Deadlier Avalanches? Blame Global Warming

[witch hobble]

Before you start lecturing you should understand who you are speaking at for an audience.

I work off the assumption that everybody in here is a 14 year old boy making dick and fart jokes, and looking for cool videos from which they will be lured into the deep dark woods.

 

[Puck it]

I work off the assumption that everybody in here is a 14 year old boy making dick and fart jokes, and looking for cool videos from which they will be lured into the deep dark woods.

Yes and we don't like to lectured.

 

[fbrissette]

Before you start lecturing you should understand who you are speaking at for an audience. There is alot of climate change reseaRch done in acamdemia and funded by both sides as with fracking.

We all know who is funding the pro-fracking research. Can you tell me who is funding the legitimate anti-fracking science ? Same with Climate change. There is money on both sides but the guys with the deep pockets are pro-fracking and anti climate change. I have no agenda here beside being a scientist and therefore being pro-science. I am just stating the obvious.

Things are only as safe as the interested parties want to pony up. There is issues with whatever we do to the enivronment. That man made you are sliding has snowmax which is a biological additive(bacteria), there are studies of it's affects on runoff. My point, not clear as Cannonball stated, is that we live in a society of uninformed and/ or misinformed. Sensationalism sells and the mostly liberal media and don't deny it slant to raise the most furur to get more ad revenue. There are even agents for these yahoos that get them the most money.

Not too sure what your point is. But your statement about the liberal medias as being yahoos is very telling.

Data can be manipulated any way the presenter wants. It is up to the audience to ask the right questions and for the majority of people that is not possible since they take the easy route and don't develop their own conclusion and seek the right info.

Yep. Ain't black or white. The medias and pseudo-scientific agenda-based literature are very apt at this game. However, if you were familiar with the peer-review process, you would know that in reputable scientific journals, the ability to manipulate data is very limited.

Should we do something about all of the emissions into the atmosphere. Hell yes.

Agreed. But one thing is sure, any action is going to be costly, which is why nothing will be done in the near future, and why we are gonna go after cheap energy, no matter what the environmental cost is. In the end, everyone loves clean water and green forests. The truth is that very few are willing to pay for it.

Is that the climate changing or is it in a cycle. Data supports both.

This is plain wrong. The anti climate-change lobby is very good at playing this disinformation card. The contribution of natural change has been well established in the current trend as well as its uncertainty. The agreement among climate scientists is overwhelming in that the warming is mostly man-made.

Should we stop fracking and import the gas. Hell no. But we need to do it safely.

We can certainly debate whether or not the benefits of fracking exceeds the downsides. But there is a fairly strong agreement in the scientific literature that fracking has potentially important effects on the long-term sustainability of our underground water resources, and that it cannot be done safely.

I digress now. Can you tell you pissed me off?

That was not my intent. Just looking for rational arguments which you did not provide. You are as much an agent of disinformation as the liberal medias.

That brings up another point. Do you realize what toxic chemicals are used to make the computer that you typing on or cell phone or any electronic device and your car you drive.

That's a strawman argument.

We can not have our cake and eat it too.

Agreed. Safekeeping of the environment is expensive. Which is why degradation will keep on going until we are are on the brink of disaster. We are not there yet.

 

[fbrissette]

I work off the assumption that everybody in here is a 14 year old boy making dick and fart jokes, and looking for cool videos from which they will be lured into the deep dark woods.

post of the day !

 

[BenedictGomez]

Clarify, I am pissed off on how the media sensationalizes things.

Like the current flu season, which, while admittedly bad, really isnt that bad, despite what they're telling people.

You should spend a bit more time reading serious scientific literature instead. You would rapidly find out that there is a scientific consensus as to the serious potential dangers to water table contamination, and that, despite of the fact that most of the money in the hand of the gas industry.

lol. Wait, what? You really need to look into this. The anti-fracking crew is a relatively small, fringe group. There is very little risk from proper modern fracking techniques with suitable cleanup measures, and as such, there is certainly no such "scientific consensus" to your claim. Even among the anti-fracking crowd I've never heard that one before, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given it's the exact same tactic employed with AGM.

And as I said, this is one that isnt even worth a discussion, because --> SPOILER ALERT: the environmental nuts have already lost. Not probably. Not maybe. Not possibly. Definitely. At least with Global Warming there's still a debate, but this one is already at Game, Set, Match status. Matt Damon notwithstanding, the eco-extremists need to move onto their next "feel good" cause.

