John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune, Missouri

Taxpayers Should Oppose Proposed Fracking Ban

Jobs, Revenues, and Energy Independence Depend on It

Saturday, August 2, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

The Central Coast’s energy industry is vital to the economic health of the region — producing thousands of jobs and millions per year in tax revenue. Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is an important technology in our statewide energy portfolio. Fracking allows us to access our domestic oil and gas in a safe, reliable manner.

That’s why the Central Coast Taxpayers Association opposes the anti-fracking ballot initiative that will appear on the November ballot in Santa Barbara County. A fracking ban would stifle the energy boom and needlessly put at risk thousands of jobs and our region’s fragile economic recovery.

Santa Barbara taxpayers should embrace fracking. Fracking technology is being used safely all over the world: from California to Canada, North Dakota to the Netherlands. It provides well-paying jobs and much-needed revenues for local governments, reducing the tax burden on all taxpayers. It has led to a five-year decrease in natural gas prices and fueled a domestic manufacturing boom.

In large part due to fracking technology, energy independence for the United States is now within reach for the first time in history.

The economic benefits of fracking are undeniable. But it is also environmentally beneficial. The increase in shale oil and gas has meant less domestic reliance on coal, which is considered a more polluting energy source.

Supporters of the proposed ban raise environmental concerns, but they do not have evidence on their side. There is no data showing that water pollution or earthquake activity results from the use of fracking technology. Indeed, Governor Brown — a career environmentalist — supports fracking with reasonable regulations.

Banning such an efficient and clean technology — particularly on a local level — makes little sense. It would do nothing but push jobs and tax revenue elsewhere.

Instead, we must strive for reasonable, science-based regulations on the state and federal level. We should facilitate public debate about how we can best harness the tremendous benefits of fracking technology while maintaining its environmental safety record.

Fracking is a safe and proven method for extracting our natural resources, growing our economy, and providing much-needed jobs and tax revenues for our local communities. For the sake of taxpayers on the Central Coast, we urge you to oppose the Santa Barbara County Fracking Ban Initiative this November 4th.

Jordan Cunningham is president of the Central Coast Taxpayers Association, based in Templeton, California:


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Doesn't fracking cause earthquakes?

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's actually not fracking that causes it, it's the injection of wastewater fluids into the well that seem to cause it. That means any enhanced technique, whether fracking, steam injection or acidizing, increases the risks. Currently there is a lot of steam injection in the county which uses hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per well which then get injected into a hole in the ground... increasing the earthquake risk, and of course the risk of leaking into groundwater.

The oil industry in our county makes up about 1% of county revenue. There are only a few hundred direct jobs, while ag and tourism (our main industries) create hundreds of thousands of direct jobs. This industry's arguments are pretty terrible. They mainly want to make money at our expense.

nitrogen (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This piece is wrong.

The oil industry employs fewer than 0.2% of the County workforce, & puts the rest of our economy (primarily ag, tourism, tech &services) at risk.

According to the S.B.County Industry Cluster Report less than 400 people are employed by the oil industry in Santa Barbara out of a workforce of 250,000.

These aren't "safe" jobs. The oil/ gas industry has a fatality rate 7 times higher than for all other workers, according to data released by the CDC.

Oil accounts for only 2.5% of County property tax revenue. We should be more concerned about the other 97.5% that could decrease in value.

Fracking and related extraction negatively affect the value of adjacent properties and farms.

A study from the University of Alberta found that closeness to oil facilities, “have significant negative associations w/ property prices.”

The National Bureau of Economic Research found“groundwater risk reduces property values by up to 24 percent” in shale gas development areas in Pa

Oil property tax revenue in 2013 in SB County was only $16 million out of $651 million collected, but net is much less than that as this is an costly industry in terms of County expenditures, which include maintaining road impacted by heavy industry, public health, full-time staff, air quality reviews, environmental oversight, etc.

InKern County, which has 30 times more oil production than SB County& accounts for most of the State economic value cited by the oil industry, unemployment & asthma rates are higher, & wages &property values are lower than SBCounty.

"Prolonged oil and natural gas specialization leads to lower per capita income, more crime,& less educational attainment."

