“It’s coming,” a baritone voice warns as images of a fiery hellscape flash across the screen. “Lies. Deception,” someone whispers, just before the narrator launches into a diatribe about Josh Fox’s new documentary, Gasland Part II, in a youtube clip whose esthetic falls somewhere between b-horror movie and election season attack ad. It’s the sort of video that might be campy if it wasn’t made with an actual budget.
Posted last November under the account energyforamerica, the faux trailer is one of the first hits in a Gasland 2...
read more























Comments
The beauty of it all
The beauty of peer reviewed studies is the results are, in theory, repeatable and the conclusions are based off those results. There have many peer reviewed studies of the environmental impacts of slick water hydraulic fracturing and none of them have found contamination of fracturing fluids to be widespread or problematic. Its not surprising that you have to rely on the logical fallacy of guilt by association because you really aren’t qualified to dig into the research and instead spend your energies attacking those who carried out the studies and those who may have had a direct and more often than not and indirect financial ties to the scientists or institutions they work for.
Pathetic when you think about it.
Peer Review Doctrine Is Pure Distilled Woo.
The Peer review process is independent of the quality of the study. The quality of the study resides in the honesty of the way the researchers go about their business, and the soundness of the logic in their interpretation of the results they get. Most particularly a study must be designed with a view to lead to a re-ranking of three or more alternative competing points of view. Whereas most studies today are there to "fail to falsify" a mainstream favourite point of view. A study which "fails to falsify" and is designed to do just that, is a study that ought never have gone ahead, and is also known as a "waste of money."
On another thread someone derisively observed that a scientist had been "relegated to publishing in Korea" (paraphrase only) or some such. This is showing that people here really don't have a clue. About the practice of science, and about the nature of reality. The Peer Review doctrine is pure Woo.
Trying To Have It Both Ways
"And while most of the distrust that Americans have for scientists and science in general is completely without warrant, there are times when it is reasonable and often necessary to question the findings of scientists."
This is just special pleading. Either you reject reason or you don't. Either you have a well-worked out epistemology and can judge studies and paradigms for soundness or you have a poor understanding of epistemology and you will read study summaries trying to pick up the sentiment of the person doing the final draft of the study.... he himself will of course be wording matters to match the sentiment of the journal editor and of his funders.