The EPA’s Science Deniers

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-science-deniers-1482099327

Updated Dec. 18, 2016 5:41 p.m. ET

582 COMMENTS

Speaking of fake news, the political scientists at the EPA have rewritten the conclusion of a report in order to cast doubt on the safety of hydraulic fracturing. Consider this EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s parting gift to Donald Trump.

Last week the EPA issued the final version of a five-year study evaluating the impact of hydraulic fracturing, the oil and gas drilling method known as fracking, on groundwater contamination. The draft report released last year for public comment concluded that fracking has not “led to widespread, systemic impact on drinking water resources in the United States.” The EPA’s findings haven’t changed, but its conclusion has.

After being barraged by plaintiff attorneys and Hollywood celebrities, the EPA in its final report substituted its determination of no “widespread, systemic impact” with the hypothetical that fracking “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances” and that “impacts can range in frequency and severity” depending on the circumstances. 

Any technology has the potential to inflict some damage—self-driving cars can be hacked to go haywire—and the EPA explains that drinking-water contamination could occur if wastewater is incorrectly disposed or wells are poorly sealed. In Pavillion, Wyo., the EPA’s faulty construction of a monitoring well caused contamination. 

Yet after reviewing more than 1,000 studies, the EPA couldn’t find more than limited evidence—mostly alleged by plaintiff attorneys—of operational failures causing contamination. That the EPA uncovered only a few instances of contamination among a million some wells reinforces its prior conclusion that fracking doesn’t threaten the drinking-water supply.

The EPA now asserts that “significant data gaps and uncertainties” prevent it from “calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts.” For instance, water-quality data was not collected everywhere prior to the introduction of fracking, which has allowed plaintiff attorneys to ascribe any contamination to oil and gas companies. 

Methane can leak into groundwater naturally, and the EPA even notes that “site-specific cases of alleged impacts” are “particularly challenging to understand” because “the subsurface environment is complex.” Scientists have documented methane in the shallow subsurface of Susquehanna County, Pa.—one area of alleged fracking contamination—dating back more than 200 years.

So after spending $30 million and five years to produce a risk assessment, the EPA has found no evidence that fracking causes widespread contamination. Two years ago, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo used the pretext of scientific “uncertainties” to ban fracking, and the EPA’s revised report will give him cover for depriving upstate residents of its economic benefits. Progressives are using the report as ammunition in their media campaign against fracking, and plaintiff attorneys will use it in lawsuits. 

Liberals denounce anyone who cites uncertainties about carbon’s climate impact as “deniers.” So it’s ironic that they are now justifying their opposition to fracking based on scientific uncertainties. As for the EPA’s science, bending to public comment from litigants and actor Mark Ruffalo does not instill confidence in the agency’s integrity.

[Zambroski]

Our governmental agencies days of all-mighty reign and permission to bend and twist facts and research to fit their agenda and bow to the idiot king's administration and other ignorant lackeys are OVER.

The shit that is going on now in the final days of that fuck heads control is a joke.  

Obama, a weak and stupid shit for brains quasi leader held up on the shoulders of the dysfunctional, disenfranchised and ignorant of the American society.  Ahhh yes, the "intellectually elite".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SnowRider]

MN Mach  Too stupid to know he's stupid  

[Zambroski]

Just now, SnowRider said:

MN Mach  Too stupid to know he's stupid  

Look what my post caught!  Poor little stupid cowardly fella.  Not gonna throw him back though, gonna smash his head with my hammer.  We don't need this shit reproducing.  Poor cowardly SR.  Fuck!  I baited that hook with price of shit too!  Idiot.

 

[SnowRider]

 

 

[Zambroski]

5 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

 

 

Don't be late for your nightly family group cry.  Remember what your ghetto queen said, "There is no hope."

Here, pick your own dreamy queen (nightmare):

[Boered]

12 hours ago, Zambroski said:

Don't be late for your nightly family group cry.  Remember what your ghetto queen said, "There is no hope."

Here, pick your own dreamy queen (nightmare):

Those images make me puke.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Is no one going to actually address the lack of integrity and scientific process in the EPA? 

[Snoslinger]

3 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Is no one going to actually address the lack of integrity and scientific process in the EPA? 

maybe if their original stance was "no damage whatsover" to "this shit is very dangerous" you'd have a better case? there's really nothing here dude.

