The False Claims Against Fracking: Who And What Is Behind Them

The highly successful process of hydraulic fracturing of subsurface rocks to increase the production of oil and gas has been used for at least 50 years with few problems.  Now it is suddenly being demonized.  One might wonder why.  The following article offers a few clues.

Is this political and not scientific?  Of course.  That is par for the course from the liberal or ironically-named "progressive" side of the political spectrum.  It is sad that more people cannot see through the charade represented by activities like Al Gore's global warming crusade.  It also makes one wonder what our young people are being taught in school that allows them to be so easily fooled and manipulated.
Peter



January 12, 2012

Scientists Discover Gassy Liberal Pseudo-Science

By John Ransom

source:
 http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2012/01/12/scientists_discover_gassy_liberal_pseudoscience
1/12/2012
The science portal New Scientist reported yesterday that the much-publicized risks involved in the natural gas recovery method of “fracking” have been exaggerated according to British geologists.



“Frack away, there's no reason not to,” writes New Scientist. “Two of the main objections to ‘fracking’”- [earthquakes and well-water contamination] - “have been blown out of proportion, according to British geologists… ‘We think the risk is pretty low,’ said Mike Stephenson, head of energy science at the British Geological Survey at a press briefing in London on Tuesday.”



Fracking involves boring into shale deposits with water, chemicals and particulates in order to open seams to allow the escape of natural gas, oil and other fossil gases for recovery as fuel. Huge new reserves of energy have been found in the US over the last decade that can only be recovered by fracking. These reserves have the potential to supply hundreds of years of energy for the US, meaning the country can import less energy from foreign sources, even if domestic sources are only partially developed. The discovery is a threat to liberals because it could upset the bedrock liberal scam that we have to ration everything, including energy.



As conservative George Will noted at the beginning of the year:



Because progressivism exists to justify a few people bossing around most people and because progressives believe that only government’s energy should flow unimpeded, they crave energy scarcities as an excuse for rationing — by them — that produces ever-more-minute government supervision of Americans’ behavior.



Accordingly, liberals have been pushing for a ban on fracking, also called hydraulic fracturing, because of supposed health and environmental risks the method poses. Those risks have been widely hyped via the liberals’ new scientific peer-reviewed media of the docu-drama.



Following the stunning success of Al Gore’s fictional docu-drama, An Inconvenient Truth, a movie about- gasp!- GLOBAL WARMING, a film that relied more on hyperbole than on hypothesis- one science site counted 35 scientific errors in the film before they got through the opening credits- liberals have made a cottage industry of creating pseudo-science through the media magic of the docu-drama.



Peer-review for such efforts have widely consisted of 1) Approval by the Nobel Committee, which is controlled by the Labour and Socialist parties of Norway (really) and; 2) Glowing reviews by the New York Times, which publication is probably way too conservative for the Labour and Socialist parties of Norway.



One such film is Gasland, an expose that uses pyrotechnic effects to “prove” that fracking is turning water into fire around the country. The film, created by Josh Fox, an actor who the New York Times called "one of the most adventurous impresarios of the New York avant-garde," is an avant-garde and adventurous look at the science behind hydraulic fracturing- that is, if you translate avant-garde as “completely fictionalized.”



Liberals don’t think it’s necessary to have scientists investigate the claims made in Gasland, especially when they can "prove" the claims by movie magic created by a celebrated actor, playing a pseudo-scientist-slash-activist who is supported in part by “five grants from the National Endowment for the Arts” and enjoys support from the nephew of George Soros. Really.



Speaking scientifically, that's really impressive. Who needs scientists when you have "brilliantly resourceful mastery of stagecraft" that Josh Fox brings and the popcorn is paid for by taxpayers? Science no longer represents the quest for truth, but only what you con someone into believing. Then all you have to do is manipulate data until you get the result you want.



Well apparently, at least New Scientist still has room for, um, old-fashioned science that relies on objective data.



The idea that fracked methane leaks into drinking water was popularised by the documentary film Gasland, in which a resident of Pennsylvania sets his tap water alight. On Tuesday, Stephenson said he could not comment on this specific case, but that such contamination is unlikely.



Peer-reviewed research on methane contamination is scarce but what little there is suggests fracking is not to blame.



The publication also points out that earthquakes that have been blamed on fracking have been exaggerated.



While earthquakes have happened as a result of fracking, they have been no different than similar temblors caused by- gasp!- COAL MINING. Remember: COAL MINING has been linked to GLOBAL WARMING by ALGORE in a peer-reviewed movie.



Still, the settled science on fracking has not stopped states from banning fracking or investigating the banning of fracking. Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey recently pushed through a ban on fracking in the state of New Jersey. Ohio and New York banned fracking as well. Municipalities in Colorado have asked the state to allow them to ban fracking locally since the state is likely to allow fracking to continue. The docu-drama that currently masquerades as the country of France has also banned fracking.



Instead they prefer to import oil from Libya.



The 30,000 killed, 20,000 wounded in Libya, I guess, is a better price to pay than acknowledging the flaws in the scientific non-science from the left presented on TV, at the theater and in the news.



It may not be true, but it sure is brilliantly resourceful stagecraft.



For liberals who have oh'ed and aw'ed at the Styrofoam columns that have held up Obama's presidency, truth isn't wanted, only stagecraft.



John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.