the people working at agencies such as the USGS have agendas and reports such as this one should be viewed with healthy skepticism.

Ah! OK, gotcha. So it is not nihilism that you're suggesting per se but a merely simple conspiracy.

I am just joshing with you gdw, I'm not some crazed anti-something running around with my hair on fire because I have a scintilla of data to base my beliefs on. Kinda like how the anti-nukes & coal industry made mileage with Three Mile Island while completely ignoring the country of France. More facts will surface and we shall see.

What happens in Bakken Field stays in Bakken Field.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by gdw

My point is simple, often times the people working at agencies such as the USGS have agendas and reports such as this one should be viewed with healthy skepticism.

Tell that to the people who's lives have been shaken by this on a regular basis.

If you have real data to disprove the science let's hear it. Otherwise, saying that you don't believe the other side isn't very convincing.

[gdw]

"If you have real data to disprove the science let's hear it. Otherwise, saying that you don't believe the other side isn't very convincing."

Easy big guy. I haven't taken a side here. The report could be accurate or it could be influenced by the other factors. Do you accept everything you read at face value?

[Steelman]

You want real science? Too lazy, but can offer this:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/be...cret-agent-can

[Louis]

Let's not forget about those getting their medical science from Dr. Oz. He's almost as trustworthy as the Wizard:

[OtayBW]

The upshot of the report as I read it at first glance, is that the USGS has documented a greater frequency of seismic activity in the area. I don't know that the evidence is yet compelling that it is fracking-related. Correlation does not compel causation.

[gdw]

"So you doubt that there is increased seismic activity in OK?"

Where did I write that?

"I wonder why you were so fast at commenting that the USGS has an agenda. What do you think their agenda is? One of the missions of the USGS is to minimize loss of life and property. They are on your side, trust me, as a geologist who worked for a huge energy company I know."

I'm not claiming the report is wrong but having worked with government agencies for over 30 years, including the USGS, one learns to not blindly accept some of their findings. You can interpret that as you like.

[Shortsocks]

As of two days ago, Scientists in Dallas & Oklahoma have pretty much all agreed that All of these Earthquakes we have been having in Texas Have been due to Fracking and drilling. Which is scary because we never had Earthquakes of this magnitude before. On top of that The County of Denton voted to Ban all fracking in the county and The Texas Congress is passing House bill 40 which can side track any municipal/county banning of fracking.

Which is not cool IMO.

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by Shortsocks

As of two days ago, Scientists in Dallas & Oklahoma have pretty much all agreed that All of these Earthquakes we have been having in Texas Have been due to Fracking and drilling.

What - did they all get together at the VFW and resolve this over beer and pretzels?

[redir]

Originally Posted by gdw

My point is simple, often times the people working at agencies such as the USGS have agendas and reports such as this one should be viewed with healthy skepticism.

So you doubt that there is increased seismic activity in OK?

All science should be treated with skepticism, that's how science works but in today's political climate there are most certainly those with an agenda that is anti science and if you follow the money on that you can easily figure out why. USGS scientists are not getting rich by publishing papers that oil companies are responsible for environmental issues.

I wonder why you were so fast at commenting that the USGS has an agenda. What do you think their agenda is? One of the missions of the USGS is to minimize loss of life and property. They are on your side, trust me, as a geologist who worked for a huge energy company I know.

[Dead Man]

Nuclear energy FTW

It's the future - no getting around it

[Likes2ridefar]

Originally Posted by The B

Nuclear energy FTW

It's the future - no getting around it

i dont necessarily disagree but what about that big thing in the sky or an undiscovered technology or that stuff that makes it really hard to ride a bicycle sometimes?

sun and wind make a whole lot more sense to me than something that is quite capable of destroying the world.

[fa63]

Originally Posted by Likes2ridefar

i dont necessarily disagree but what about that big thing in the sky or an undiscovered technology or that stuff that makes it really hard to ride a bicycle sometimes?

sun and wind make a whole lot more sense to me than something that is quite capable of destroying the world.

Problem with sun and wind is that they are intermittent, so they are not a good way to provide base load, at least not until we come up with an economic way to store energy.

That said, I feel that we will get there sooner than later, probably by the time the extensions for the operating licenses of the current nuclear fleet run out (in 20 years or so).

[Rueda Tropical]

Kurzweil has been pretty on the mark with predictions he made 20 years ago. He is now Google's Director of Engineering.

Ray Kurzweil:

Today, solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, and in most situations it still needs subsidies or special circumstances, but the costs are coming down rapidly — we are only a few years away from parity. And then it’s going to keep coming down, and people will be gravitating towards solar, even if they don’t care at all about the environment, because of the economics.

So right now it’s at half a percent of the world’s energy. People tend to dismiss technologies when they are half a percent of the solution. But doubling every two years means it’s only eight more doublings before it meets a hundred percent of the world’s energy needs. So that’s 16 years. We will increase our use of electricity during that period, so add another couple of doublings: In 20 years we’ll be meeting all of our energy needs with solar, based on this trend which has already been under way for 20 years.