when talking about the weather

[Hunter]

Dear fellows

everyone should read the following article
But here on the front lines of
the battle over fracking, which has become an increasingly popular technique
to extract previously unobtainable reserves of oil and gas, no conclusion is
yet definitive.
After an outcry from Wyoming�s governor, Matt Mead, and the
energy industry that the federal report was premature and inconclusive, more
testing was conducted by the United States Geological Survey and is being
processed. The E.P.A. is also in the midst of collecting additional water
samples for study.
�Until there is a peer-reviewed study and a good
scientific basis that indicates that the issues related to water are related
to our operations, that is not something we are ready to address,� said Doug
Hock, an Encana spokesman.
�I�d like to have the industry held accountable
for once,� said Jeff Locker, a hay and barley farmer who said that his well
water had gone bad around the mid-�90s and that the contaminants had
contributed to his wife�s neuropathy. �We�ve got scientific proof. And
they�re still turning their back on us. They expect us to pay between $100
and $200 for something we didn�t cause. It gets under my skin.�
For the
last few years, a small group of farmers and landowners scattered across this
rural Wyoming basin have complained that their water wells have been
contaminated with chemicals from a controversial drilling technique known as
hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Encana has maintained that water in the
area is naturally poor and that its operations did not cause the problems �
fracking had also occurred before the company purchased the gas field.
Moreover, the energy industry has steadfastly pointed out that there has
never been any conclusive link between fracking and water contamination.

After an outcry from Wyoming�s governor, Matt Mead, and the energy industry
that the federal report was premature and inconclusive, more testing was
conducted by the United States Geological Survey and is being processed. The
E.P.A. is also in the midst of collecting additional water samples for study.

A draft report by the Environmental Protection Agency, issued in December,
appeared to confirm their concerns, linking chemicals in local groundwater
to gas drilling.
For the last few years, a small group of farmers and
landowners scattered across this rural Wyoming basin have complained that
their water wells have been contaminated with chemicals from a controversial
drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Encana has
maintained that water in the area is naturally poor and that its operations
did not cause the problems � fracking had also occurred before the company
purchased the gas field. Moreover, the energy industry has steadfastly
pointed out that there has never been any conclusive link between fracking
and water contamination.
;
Therefore this article may be used
But here on the front lines of the battle over
fracking, which has become an increasingly popular technique to extract
previously unobtainable reserves of oil and gas, no conclusion is yet
definitive.
In the meantime, the state has offered to provide cisterns for
local residents, using $750,000 allocated by the Wyoming Legislature this
year. Under the plan, people here would still have to pay a fee to have their
water hauled from the nearby community of Pavillion, at a cost that could
run more than $150 per month.
�Until there is a peer-reviewed study and a
good scientific basis that indicates that the issues related to water are
related to our operations, that is not something we are ready to address,�
said Doug Hock, an Encana spokesman.
After an outcry from Wyoming�s
governor, Matt Mead, and the energy industry that the federal report was
premature and inconclusive, more testing was conducted by the United States
Geological Survey and is being processed. The E.P.A. is also in the midst of
collecting additional water samples for study.
But here on the front lines
of the battle over fracking, which has become an increasingly popular
technique to extract previously unobtainable reserves of oil and gas, no
conclusion is yet definitive.
But some locals say the draft report�s
analysis of water samples, which identified synthetic chemicals consistent
with natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing fluids, is proof of what
they suspected for years.
In the meantime, the state has offered to provide
cisterns for local residents, using $750,000 allocated by the Wyoming
Legislature this year. Under the plan, people here would still have to pay a
fee to have their water hauled from the nearby community of Pavillion, at a
cost that could run more than $150 per month.
A draft report by the
Environmental Protection Agency, issued in December, appeared to confirm
their concerns, linking chemicals in local groundwater to gas drilling.

Encana has maintained that water in the area is naturally poor and that its
operations did not cause the problems � fracking had also occurred before the
company purchased the gas field. Moreover, the energy industry has
steadfastly pointed out that there has never been any conclusive link between
fracking and water contamination.
;
how did you achieve the water monitoring and the connection with the weather supervision?

When studying the water , this site seems appropriate http://www.swrcb.ca.gov
Best regards

[SG1]

Peer reveiwing is like they guy who wrote it critiques it. How many
"scientists" buck the system? They all need grants and jobs!!!!

[David Hare-Scott]

SG1 wrote:
> Peer reveiwing is like they guy who wrote it critiques it. How many
> "scientists" buck the system? They all need grants and jobs!!!!

For the purpose of general education I will assume that you are serious and
not trolling.

The above statements show little idea of the scientific method or
understanding of the motives of scientists.

The peer review process specifically excludes the author and his/her
associates and is conducted anonymously.

Assuming a global conspiracy of scientists to lie in order to keep funding
is a favourite tactic of deniers. A moment of thought would show how
impossible it is.

First, there is no evidence for it and it assumes that tens of thousands of
people who have little social cohesion (and who are often in competition)
could and would keep the secret. Second, the most famous scientists are
those who bucked the system. The scientist who could overthrow some
important commonly accepted view (anthropogenic climate change, evolution as
the explanation of life as we see it, the health consequences of smoking
tobacco, etc) with evidence would be immortalised as a modern Einstein.
Every young scientist dreams that he/she will be the one who brings on the
next paradigm shift.

There are fabulous rewards waiting for the supposed scientific conspirator
who is the first to breaks ranks - but it doesn't happen. On the other hand
there are also rewards outside the scientific community for the shills of
vested interest to lie and to conduct disinformation campaigns in the
general media, but crucially NOT in the peer reviewed journals, and many
step forward to take the money and notoriety.

Scientists are merely human and have human weaknesses. They do make errors,
they do deceive themselves and sometimes they commit fraud. The point is
that the methodology is there to catch and to expose those errors. In the
long run it works and works to explain the way the universe operates much
better than saying 'I don't like the consequences of this idea therefore it
must be wrong and scientists who say so are liars'.


David