And no, that's not liquid methane coming out of that faucet.
I'd have posted a picture of Barack Obama throwing a profanity-laced temper tantrum preparatory to garroting Gina McCarthy, but I'm frankly even more amazed that she, and he, let this study report go public at all:
The Environmental Protection Agency’s long-awaited report on fracking dismayed liberal green groups Thursday while pleasing the oil and gas industry — the latest episode in both sides’ fraught relationship with Barack Obama.
The study, more than four years in the making, said the EPA has found no signs of “widespread, systemic” drinking water pollution from hydraulic fracturing. That conclusion dramatically runs afoul of one of the great green crusades....
i.e. Hoaxes.
....of the past half-decade, which has portrayed the oil- and gas-extraction technique as a creator of fouled drinking water wells and flame-shooting faucets.
No, really....
I wonder what the special effects budget was for this crockumentary. Because, you see, it wasn't enough to shriek about "fouled drinking water"; greenstremists needed a far more spectacular lie than just brown stuff coming out of your hoses and showerheads. They needed towering pyres of flame that would immolate American men, women, and children in their very own homes across the country, that would look like grounded fireflies from space....
In the understated tone of Loki in Avengers I after he lured Thor into the Hulk chamber, "Are you ever not going to ludicrously exaggerate?"
Thursday’s congressionally-mandated EPA report, a compilation of past studies, found isolated incidents in which water pollution was attributable to the use of fracking. But it failed to back up the idea that fracking poses a major threat to water supplies, contradicting years of [extremi]sts’ warnings dramatized by images of burning tap water in the Oscar-nominated documentary “Gasland.”
Now, is there zero risk of contaminated drinking water from fracking? No. But then there's not zero risk of contaminated drinking water without fracking, either. When people live above shallow methane deposits below-ground, it's kind of difficult not to drill multiple water wells and not get one that has natural gas leaking into it.
And that illustrates the general point that leftwingnuts of all stripes don't want us to know, because it would destroy their "the state can create heaven on Earth if you people would only give up all your liberties and guns and money" narrative (which helps explain why the New York Times embargoed this story in today's edition): There is no such thing as a risk-free life. For anyone. You can be the most careful person who ever lived - as I strive to be, living by the motto, "Stop; think; lift" - but sooner or later, something is going to get you. Accidents happen. Mistakes are made. Human error cannot be completely eliminated. And sometimes disasters befall us through sheer random chance. Just ask the mythical dinosaurs.
It's a dangerous world. Has been ever since sin's curse fell upon nature. And there's nothing we can do about it until Christ returns.
But we can minimize risks and dangers in reasonable balance with other aspects of life. It's called "cost-benefit analysis". Part of the scientific method. Which is what this grudging EPA study, astonishingly, exemplifies, as well as illustrating the truth about greenstremists: They are not reasonable. And they are, of course, hysterical, pathological liars, because that's what their extremist narrative demands of them.
And, sure enough, right on schedule:
“This study’s main finding flies in the face of fracking’s dangerous reality,” Rachel Richardson, director of Environment America’s Stop Drilling program, [angrily insisted] in a statement. “The fact is, dirty drilling has caused documented, widespread water contamination across the country.”
I guess you could call that "clean fracking denial".
My advice to Miss Richardson? Chill out with a nice, tall, frosty glass of fracked water.
Or go frack yourself. Your choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment