- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up


2 bedroom, 2 bath


4 bedroom, 7 bath

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

Comment history

The question remains


Here is what I am talking about; you and the other leftists environmental whackos claim that if shale development is allowed to continue, using the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, there will be (or has been)wide spread pollution of our land, water and air. That this pollution will (or has) caused serious health problems for people. That is all fear mongering, there is no fact to support your whacko claims.

The fact is that there have been over 50,000 shale wells drilled and completed in the U.S.. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing was used on each one of them. Yet there has not been any wide spread pollution of the water, land or air. Nor have there been any wide spread health problems, in fact there haven't been any health problems.

The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling !

Sorry Chicken Little, it just isn't so and the facts prove it.

April 19, 2014 at 11:28 a.m. suggest removal

The question remains


I would glad to take the lie detector.
I have substantiated all of my posts with factual information. Whereas, you and your cohort rely on rumors and bad science.

You should consider that i have been able to refute/debunk the info you post. On the other hand you have never been able to do the same with the info I post. Instead you resort to personal attacks like your last post.

April 19, 2014 at 11:15 a.m. suggest removal

The question remains


Yes it is true, I am predictable. You can always count on me to present reasoned, logical, fact based information.

And I can pay you, and 76, the same compliment of being predictable. You always present, rumor, hyperbole, misinformation and rhetoric, never any facts.

April 16, 2014 at 8:15 a.m. suggest removal

The question remains

I must admit that you never cease to amaze.
thinkprogress, dcbureau ? Two well known leftisr webs sites and squarely on the side of the anti-fossil fuel crowd. Hardly credible. All you have to do is read each article and see who the authors hold up as icons, for example the continually discredited Dr.Ingraffea along with his completely debunked paper with Dr. Howarth.

Then there is the old story misusing the profits of oil and gas companies. What is never reported is the percentage of profit. The reason this is never reported is the dishonesty of the authors. Actual percentage of profit ranks low when compared to other corporations, aproximately 7%.vs 12 and more.

Of course neither article mentions the funding to schools from anti-fossil fuel foundations etc. Not to mention the billions of tax payer dollars wasted on grants for alternative energy.

Hypocrisy thy name is 76, or ABC.

April 15, 2014 at 9:50 a.m. suggest removal

The question remains

The corruption runs far deeper on your side of the discussion. Please read the following article:
The hypocrisy runs deep on the anti side.

April 14, 2014 at 10:47 p.m. suggest removal

The question remains

Here is a headline I believe that you agree with:
Birth Defects Result of Fracking.
Yet the study cited in this article (Colorado School of Public Health) never, ever says this. Only sensational headlines have ever made that claim. Yet people such as yourself continue to use sensational headlines such as these to make your twisted, misinformed claims.

April 14, 2014 at 7:09 p.m. suggest removal

The question remains


You described the conduct of yourself and ABC perfectly, except for the last item. It should read:
When all else fails "deny" you are a liberal.

April 14, 2014 at 6:42 p.m. suggest removal

The question remains

All of the claims made by thee geologists, doctors, and scientists which you have cited have been debunked and shown to be bogus. Most of these people have been shown to be connected in one way or another with anti oil and gas environmental groups. Further, many of those people which you cite receive funding, through grants, from those same groups and organizations. But of course their work isn't biased at all. Yeah right !
And before you go into one of your tirades about anyone who disagrees with being on the take from the oil and gas companies, I suggest that you do some research and read what the Colorado Dept of Health has to say about the bogus study 76 keeps citing. Or are they on the take too?

See how Chicken Little that sounds ?
Everyone's on the take, Everyone's on the take !

April 13, 2014 at 8:49 p.m. suggest removal

The question remains


You are sad, and your reading comprehension still hasn't improved. Your quote about a "casual link" actually strengthens my point, McKenzie may have said that but the study does not back up the claim. And remember, she also said this "...that the study doesn't definitively prove that natural gas development causes anything...", and she is the lead author.
This discussion is not about an ad campaign, it's about science, and that science comes down on my side of the discussion. Even actual results are on my side, almost 60,000 shale wells horizontally drilled and hydraulically fractured without any of the chicken little claims which you make.
Your style of presenting information is sad, cherry picking, cut and paste, take out of context information which supports your unfounded, delusional point of view. All the while ignoring information from the same sources which completely debunks that perverted view.
What about the landfills nearby, or the industrial complexes in the areas where the women lived, or the fact that most of the women lived in urban areas where automobile exhaust is heavy ? Interesting how the researchers didn't research any other source of toxins and included only one industry in the study. Could it be that their study was biased, with a pre-conceived conclusion ?

Consider this from the Colorado Dept of Health, this is only one of a dozen reasons it gave for dismissing the study;
"... the authors cite nearly three pages of limitations to their findings (pages 14-16). And, the findings showed only association, not causation, and the statistical differences in birth defects were miniscule."
"...only association..." in other words they only showed the association between where the women lived and the proximity of the wells, they never connected the wells to the women or the birth defects. To give you an example of how shoddy this work is allow me this association, within 10 miles of where the women lived were grocery stores, pharmacy's, ice cream parlors, fast food places, malls etc. etc. By the standards set by the authors of this study we could conclude there was an association with the establishments I just listed.

April 13, 2014 at 8:43 p.m. suggest removal

The question remains


Finally something upon which we agree; anyone who does not enjoy the discussion does not have to read it.

April 13, 2014 at 8:16 p.m. suggest removal



HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport