What the media didn't tell - a report that supported the production of oil and gas using the fracking method was funded by the energy industry

35 תגובות

1. b, b, b…

   Put some salt in a glass of water. taste. Now add a few more grains and taste again. Do you feel the difference? This is the correct analogy.

2. which:
   Even if a certain percentage of gas is very small, this does not indicate a small effect.
   There are many examples of small things that have a big impact:
   for example:
   1) An egg may weigh a few milligrams, but an elephant weighing several tons can develop from it.
   2) Try putting a few grams of salt in a glass of water and drink the water.
   The conclusion:
   It's not the quantity that matters, but the end result.
   Even if the percentage of a certain gas is very small, it can determine very big things.

3. Avner
   What are you trying to say?

4. Do you know where there is oil? Where there are narrow rock layers are natural traps that trapped the oil as it formed.
   Do you know what happens to oil that is not captured? It is released into the atmosphere. And he is the vast majority.
   By the way, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking.

   So…. that they will not work on you

5. Indeed, that's what you are - bored people who want to bully. Those who claim to know more about physics than the physicists and more about statistics than the statisticians just to prove a political thesis and do not listen to what they say really only come to harass.

6. The previous comment is mine

7. Father, arguing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel. In each of your responses it is easy to find non-sequiturs, a lot of hurling insults, an appeal to an unproven consensus and also just plain mistakes, like "carbon-that-is-sulphur" above. Mistakes happen but with you it is the usual situation and at the very least it means that you are not investing time in your writing, and indeed you see it.

   But I rested my case, I'll visit your site when I'm bored and want to abuse some "watermelon", here it's like cat and mouse!

8. which Pat
   You just boggle the mind. The effect of CO2 on the climate is not negligible. This is proven in theory and proven in results.
   Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand or is lying.
   There is nothing to discuss about this

9. Sorry, pen exhaust, of course carbon dioxide. If you repeat like a parrot the claim that because the amount of gas (CO2) is small in the atmosphere then there is no harm in it, contrary to its physical properties, then you probably do not know what you are talking about. The physics of the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere has been known and proven for many decades, now combine the fact that its absolute amount has increased (actually doubled since the industrial revolution), and the fact that the hottest years have been recorded; For me it is enough. If it's not enough for you, that's your problem, I don't need to solve your understanding problems. I pass on the correct information, those who do not want to receive it should not come to me with complaints.

10. "Sulfur dioxide" is not a greenhouse gas, it's "physics" - Father, surely you mean carbon dioxide, the dreaded CO2? And I'm arguing about topics I don't understand?!

    I REST MY CASE

11. Asher, do yourself a favor, don't argue about topics you don't understand. You seem to be citing the brainwashing of the folks at Fox. Again, this just embarrasses you as ridiculous. For me, the NASA data on the warm years and the data on the increase in sulfur dioxide are sufficient for the correlation because of the physics of sulfur dioxide. If this is not enough for you, invent another physics.

12. "All the warmest years in recorded history" - yes - by 1/2%! (on the Kelvin scale) that you wouldn't have noticed if they hadn't told you...

    But you don't answer again - the "hot years" do not prove anything, the correlation is what you are trying to prove, and there is none. nothing. And without the correlation, you will not be able to return us to the Stone Age (or at least to the Stalin era, which is what you want - the environment is just an excuse)

13. You decide that this is a negligible gas concentration. It is a greenhouse gas, and small amounts of it are enough for the phenomenon. Would you like to wait until we are like Venus?
    And the fact that you and your friends will scream until the day after tomorrow that warming stopped in 1997, when in the middle were all the warmest years in recorded history, it only makes you ridiculous.

14. "In scientific facts, which are currently on my side"

    The concentration of a trace gas (TRACE) in the atmosphere called CO2 continued to rise. This is fact (A). The warming (which was zero ANYWAY) ended in 1997, about 1/6 of a century ago. This is fact (B).

    A coincidence (COICIDENCE) between A and B does not prove causality (CAUSALITY) of A causing B, but if A happens, and B does not read, then logically this disproves the claim that there is causality. Isn't it, my father?

    Unless bogus "consensus" (BOGUS) is "scientific fact". If that's hard to argue with, really!

15. I have only one thing to say: that their Torah is not unfounded and is backed by tens of thousands of studies, and until the IPCC changes their position (and not because of the pressure exerted on them but because there will be real scientific evidence), for me it is science and not unfounded Torah. It is not about my word against your word but about scientific facts, which are currently on my side.

