Fracking and Brewers

This might be my first time seeing an 'argumentum ad bank account'

No, that comes from peer-reviewed scientific literature: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

 

My friend in PA sold of some of his land to frackers. He made a ton of money. Now all the great mountain water that use to come out of his faucets is unusable.

It's hilarious people thinking fracking is safe. How about letting them frack in your backyard then?

 

I would refer you to the recent revelations on how the warnings about fat and cholesterol are being revised. Seems the "consensus" has been wrong since WWII based on faulty research done with pre-conceived conclusions, agenda-driven research and "common knowledge" passed on without criticism. It doesn't take an advanced degree to know how often over the long history of science that "consensus" has been mistaken.

 

Interesting. I interpreted his comment to be a claim to having expertise not shared by us "ordinary" folks and access to "meaningful" information unavailable to the rest of us.

 

It doesn't take a degree in philosophy to know that the solution isn't to declare that all knowledge is pointless and believe whatever you want to. Yes, a consensus can be wrong. More often than not though, they're right.

 

Ok, then how many times has it been wrong? And how does that number compare with the number of times its been right?

 

No mining or drilling operation is "safe." In fact, no industrial process (including beer brewing) is "safe." Driving to work every day isn't "safe." Anecdotal stories are not evidence, either. There are bad actors in every walk of life, including drilling and brewing. It is easy to demonize. Actually addressing the real problems is more difficult and requires more work than your typical tweeting band-wagon "activist" is willing to invest.

 

This is the problem. I think it's certainly possible to frack safely. The concern is what happens in situations when "fracking safely" and "fracking cheaply" are at odds with one another.

 

True though the consensus at one time was for a flat Earth. The big question is who are involved in the consensus? Ask a bevy of bishops or imams - the religious "experts" whether God exists or climatologists whether man made global warming is a fact and you have to throw into the balance where these people come from.They went into their careers because they are believers and their livelihood depends upon what they believe in being correct.

 

And yet you're relying on scientists' consensus to refute a previous consensus....

Point being, we believe in or refute science when it's convenient for our value system.

Regardless of our beliefs, truth still exists and finding that truth takes a scientific method that some objective researchers can adhere to.

 

This argument is only ever applied by people who don't like the particular scientific conclusion they're challenging. The anti-global warming crowd does it, and the anti-vaccine crowd makes the exact same argument. "Of course they say vaccines work and don't cause autism, they need you to buy them!" No one ever accuses astronomers of lying about Mars so they can get funding.

Besides, if you want to make money off global-warming, the easy way is to deny it. The fossil-fuel lobby has way more money than the NSF. How much free travel does Monckton get to speak?

 

Care to offer some proof rather than the tired eco-line about the fossil-fuel lobby? Do you know who Tom Steyer is?

The US gov't alone has spent billions on it. http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

Plenty of people on both sides are in it to make money.

 

Careful, guys... the last global warming thread got vacated.

 

Do you know who Joseph Bast is? He's a college dropout paid a lot of money to tell people that climate change is a hoax and that cigarettes aren't bad for you.

More importantly, I'm not the one who made the "follow the money" argument, I just think that it's inconsistent and ridiculous to accuse a particular branch of scientists of lying for decades just to continue getting grant funding. What makes you think climatologists do that while other fields of science do not?

What people are really saying when they make this argument is that you can't trust any scientist who feels that their field is valid. In effect, the only valid conclusion a scientist can make is "My field is bogus and you need to cut my funding." Any other conclusion is ideologically motivated. Ludicrous.

 

Do you know who Al Gore is? Getting rich off of green investments and telling others to use less energy while flying around in a jet and living in a huge mansion. Again, both sides are guilty.

Never claimed they do or don't so I'm not sure why you're asking me. Could it be that if their theory is found not to be true and their isn't any real problem, then they're funding is cut dramatically? I don't know if there are other areas of science where that could also be the case or not, that's just something that came to mind.

Again, just pointing out that there is plenty of money on both sides whereas the original post of yours that I quoted was all one-sided regarding motivation and money and I'm disagreeing with that.

 

I'd like to hear what you believe the chances are that fracking could contaminate the local drinking water, and if you believe that contaminated water can be reasonably cleaned in a treatment plant.

I'm also interested in hearing what any Illinois brewers (particularly from the southern part of the state) have to say about the Illinois Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act signed by Gov. Quinn last year.

 

Some might be interested in a recent Econtalk podcast on fracking: Link.

 

Not a climate scientist? Is there a variation of Godwin's Law for Gore popping up in global warming arguments? Edit: yes, there is.

I was literally saying the same in response to someone else who argued that climatologists have a financial incentive to accept climate change. I agree there is money on both sides, but arguing that scientists can't be trusted to be impartial simply because their work is funded is insane.

 

My educational background is geology and I test dozens of groundwater monitoring wells everyday at a large environmental lab. Sometimes there is very nasty stuff caused by local geology, sometimes by man.