Anti-frackerisms debunkified

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
43
48
63
Backyard flamethrowers and other fracking myths


Katewerk ‏@katewerk

Can we get a retweet @ElizabethMay! Anti-fracker attached garden hose to a gas vent, not a water pipe for hoax.




You’ve probably seen it on the Internet or the TV news, a video of a Texas man lighting his garden hose on fire.

As in, water that burns.

How could that be? Well, according to the man with the backyard flamethrower, it’s because of fracking. Steven Lipsky claims fracking companies caused it, and he’s suing them for big bucks.

No need to wait for the trial – who are you going to believe, a billion-dollar corporation or your own eyes?

The video is so powerful that it’s the key piece of “evidence” in an anti-fracking propaganda movie called Gasland 2, aired on HBO.

Except it’s not true. It was a hoax.

Sure, flames did shoot out of the end of the garden hose. But that’s because Lipsky attached the other end of the hose to a gas vent, not a water pipe.

That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact, as concluded by Judge Trey Loftin, of the 43rd judicial district court that’s hearing the lawsuit between Lipsky and the fracking companies.

In a 2012 ruling, Judge Loftin wrote that Lipsky did “intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line… This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning.”

That ruling was issued in 2012. But Josh Fox, the anti-fracking extremist who produced the movie, still included it in Gasland 2 – which wasn’t released until 2013.

As in, the flamethrower garden hose was revealed to be a fraud, deliberately calculated to deceive. And instead of being repulsed by such chicanery, Fox ran with it, and does to this day.

It’s easy to see why. Fracking is safe – one of the safest technologies of our industrial age. It was invented in 1947, patented in 1949, and has been done successfully more than one million times in the U.S. and more than 100,000 times in Canada. It’s normal; in North America, 90% of natural gas wells are fracked. More than 150 scientific studies have inquired about its safety; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency constantly monitors it, as do state-level EPAs. The science says it’s safe.

Which means that deceptive stunts and wild accusations are all that the anti-frackers have. There are no dead bodies to point to, no poisoned water to see. In fact, compared to most other sources of energy, fracking is fastidiously clean. That’s why flamethrowers have to be rigged – because the truth isn’t damning enough.

Compare that to the fantasy fuels proposed by the likes of Fox and other anti-frackers. Wind turbines and solar panels use rare earth metals, that are mined mainly in China, under horrific environmental conditions. You wouldn’t need to fake a burning garden hose in China – whole rivers ooze with toxic sludge. That’s what “green” technology looks like as it’s being mined and manufactured. That would be easy to film – a lot easier than rigging a garden hose. But it doesn’t suit the narrative of anti-fracking activists that North American fossil fuels are cleaner than international green schemes.

There will always be conspiracy theorists who insist that fracking is responsible for the funny taste of their water, or whatever grievance they need to scapegoat. Some of these people are scheming litigants, others are just deluded, some are media hounds, some are all three.

But they’re no different than anti-vaccine nuts, people who think Wi-Fi Internet causes cancer, or 9/11 truthers. In fact, those anti-scientific views are quite normal in the radical environmental movement. Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada’s Green Party, is a Wi-Fi truther and anti-fracker. The NDP’s Megan Leslie is an anti-fossil fuel extremist who recently promoted speeches by an 9/11 denier.

The common thread is the psychology of having “secret knowledge” that the “official system” doesn’t want you to know about. It’s a way of feeling special and righteous, and smarter than your neighbour. But, just like Steven Lipsky’s garden hose, it’s a lie.


Backyard flamethrowers and other fracking myths | LEVANT | Columnists | Opinion


herp derpson approved

 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Don't you understand it does not matter what the truth is people don't want it
Some people honestly getting all worked up and doing studies and finding data
People don't care they don't want it it is that simple
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
There seems to be a ton of different videos of this happening to different people. Did they all fake it?
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
California sits on the Monterey Shale formation. It's loaded with hydrocarbons ripe for the fracking. Lots of jobs in fracking. My county is going to ban fracking because of environmental extremism.
 

gerryh

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 21, 2004
25,546
184
63

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
If....and I mean a REALLY BIG IF, this is true, then why did he need to fake it to begin with?

He didn't fake anything. The hose was used to vent gas from the well. He was showing that there were flammable gasses in his well.
 

gerryh

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 21, 2004
25,546
184
63
He didn't fake anything. The hose was used to vent gas from the well. He was showing that there were flammable gasses in his well.


In a 2012 ruling, Judge Loftin wrote that Lipsky did “intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line… This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning.”


So, nothing he says can be taken at face value.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
In a 2012 ruling, Judge Loftin wrote that Lipsky did “intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line… This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning.”


So, nothing he says can be taken at face value.

The law suit was about how the video was characterized, but the facts are not disputed.

The lawsuit acknowledges that the gas was coming from the well.

It isn't something he said. You can watch the video yourself. He doesn't claim that he is burning water.

Here he does show how he can burn his water though.

Steven Lipsky Demonstrates That He Can Set His Well Water On Fire - YouTube