Mike Jackson, the point I think is that before fracking started the water of the families shown was not burnable. Afterwards it was. Three cases were discussed with water troubles in Colorado after fracking. One family moved away, one collects water from the local store, the third is supplied with water by the gas company and signed a gagging order preventing them from talking about it. Why would the gas company do that? Doesn't that make you a little suspicious?

So Mike Jackson hasn't watched it. Have you, Nial and Diogenes, actually watched the film?

bitty as usual evades the crux....

HAVE YOU, BITBUCKET, EVER ATTEMPTED TO SET LIGHT TO YOUR WATER?

Bittytwatty

I watched it and found it risible. I simply did not believe it. I wanted to take the negative and examine it for signs of "greenpeace" cutting.

Did you suck up the film as a piece of "analysis" ? lmao

Diogenes, I bet you were searching for the <coloured crayon> tag

Shub, I made no mention of windmills. Maybe you didn't read the thread. Diogenes was asking for advice on slagging off a film he hadn't seen but considered 'absurd'. Others, some of whom probably also hadn't seen it, were glad to help. It is a bit like religious people trying to ban films they haven't seen (remember 'Life of Brian'?).

As I said to Martin earlier in the thread, if you want me to leave, add your name to the list (politely, mind).

BTW your http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-tipping-point-the-non-linear-response-the-precautionary which showed up on my reader is still a 404. I was looking forward to reading that...

I have not idea why anyone engages with little bucker. He is amazingly ignorant, I cannot remember a troll with so little knowledge across such a wide number of everyday topics. I am asking him to leave, because he's a content free nuisance, who doesn't come near to challenging any of the ideas put forward on this, or any other thread.

As a long time apologist for you BB, I have to say your recent petulant outbursts do not become you. I would prefer you to leave off too, if truth be told. If that means leaving, then that is what you should do.

the gift that keeps on giving....so BBucker is a proper sceptic because he has a visceral dislike of "fossil fuel" companies, the poor thing.

meanwhile the evidence against Josh Fox keeps building...

http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/parker-county/

http://www.energyindepth.org/tag/josh-fox/

and here is a lovely little quote about his new follow-up film:

Sure, the sequel has some new cast members and a few new claims. Somehow, Fox discovers that shale is actually worse than he previously thought: Earthquakes. Methane leaks. Well failures. Hurricanes. Heck, viewers were probably waiting for swarms of locusts to appear – fracking locusts, to be sure.

And there was plenty of spectacle, too. Yoko Ono was in the audience. So was former Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), the congressman who lent his name to the infamous “FRAC Act” that Josh so desperately wants to become law. After the movie, they joined him on stage, along with the Lipskys, John Fenton, Calvin Tillman, and the rest of the “cast.”

But the emotion-filled remarks afterwards – including a plea to push for Mark Jacobson’s “100% renewables” plan as the way to stop natural gas development – were also the perfect bookend to a movement that was always based on sensationalism over substance (Jacobson’s plan is, quite simply, pure fairy tale). The call to action was more of a cry of desperation (“Please, keep us relevant!”) by a filmmaker, and indeed an entire ideology, whose time has come and gone. As an early review of the film puts it, Gasland Part II “runs longer than the earlier installment, but ultimately it has less to say.”

So, beyond the bigger picture about the waning credibility of the anti-fracking movement, what was in Gasland Part II? Where did Fox travel, and with whom did he speak? Given that issues relating to Dimock have been explained ad nauseum over the past several years, we won’t go into detail explaining why opponents’ claims about that town are untrue. If you want the real story about Dimock, please go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Similarly, the Lipsky case in Parker County, Tex., has been in the news for years, and most of it deals with fraud on the part of local activists, who strategized for months on how to deceive the public and get the EPA involved. The EPA dropped its case, too – not because of election year politics or industry pressure (as Fox alleges), but because real scientific evidence disproved any link between natural gas development and the methane in the Lipsky water well. In fact, most of what Fox tried to spin out of the case paralleled what several media outlets previously tried to manufacture as a story line, and each one has been completely debunked. It’s unclear why Fox would rest his laurels so heavily on a case that the public has moved past, but when you’re desperate to remain relevant, you often have to grasp at straws.

well, well...

maybe Josh Fox is not such a nice guy after all...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/rewarded_for_breast_cancer_lies_puodzJYB8jYGz9PXkoOjNL

another interesting article:

http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2012/06/23/gaslands-josh-fox-cant-be-bothered-with-facts/

and in this debate, Mr Fox does come across as something of an imbecile. His style of argument is eerily reminiscent of the Bucket

http://branch.com/b/fracking

diogenes, here's another you can add to your collection.

http://cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf

I would also like BB to include my name on the list.

BB: Yes, I dislike FF companies because of the harm they do, but let's not get into that.

BB - I am curious (if you are still here); how consistent are your actions with your free-floating 'dislike' of FF companies? Do you use their products, directly or indirectly: transport, plastics, imported goods, imported foods, etc? If so, why?

Dcardno, consistent? I said I dislike them. I don't begrudge them their existence or find their products unnecessary. I look at it in the same way I look at cigarette companies. I decided long ago that they are necessary. I don't smoke and hate it when I have to breath others' smoke. And yet I also believe people should be able to do what they want and that trying to prevent them from doing so leads to greater harm. In that vein I believe that taking drugs should be legal, regulated and taxed - and the health problems that arise treated as health issues, not criminalised. For that to happen, someone has to be able to sell the drugs and the obvious parallel is cigarette companies. Hence I cannot object to such companies.

In both cases, the companies involved should operate according to the law and should not behave in ways that we in the West would not allow when operating in foreign, often poor, lands. That means not distorting and lying about the health effects of products, not selling fags to minors, not polluting the land and the air in the production of products (clearly in both cases that is impossible to avoid in use), not engaging in corrupt practices and in participating in the destabilisation of governments or societies, etc.

one wonders what BB knows about refining rare earth metals in order to manufacture the magnets that are integral to the windmills he loves so much. The environmental footprint of refining rare earths versus fracking......Josh Fox and BB know the answers but they probably do not know the questions.

On the whole I think it's a pity he's gone, there's a risk that BH will turn turn into a self affirming clique.

On the other hand comparing fossil fuel companies with cigarette companies......?

And I did wonder what his motivation on here was, he seemed increasingly here for an argument rather than debate.

You never know, he might see the light (of the engineering practicalities of some of what he's proposing) and return.

Mike

off-topic ;)

The people who comment at BH are ver varied in political beliefs and scientific knowledge. It is far from a homogeneous grouping, despite what alarmists might think. IMy points of similarity with you, Philip Bratby, Martin Brumby, AlecM, Richard "Wattis" Drake, geronimo etc are minuscule. But I will be glad to see the back of irritating f---tards such as BBD and Bitty, who bring nothing to the debate apart from endless negativity and denial.