    Those who want to avoid paying taxes to cover the damage they caused, can only make claims against themselves. Closing your eyes and grinding the argument that no harm was done only embarrasses those who claim so.

16. We have arrived!

    As always, my father, when you are confronted with your logical fallacies, you run away to LA LA LAND - instead of answering the question, you start with unsubstantiated assertions like "criminal branch" etc. I too can say "the greens are criminals because they want to deny humanity an available and reliable source of energy under the guise of a disproved Torah". What valid arguments would you have against it?

17. There is no logical contradiction here, this is about employment in a criminal industry, without referring to his crimes, simply one-sided propaganda in a libertarian style (this is also how they measure regulations - at their cost, and ignore the benefit to society). It is simply faith in logical guise. Life is easy, you don't consider something you don't want to consider and then wonder and wonder the numerical results are in your favor.

18. Avi,

    Indeed, you do not need to read and understand all the articles and studies. But that's not what I was talking about. When you accept without batting an eyelid or criticizing all the claims of the critics of the article in question, then that's fine - but according to you, am I groping for the desires of my heart (cold and hard as a stone for the poor and the environment) in a "blind way"? I just want to confront you with your logical contradictions.

19. Asher, you're getting sleepy. There is no point in wasting my limited resource - time on a report that clearly has a purpose - to ease the pressure on the fracking industry with a strange argument of increasing employment. For example, let's also allow anyone who wants to legally steal and hire children to help with recruitment. It is equally possible to allow the trade in heroin for the reason that there are small dealers on the street who profit from it. . I'm supposed to read scientific articles not propaganda. And if people I trust said the report is propaganda, I'd rather spend my time reading other reports and articles.

20. "The government has no interest in distorting science, the tycoons do."

    Mistake. From an economic point of view, the interest of each person in the government plays exactly the same role as the interest of a person who works for a private company, with the difference being that in the first case, the client's interest does not play an interest. This is precisely the reason why, compared to private businesses, in the government we witness the most corruption, crimes and services that are worthless or of negative value. The same applies to the field of science, which is very close to my heart. While the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, Maxwell's equations, statistical physics, the theory of relativity, the invention of the automobile, the invention of the airplane, and the pharmaceutical industry today took place with little or no public funding (are you opposed to all of these?), while governments were and are engaged in research in Christian theology, gender science, In race theory, alternative medicine, global warming (formerly cooling), psychiatry and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. (And before you stone me for the last comment: I think I can say with more than certainty that I know more about quantum mechanics than you do.) That's why in the US, all the universities with reliable research in the exact sciences are privately funded. In the long run, private research entities survive based on the ability to apply their research in a way that advances human life, and even if that's not the case in the short run you don't get robbed to fund them, while the government often uses research for nefarious purposes like restricting industry and developing weapons of mass destruction.

    So I'm not claiming that *every* government study is wrong without the need for further discussion. It would be absurd to claim that, given the fact that today governments all over the world have a semi-monopoly on research (as in any other field), and to completely nullify the results of this government research to set science back at least a century. For every successful government study, we have to thank the scientists and the taxpayers - thanks to whom it did succeed. But if you claim that all research funded by a private body with vested interests is wrong, it's easy for you to claim that all government research is wrong. The claim that private corporations are trying to take over the world while the government consists of people smarter than you and me who can fix our lives is unfounded and ridiculous, especially when it comes from someone who claims to be the representative of science.

    Political and intellectual freedom is a prerequisite for science in particular and for any form of thinking in general. In order for there to be something called science, each scientist needs to have independent judgment to decide what science is true and what is not based on reality, and that this should not be done under coercion. Perhaps Richard Feynman will be more credible to you than I am in this regard:

    "I believe in limited government. I believe that government should be limited in many ways, and what I am going to emphasize is only an intellectual thing. I don't want to talk about everything at the same time. Let's take a small piece, an intellectual thing. No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. . . . Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”

21. "Blindly following him" - Father, you probably mean that you admitted that you did not read the report mentioned in your article above, and you "blindly" followed people whose opinions you prefer. So who here is going "blindly"?

22. Since when is scientific truth the property of the left?
    The data has no political opinion, on the contrary, the one who introduces politicization and encourages denial is the American economic right, which for some reason has foolish followers here who follow it blindly.