2)YES there's data showing the harm of fracking & the other extreme extraction methods;

Robert and Lisa Parr in Texas won a large court settlement against nearby fracking after proving definitively that the operations had polluted their air and water and caused them to suffer terrible illnesses.

Fred Starrh, an almond farmer in Kern County, proved that polluted wastewater from steam injection oil operations had killed his orchards and cost him millions of dollars. The court couldn't deny his evidence and he won the case.

Then there are non disclosure agreements. Industry pays folk off when damaged so these people can't talk about it.

yes fracking itself may induce earthquakes, random_kook. & its conclusive that injection of frack waste water, does induce earthquakes

The midwest -which is NOT notorious for seismic activity has seen a drastic rise in quakes eince fracking & other "enhanced" drilling took off, -ones over 3.0 & including the damaging 5.6 in Oklahoma....

We 'd be foolish to deny the increased risk here in earthquake land.

morgainele (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jordan, you say we need 'science-based regulations' yet you ignore the most important science of all. How much more bs is gonna pour out the mouths of the greedy and ignorant? Science? Check out the science of 350 parts per million and how we are past 400 in the atmosphere. Hope you like the conditions on Venus, Jordan 'cause that's where we are headed with further extraction of fossil fuels.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fracking is awesome, hurts nothing, helps control oil prices, reduces our dependency on foreign oil, uses either wastewater that would never be used by people/AG or uses water sourced from far, far below our water tables that does not compete with potable water sources.

The anti-fracking crowd is:
- filled with anti-capitalist, self-hating, utopian idealists that refuse to engage in a fact based discussion.
- projecting and distributing mis-information and lies to support their view that oil is bad, etc.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for some facts, morgainele - from actual figures rather than vague, false statements such as "The Central Coast’s energy industry is vital to the economic health of the region — producing thousands of jobs and millions per year in tax revenue. "

"Santa Barbara taxpayers should embrace fracking. Fracking technology is being used safely all over the world: from California to Canada, North Dakota to the Netherlands."

No, they should NOT embrace fracking if one relies on what other countries and US states are doing - banning fracking.

What a useless, fact-deficient, propaganda-promoting OP. And the facts contradicting it, are readily available on the web. Santa Barbara taxpayers should embrace what serves their tax dollars best.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

'California Halts Fracking Waste Injections; Fears "Danger To Life, Health, & Natural Resources"'
19 July 2014

Industry lies go well beyond the environmental destruction.

Here's a whopper….

"There is so much oil in the Monterey Shale that it could create millions of middle-class jobs if North Dakota-style drilling were allowed."

…which is based on the industry lie that 25 times more oil can be recovered here than recent official figures indicate:

'U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%'
Los Angeles Times
20 May 2014

The decline rate of fracked wells is unprecedented; in the Bakken, legacy decline is 71% of new production. This article, that includes four charts, details this (in regard to fracking in the Bakken):

'The Coming Bust of the Great Bakken Oil Field'
SRSrocco Report
16 November 2013

So the economic benefits — if any — are extremely short-term, but environmental damages can be forever.

Then there's this, regarding a Cornell University study:

‘New Research Strengthens Link Between Shale Drilling And Earthquakes’
7 July 2014


This article details the significant positive results of the cumulative actions of small towns acting independently in upstate New York:

'NY Anti-Fracking Ruling Deals Blow To Shale Industry'
1 July 2014


"In the past six years, towns and cities across New York have acted on their own, passing municipal bans. One, the upstate town of Dryden, was taken to court by an energy company after it prohibited fracking.

"By a 5-2 vote, the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, ruled that the actions taken by local communities to restrict fracking amounted to a 'reasonable exercise' of their zoning authority, particularly since high levels of drilling 'would permanently alter and adversely affect the deliberately cultivated small-town character of their communities.'

"The court decision could have a deflating effect on future drilling prospects in New York, even if the statewide moratorium is lifted. Although there are plenty of counties and cities that would support fracking, the patchwork of municipal bans could make drilling on a large scale difficult. Navigating the maze of municipal zoning laws could deter investment altogether."

