Fracturing in California: Democrats revolt against a ban on oil and gas 'fracking.' (employment, pollution)

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

I am dead set against fracking the Monterey shale (or any other) ... but that disclosure aside, and without any further comment on the merits / demerits of the argument here, the answer to the question quoted above is:

The WSJ, while historically always a conservative voice for business news, has, since 2007, been a NewsCorp media. That would be NewsCorp as in Rupert Murdoch. That would be Murdoch as in the guy who also owns and drives FOX News -- lock, stock, and content barrel.

This is not to say that the WSJ doesn't still publish good business news. It is, however, to point out that editorial bias powerfully favors the conservative view in opinion-based reporting. Which your quoted article is. If you think it has validity, you might also consider other, opposing views / observations.

Best you could do is consult a neutral news source such as NPR / PBS, if they have done any reporting on the topic. For all public news is accused of liberal bias, they actually, seriously, consult and present both sides of issues equally.

Not a revelation that the WSJ is a conservative/pro-business paper, both pre and post Murdoch. Just as the NY Times is known to be a liberal paper. I happen to read both on a regular basis, and most agree that both are among the worlds greatest daily publications notwithstanding their political affiliations. OK fine, so back to my question: where's the misinformation in this article that appears in the Journal ? Specifically ?

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

Not a revelation that the WSJ is a conservative/pro-business paper, both pre and post Murdoch. Just as the NY Times is known to be a liberal paper. I happen to read both on a regular basis, and most agree that both are among the worlds greatest daily publications notwithstanding their political affiliations. OK fine, so back to my question: where's the misinformation in this article that appears in the Journal ? Specifically ?

To be more specific then, the WSJ used to be a worthy source with a conservative bias ... now, other than straightforward business data information, it has become 90% useless with regard to actual journalistic content and ethics ... and is considered by real journalists to be a piece of shirt for articles such as you have quoted ...

Meanwhile, the NYTimes continues to be one of the world's leading news journals -- with a liberal editorial bias ... but still sticking with strict journalistic guidelines for unbiased investigative reporting.

So, the "misinformation" in the WSJ article lies in its one-sided-only agenda. It has presented the view of the conservative editorial guidelines as if it is unbiased news reporting. It isn't.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by shiphead

nice. good video.

Being able to drink water or having natural gas. So instead of innovating our way out of our energy problem we will destroy our natural surroundings and make everything unlivable? Cool.

Thanks.

I wonder if in that study they'll notate that the waste water sits out in a field near the site and just evaporate into the air, maybe if there is a rain storm, flood out. No Keystone, no fracking.

This is what bothers me. Why use water that is crucial to human survival, when wind and sun are in abundant supply (depending on where you live) and could be used, instead? Something isn't right, here. The push for green energy started in the early 70's but we're nowhere closer to achieving it than we were then. 40 years? Utterly ridiculous.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

We just waste to damn much of it on needless things. Like filling up water glasses south of the Tehachapis.

Such disregard for your childhood homies!

[shiphead]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

This is what bothers me. Why use water that is crucial to human survival, when wind and sun are in abundant supply (depending on where you live) and could be used, instead? Something isn't right, here. The push for green energy started in the early 70's but we're nowhere closer to achieving it than we were then. 40 years? Utterly ridiculous.

Apparently there is a secret going on in California that is grossly under reported.

"NIF officials reply that the facility is performing cutting-edge science for the benefit of all humankind and that it has already made a significant contribution to our understanding of the basic physics of nuclear weapons."

Laser Fusion

uhhhh lol. cutting-edge science that benefited all humankind better understand nuclear weapons? Contradiction here?

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Such disregard for your childhood homies!

The ones that might have made it to adulthood probably think the water fairy brings them their water much less that it flows in from a river in a different state. Ye ol'Colorado aint lookin so good this year.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Nope time to quit feeding the beast until they get their act in order.

Oh brother ... I can see it now ... 10's of millions of BullDawgDaddies swaggering around following your lead (... there goes a good night's sleep.)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Oh brother ... I can see it now ... 10's of millions of BullDawgDaddies swaggering around following your lead (... there goes a good night's sleep.)

Not to mention the neighborhood.

[Leonard64]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Not to mention the neighborhood.

Too late. :^)

[kanhawk]

I am glad sensible heads have prevailed on this and will allow some fracking so California can contribute to some of the energy needs of the US with it's large reserves of oil. The anti-fracking crowd is becoming the equivalent of flat earthers in their denial of this efficient technology and their false propaganda. Simply building tens or even hundreds of thousands of windmills all over the countryside isn't as efficient or cost effective and isn't aesthetic to the nature lover either.