 

[Puck it]

We all know who is funding the pro-fracking research. Can you tell me who is funding the legitimate anti-fracking science ? Same with Climate change. There is money on both sides but the guys with the deep pockets are pro-fracking and anti climate change. I have no agenda here beside being a scientist and therefore being pro-science. I am just stating the obvious.



Not too sure what your point is. But your statement about the liberal medias as being yahoos is very telling.


Yep. Ain't black or white. The medias and pseudo-scientific agenda-based literature are very apt at this game. However, if you were familiar with the peer-review process, you would know that in reputable scientific journals, the ability to manipulate data is very limited.


Agreed. But one thing is sure, any action is going to be costly, which is why nothing will be done in the near future, and why we are gonna go after cheap energy, no matter what the environmental cost is. In the end, everyone loves clean water and green forests. The truth is that very few are willing to pay for it.


This is plain wrong. The anti climate-change lobby is very good at playing this disinformation card. The contribution of natural change has been well established in the current trend as well as its uncertainty. The agreement among climate scientists is overwhelming in that the warming is mostly man-made.


We can certainly debate whether or not the benefits of fracking exceeds the downsides. But there is a fairly strong agreement in the scientific literature that fracking has potentially important effects on the long-term sustainability of our underground water resources, and that it cannot be done safely.


That was not my intent. Just looking for rational arguments which you did not provide. You are as much an agent of disinformation as the liberal medias.



That's a strawman argument.


Agreed. Safekeeping of the environment is expensive. Which is why degradation will keep on going until we are are on the brink of disaster. We are not there yet.

Again you do not know the audience to which you speak. I am well aware of peer review for academic journals as I am well published in physics pubs. The majority of the population do not even know about these journals. They look at the yahoo media for their misinformation including Fox. Telling right? Your location tells me a lot of your views too. What rationals arguments would you like? I started by this saying I was tired sensationalism in media and poorly presented data in publications, not all publications are peer reviewed in the internet age especially. Even peer reviewed articles can slanted in non- journal pubs. Yes, it is was a strawman and you knew what it was. Impressed.

 

[snoseek]

Global warming debates bring the lulz everytime!!!!

 

[Puck it]

Global warming debates bring the lulz everytime!!!!

No, he is just from Quebec!!!

 

[fbrissette]

Again you do not know the audience to which you speak. I am well aware of peer review for academic journals as I am well published in physics pubs. The majority of the population do not even know about these journals. They look at the yahoo media for their misinformation including Fox. Telling right? Your location tells me a lot of your views too. What rationals arguments would you like? I started by this saying I was tired sensationalism in media and poorly presented data in publications, not all publications are peer reviewed in the internet age especially. Even peer reviewed articles can slanted in non- journal pubs. Yes, it is was a strawman and you knew what it was. Impressed.

So you can tell about my views based on my location ? Impressed. Frankly, I'd be very interested in your views of Quebecers. Probably very black and white.

Obviously, most medias are biased and especially so in the US. The last presidential election was a sad example of that. However, I would hope that a well-published scholar like you would do a better job at providing rational arguments instead of keeping the debate at a level below that of the biased medias.

 

[fbrissette]

Like the current flu season, which, while admittedly bad, really isnt that bad, despite what they're telling people.



lol. Wait, what? You really need to look into this. The anti-fracking crew is a relatively small, fringe group. There is very little risk from proper modern fracking techniques with suitable cleanup measures, and as such, there is certainly no such "scientific consensus" to your claim. Even among the anti-fracking crowd I've never heard that one before, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given it's the exact same tactic employed with AGM.

And as I said, this is one that isnt even worth a discussion, because --> SPOILER ALERT: the environmental nuts have already lost. Not probably. Not maybe. Not possibly. Definitely. At least with Global Warming there's still a debate, but this one is already at Game, Set, Match status. Matt Damon notwithstanding, the eco-extremists need to move onto their next "feel good" cause.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of intelligent people who think that there are significant risks associated with fracking, and that are not eco-extremists. I certainly respect the view that cheap oil may be worth the risk, but to think that the fracking process presents no danger to the water table is idiotic.

The anti-fracking crew is a relatively small, fringe group ??????? There is still a debate with global warming ?????? We certainly don't read the same stuff.

 

[fbrissette]

Again you do not know the audience to which you speak.

Cleary I don't. I'll stick to the skiing from now on. At least we're all nuts on the same side.

