Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 9, 2011 at 18:53

essay, 

.

I think Sesport is saying that if we are going to ignore research from the EPA because it does not fit what we want to believe then will we also ignore research from the James Baker Institute at Rice University.

.

It's a very valid point - we all are prone to disregard reports that run counter to our existing opinions. It's human nature and not one of our better traits either. The Herd Instinct.

.

Sesport, how did you come to select this article?

-- Hopeful

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 1, 2011 at 21:14

This gets more interesting ... the study was done by Penn State for the Center for Rural Development.  It is a policy proposing organization set up by the State of Pennsylvania legislature.  The purpose of the study was to make policy recommendations to the legislature.

http://www.rural.palegislature.us/

http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_d...

Sorry, if I sound cynical. A long day. But, how on earth does a team make the error of saying that seven wells tested badly when only one really did???  Maybe someone who knows more about this stuff than I do could read over this study and see what it really says? 

Maybe it does not have much impact on the results or how they are interpreted - still, those original news reports that said wells tested contaminated.  You can't get that back now that people have read it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on December 2, 2011 at 0:43

I agree HANG,

The HEADLINES are out there. That seems to be a tactic that is used more and more by an opposition group now. Who ever published this with the error should not be allowed to publish again. Oh, I almost forgot this is freedom of speech and it does not matter if its correct or not. This is how corrupt science is today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on December 2, 2011 at 10:23

this is how it works, folks.  big splash on the headlines for the LIE and either nothing at all or a tiny print correction on page 67.  "public opinion" is made of such.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on December 7, 2011 at 2:11

you just really want me to keep posting don't you?  frankly, you're boring me to tears, i'm not here to play word games with you.

let us take the example of media matters, or perhaps think progress, two of your favorite web sites.  they ran with the penn state story with the bit in their teeth, as i recall.  has there been a peep out of them about the subject now that we know the findings were faulty?

i think we both know the answer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on December 5, 2011 at 14:04

"Whitewashing rat turds and selling them for rice". Where is Jack Blake when we need him to make the cry from the mountan top.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 5, 2011 at 16:27

I have also wondered where Jack Black is. I miss his howls!!!!!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page