23. Avi - the government "has no interest in distorting science"?

    You made me laugh!!! Since when do politicians care about the truth? They take care of their throne and this leads them to listen to the whispers of the public's spirit. Unfortunately, the public has been convinced by the false representation of watermelons like you (green on the outside but red on the inside) that a holocaust is about to occur because of a 50% increase in the concentration of a negligible gas in the atmosphere. This persuasion stems from the left's complete control of the main media channels (eg - NYT, BBC,) and it also worked for the politicians. So to say that the government has no business is simply ridiculous.

24. Even governments sometimes have an interest in distorting data.
    For example, the unemployment data.

25. Always the same sayings:
    "caring for you"
    "giving you"

    When it is clear to anyone with a mind that the tycoon only cares about himself (and his associates).

    If it wasn't for the French revolution "even if we are all wise and we all know the Torah" then we and our children and our children's children would have remained vassals to the "blue-blooded" nobles. They would of course fight "for us" they would manage estates "for the safety and security of their vassals" and so on and so forth.

26. The government has no interest in distorting science, the tycoons do.

27. What about all the research that is funded by the government?

28. In the present case, I saw no point in reading a study that all of its critics showed the errors in it, primarily the fact that it ignores the environment. It's not a shortcoming that you will now attack me against, it's just proper time management. You will of course want me to read unfounded studies all day and not update the site.

    The damage done to the environment is so enormous that even if the oil companies donate all their revenues it will be difficult to repair it. At the time when I was working in the local press in Haifa, a report came out (I hope I can reproduce it on the Internet, it is something like 1985-6) by a committee that included professors Maman from the Technion and Pora from the University of Haifa (if my memory does not mislead me as to their academic affiliation) that stated only about the air pollution section ( I'm not talking about global warming right now), an investment in pollution prevention pays for itself 2.5 times in savings on healthcare costs and better productivity of the people who are now healthy instead of sick.
    At the time, there was talk of investing in receptors that the electric company refused to install in a coal-fired power plant that was going to be built in Haifa. Something like $100 million. They preferred (theoretically because the station was finally established without receptors in its room) to spend 250 million on emergency rooms, medical equipment, doctors, nurses, etc., than to spend only 100 million on receptors.
    And as mentioned here, this is one damage of many kinds. and hence the expression is null in sixty.

29. Please here's another aspect I hadn't thought of - Wars that broke out because of oil.
    And please without demagoguery that this industry is responsible for my good standard of living - first of all it does it at the expense of my children. Second, even if there is no choice but to use the products of this industry, it is possible to produce them at a much higher ethical level, even if the price will be higher, and will reflect the real cost and not just the cost of production and the stamp duty and one way or another profit for the producing countries that pass the costs on to our children Let them suffocate from air pollution and live in a world without oil.

30. Abi, I was surprised that you did not use "capitalists, etc." in your reply to me. But you didn't answer my questions either, you just shot in the general direction.

    My questions again:

    1. Have you read the research your article is about?
    2. Do you rely on solid numbers and independent studies when you state that the benefits of the oil and gas industry are "insignificant" compared to the harm it causes?

31. To Avi Blizovsky - have you read the study?

    And when you casually throw in "it is clear that the treatment of these damages becomes nullifying in sixty any positive effect that this 'industry' has." – What data and studies do you rely on?

    After all, please don't forget that thanks to this 'industry' you live in an air-conditioned, heated house, go on vacation abroad, eat when and how much you want, if God forbid you get sick - then the hospital is driven by it, and of course without this 'industry' you wouldn't even be able to to scribble these pearls

    And please, in your modesty (if it will help), try, for at least one response, to avoid using the following terms loosely: pig capitalism, tycoons, oil companies, oppressor of the poor, the Koch brothers, etc., only data or explanations please.

32. Collect a.
    Considering the fact that "many of these data are much larger than those found
    in many previous economic studies."
    that the financiers of the research, who did not identify themselves, are the big beneficiaries if adopted
    The research conclusions - and that the environmental cost of energy production was not detailed
    With this method, I would bet that the research is at least "optimistic."
    most" in relation to reality - even if we assume that the researchers did not intend to deceive.

33. Apparently a partial truth is worse than a lie - it is a fact that they ignored the environmental effects, and this is the disease of all capitalists - to leave it to others to deal with the external effects as if they were not related to them and when they come to raise taxes to finance their treatment they build theories of denial, the main thing is not to bear responsibility.
    It is clear that the treatment of these damages becomes null and void any positive effect that this 'industry' has.

34. The question is not who funded it, but whether the data in the report is correct.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.