 

[abc]

Again you do not know the audience to which you speak. I am well aware of peer review for academic journals as I am well published in physics pubs. The majority of the population do not even know about these journals.

Hmmm... if you really are "well published in physics pubs", shouldn't you be familiar with Physics Review Letter, which that avalanche research was published on?

You would have had ready answer to your own question:

I am just sick of this. Who funded the research is my first question?

Whoever funded it, it managed to get published in one of the most read and most referenced, peer reviewed physics publications!

I wouldn't say I'm "well published" but I've had a few publication on it. So I know the review process enough to make me seriously doubt a lot of the things you say on this thread, given how carelessly you throw statements around here.

 

[Conrad]

The article seems to make sense. They say "Researchers believe that larger, more rapid swings in air temperature are responsible for bigger, more frequent slides." Since a lot of time avalanches rock slides, etc. happen when water seeps into the cracks and then it gets cold and the water expands, that makes sense.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Believe it or not, there are a lot of intelligent people who think that there are significant risks associated with fracking, and that are not eco-extremists.

Obviously; but that's NOT what you said, you said that "there is a scientific consensus". Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In fact, the cadre of people who currently believe fracking to be dangerously unsafe is the much smaller population (and that's an understatement). The bulk of people realize it's safe. There have been so few confirmed problems with fracking versus the benefits and versus what level of far greater accidents/incidents are already accepted with other industries that this issue is largely a propaganda laden tempest in a teapot.

I certainly respect the view that cheap oil may be worth the risk, but to think that the fracking process presents no danger to the water table is idiotic.

There is no such thing as a completely safe energy that is economically and efficiently viable and not without any potential problem. But the "danger" to the h2o table from fracking is VERY minimal. Problems to h2o tables have been ridiculously few given the amount of fracking currently going on all over the planet. And AFAIK the relatively few documented problems have mostly been because someone did something wrong or drilled too shallow, and was not a systemic problem with the technology. In any event, it's certainly much safer than the global oil and petroleum trade or nuclear energy, and it's far more "clean" than oil and gas or coal or nuclear or all-the-other-energy-sources-econuts-also-hate.

There is still a debate with global warming ?????? We certainly don't read the same stuff.

We definitely read some of the same stuff, the difference is that I read "stuff" from various viewpoints, whereas its become clear you only read stuff that support your conformational bias if you believe there's no debate over AGM. I dont even expect fracking to be a controversial issue much longer, because the eco-nuts have virtually zero data on their side, save some cooky blogs and websites, and a few leftist propaganda movies which are largely responsible for what little controversy we already have. It's over. Fracking is here to stay. Nobody listens to techno.

 

[Puck it]

Hmmm... if you really are "well published in physics pubs", shouldn't you be familiar with Physics Review Letter, which that avalanche research was published on?

You would have had ready answer to your own question:
Whoever funded it, it managed to get published in one of the most read and most referenced, peer reviewed physics publications!

I wouldn't say I'm "well published" but I've had a few publication on it. So I know the review process enough to make me seriously doubt a lot of the things you say on this thread, given how carelessly you throw statements around here.

My statement was a generalization to media sensationalizing science in the wrong direction. I clarified that. Research in academia gets funded by industry all the time and can be biased even after a peer review.

 

[dmc]

My friends in Ohio say that fracking is causing earthquakes..
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1

 

[Puck it]

My friends in Ohio say that fracking is causing earthquakes..
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/story/2012-03-09/fracking-gas-drilling-earthquakes/53435232/1

From the article: "The report's findings, the Ohio regulator said, show the earthquakes were based on "a number of coincidental circumstances," not just a direct link to the brine disposal."

The article does not mention the size of the quakes at all. that would be my first question.

USAToday is just an example of this misinformation.

 

[MadMadWorld]

My statement was a generalization to media sensationalizing science in the wrong direction. I clarified that. Research in academia gets funded by industry all the time and can be biased even after a peer review.

Well let's hear your well published scientific opinion? Are you gonna bark all day little doggy or are you gonna bite?

 

[dmc]

I don't blame him for going with his political party and the corporations that fund it..
he really has no choice but to follow that path or be branded something different from what he is.

Just the way it is...

 

[Puck it]

Well let's hear your well published scientific opinion? Are you gonna bark all day little doggy or are you gonna bite?

I think you missed something.

In short, always form your own point of view and science is not always truthful either.