[racer254]

57 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Is no one going to actually address the lack of integrity and scientific process in the EPA? 

They CAN'T  The epa is run by an agenda now rather than common sense.  Typical when emotional liberals from the 60's get into power.

[Mainecat]

If the EPA is full of emotional liberals from the sixties....thank you. Clean rivers and air has been your success.

[Zambroski]

Just now, Mainecat said:

If the EPA is full of emotional liberals from the sixties....thank you. Clean rivers and air has been your success.

I don't disagree.  I'm not a real believer in GW either but can appreciate what it does if it helps us leave less of a mess.   Same with the EPA.  Yes, they are overprotective but I can deal with that.  What I cannot deal with is when they use that "acceptance" from people like me (centered or centered left...or even centered right) to further an agenda that isn't supposed to be there.  And that is exactly what has been happening over the last eight.

[racer254]

11 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

If the EPA is full of emotional liberals from the sixties....thank you. Clean rivers and air has been your success.

Unfortunately, emotion is overpowering common sense.  You can't regulate to a point that it crushes the economy and especially if the facts you use to regulate are not truly FACTS

[Mainecat]

3 hours ago, racer254 said:

Unfortunately, emotion is overpowering common sense.  You can't regulate to a point that it crushes the economy and especially if the facts you use to regulate are not truly FACTS

It only crushes the economy because Washington lets corp America ruin other countries with zero regs.

[jtssrx]

19 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-science-deniers-1482099327

Updated Dec. 18, 2016 5:41 p.m. ET

582 COMMENTS

Speaking of fake news, the political scientists at the EPA have rewritten the conclusion of a report in order to cast doubt on the safety of hydraulic fracturing. Consider this EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s parting gift to Donald Trump.

Last week the EPA issued the final version of a five-year study evaluating the impact of hydraulic fracturing, the oil and gas drilling method known as fracking, on groundwater contamination. The draft report released last year for public comment concluded that fracking has not “led to widespread, systemic impact on drinking water resources in the United States.” The EPA’s findings haven’t changed, but its conclusion has.

After being barraged by plaintiff attorneys and Hollywood celebrities, the EPA in its final report substituted its determination of no “widespread, systemic impact” with the hypothetical that fracking “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances” and that “impacts can range in frequency and severity” depending on the circumstances. 

Any technology has the potential to inflict some damage—self-driving cars can be hacked to go haywire—and the EPA explains that drinking-water contamination could occur if wastewater is incorrectly disposed or wells are poorly sealed. In Pavillion, Wyo., the EPA’s faulty construction of a monitoring well caused contamination. 

Yet after reviewing more than 1,000 studies, the EPA couldn’t find more than limited evidence—mostly alleged by plaintiff attorneys—of operational failures causing contamination. That the EPA uncovered only a few instances of contamination among a million some wells reinforces its prior conclusion that fracking doesn’t threaten the drinking-water supply.

The EPA now asserts that “significant data gaps and uncertainties” prevent it from “calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts.” For instance, water-quality data was not collected everywhere prior to the introduction of fracking, which has allowed plaintiff attorneys to ascribe any contamination to oil and gas companies. 

Methane can leak into groundwater naturally, and the EPA even notes that “site-specific cases of alleged impacts” are “particularly challenging to understand” because “the subsurface environment is complex.” Scientists have documented methane in the shallow subsurface of Susquehanna County, Pa.—one area of alleged fracking contamination—dating back more than 200 years.

So after spending $30 million and five years to produce a risk assessment, the EPA has found no evidence that fracking causes widespread contamination. Two years ago, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo used the pretext of scientific “uncertainties” to ban fracking, and the EPA’s revised report will give him cover for depriving upstate residents of its economic benefits. Progressives are using the report as ammunition in their media campaign against fracking, and plaintiff attorneys will use it in lawsuits. 

Liberals denounce anyone who cites uncertainties about carbon’s climate impact as “deniers.” So it’s ironic that they are now justifying their opposition to fracking based on scientific uncertainties. As for the EPA’s science, bending to public comment from litigants and actor Mark Ruffalo does not instill confidence in the agency’s integrity.

Im not sure why most of you haven't figured out the elites want to get rid of most of us. Check out agenda 21