I GUESS FOLKS ON THE RIGHT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A CUE FROM THE LEFTIES IN TEXAS, and launch ethics attacks against researchers who publish results they don’t like. It’s a lot easier than attacking the actual research, and it should be a target-rich environment. . . .
Been saying this for a while – businesses and employees of businesses that are affected by false claims and bogus research need to start suing the perpetrators.
The left never gives up. It attacks 24/7.
Yeah,it’s exhausting fighting back against these people,Ken. Maybe if more of them had jobs in which there was some measure of productivity,they wouldn’t have so much time to spend in attack mode.
The radical Muslims have nothing on these guys,except a willingness to die for their beliefs,which the Lefties don’t seem too keen on.
I applaud the lefties for shining the light of truth on this. A researcher publishes an “unbiased” study on fracking without disclosing that he was paid half a million dollars by a fracking company to produce the study and that he personally has 1.5 million dollars invested in fracking operations?
Dan S – the problem is that you have to show us that the source of the funding for the research is also the source of the conclusions of that research. Can you make such a positive link?
This would mean, in other areas, that IF a research study on x-drug is funded by the drug producing company, then, its results will have to be positive. Of course, such a practice could lead not merely to multiple lawsuits when the drug was found defective, but, why should a company pay many millions for ‘research’ which is just a rubber-stamp?
My point is that research cannot operate as a rubber-stamp; the problems and costs of such a practice are too great.
@ Dan S, show us, specifically, how the research is flawed. Are the conclusions, based on the data, false?
Recently, the Council of Canadians released a poll result suggesting that Canadians are willing to pay higher taxes. The question was flawed and the organiztions integrity was once again sullied. Show us where the flaws are in this research – I suggest you cannot so therefore you must attack the integrity of the source.
Leftist spin 101.
“The radical Muslims have nothing on these guys,except a willingness to die for their beliefs,which the Lefties don’t seem too keen on.
Posted by: dmorris at July 26, 2012 12:55 PM ”
Hummmmmmmmm…..must be someway we can indoctrinate the leftards with that belief to.
“I applaud the lefties for shining the light of truth on this. A researcher publishes an “unbiased” study on fracking without disclosing that he was paid half a million dollars by a fracking company to produce the study and that he personally has 1.5 million dollars invested in fracking operations?
Posted by: Dan S. at July 26, 2012 1:12 PM ”
Yeah Dan. And the IPCC,Gorbull,Fruitfly guy,Mann,etc,NEVER took money from greenie eco-cultists,whacko enviro/anti-human groups.
Ignorance can be fixed,stupidity is permanent.
ET said: “…you have to show us that the source of the funding for the research is also the source of the conclusions of that research. Can you make such a positive link?”
ET, please! This is qwAAAzy talk coming from you! Everybody knows that the nature of the evidence is completely irrelevant. Its the seriousness of the charge that matters!
DanS is completely correct to slag this researcher without one single shred of evidence to back up his argument, and indeed without having even read the article. Because DanS is a lefty, this is considered proper.
Works the other way too, any time a [boooo, hisssss!] CONservative dares to challenge research bought and paid for by TIDES or the Hewlett Foundation, it is entirely proper to SWAT them.
So yeah, not showing up to riot is a failed Conservative policy.
I have one question….
How can there be an expert on fracking who has no involvement in the industry….
It would be like having a study on bridge safety done by a Doctor of Medieval Music.
Oh Lord, this is starting to give me a headache. Fracking is not a new unproven technology, anyone in the petroleum industry can tell you. The “flaming water” well stories have been around as long as man has drilled for water or whatever. Natural gas in some drinking water has been recorded back years ago, before fracking was ever done. Eco-leftoids will stop an nothing to stop technology and try to get us back to the dark ages.
Go long America.
Go long Canada !!
[ High oil prices empower Venezuela, Russia and Iran. We are developing alternative sources of energy but they will not replace hydrocarbons for a long time. It is a gift that much of our demand – possibly all of it – can be met domestically and in co-operation with US allies, Mexico and Canada. ] Condoleezza Rice
That, I would assume, includes fracking.
Note: In the past she spoke in favor of so called renewable energy. Hopefully she now recognizes it is mostly folly.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f4837046-d67b-11e1-ba60-00144feabdc0.html#axzz21m2TCxEe
This would mean, in other areas, that IF a research study on x-drug is funded by the drug producing company, then, its results will have to be positive.
In that area, it does happen. For instance high blood pressure can be completely controlled without drugs in most cases through ingestion of 4 times as much potassium (within limits) as sodium. The typical North American diet is the opposite.
The Marketing of Madness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1nbZCNDgbY
Fracking, not so much…it’s proven technology used for years. Barring a bad cement job there can’t be any communication with ground water.
This would mean, in other areas, that IF a research study on x-drug is funded by the drug producing company, then, its results will have to be positive.
In that area, it does happen. For instance high blood pressure can be completely controlled without drugs in most cases through ingestion of 4 times as much potassium (within limits) as sodium. The typical North American diet is the opposite.
See – The Marketing of Madness
Fraccing, not so much…it’s proven technology used for years. Barring a bad cement job there can’t be any communication with ground water.