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, JT, I "fave" your post.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Doesn't the Newspress publish enough of this oil industry nonsense?? Why must the Independent also? Hydrocarbons and nukes are on the wrong side of history... Get w/ it people.

BondJamesBond (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2014 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fracking is not a bridge to our energy future. It's a dead end. The future is clean renewable energy and we don't have to wait for new technology. Solar is already here and it's affordable too. Curious if solar could work for you? Get an instant estimate of your property's solar potential here. -

EnergySage (anonymous profile)
August 3, 2014 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are some facts to consider about Santa Barbara County oil and gas production.

In 2013 SB County (onshore) production was 4,289,543 bbls of oil and 1,104,543 mcf of natural gas. The economic value of that, using $100 a barrel and $4 per mcf, was $433 million. Since 1977 SB County has produced 209,673,995 barrels of oil and 188.6 Billion cubic feet of natural gas. I can't calculate the value of that but I am sure it is a very large number. The oil and gas industry has long been established in this county and has been here longer than most people realize. The very first offshore wells drilled in the world were off the beach in Summerland in 1896.

If you think $433 million dollars is an insignifcant part of the Santa Barbara economy (and a significant part of that money stays here in the form of royalties and salaries) you are simply naive and uniformed.

For what it is worth, this is public information that I get off the state's website.

diver (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a lot of uninformed naivete herein. And an equal amount of baseless claim. The only concern that is worrisome is the possible connection earthquakes - yet to be proven.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

WHY are we spending so much time talking about fracking. You are actually getting boring. It isn't being done here. If it was, it would be so controlled. I have not had an earthquake at my local address in many, many years and I have lived here 70+ years, so your argument that water injection causes earthquakes doesn't hold water. I do think those that created this horrible cancer with "P" should look into your own homes, or let us into your home to tell you what you can keep and what you can't. Gather up your money and put it where your mouth is, start a fund to help pay for the litigation coming. You, individually, need to be financially responsible for this coming debt if "P" passes. This is where we should start concentrating, getting a group to make you financially responsible. That just might happen yet.. Shame on you for backing Measure P. Move out of the county. We don't need your kind here.

sensiblemolly (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

and they will still make those millions in this county even if the measure passes diver. Shame molly? You want to take the blame for the extinction of the human race? So much concern for $, no concern for the health and safety of those walking, flying, swimming on the planet.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Spacey: Extinction of the human race? Really? You water guardians are starting to sound desperate

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice try nuff nuff, not a water guardian, but a human guardian (check out the science on the warming planet, plenty of fact found everywhere). You enjoy your profit guardian status now, hear?

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The warming is called weather. Seems it wasn't too many years ago your kind were worried about the ice cap moving down from Canada. Its called weather. Can I come to your property and tell you where you can plant a bush? No way. What has happened to America? No longer the land of the free and home of the brave except for a few of us that are trying to make it right for the future generations which will be here with oil or not. The water guardians need to find and live on an island and control what happens there. I am considered an environmentalist, I care about our air and land, but this is way over the top and will cause taxes to go up to pay for the litigations coming if P passes. Job loss, taxes, fire dept., schools all will suffer. P was taken too far. Are Katie Davis, Ms Bevins financially able to pay their share of the cost of litigations? Doubt it- and we'll all be stuck with the bill. I am glad you are NOT a water guardian. People voting against P are getting Angry and MAD, this is something I have never seen before. And I'm not talking just about the oil companies . This is scary. Talk to your kind, tell them to let windfarms come in, more solar, desal plants, stop selling those parts to Iraq in SB. I believe the Water Guardians aren't concerned about water, they just plain hate oil.. Vote NO on P.

sensiblemolly (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Be sensible molly. You should first learn the difference between climate and weather and then get back to us.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The $433 million dollars is a gross value. It appears as though the taxes are just $16 million. The rest probably goes to operating costs, salaries of 400 people, CEO bonuses, campaign contributions, and profit for Wall Street.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spacey: There hasnt been any warming for the past 18 years in spite of rising CO2. Thats a tough fact for the global warming faithful to explain.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha: So the new dirty words are: profits, fracking, and Koch Brothers. . . riiiiight?

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well the Koch Bros are kinda trashy.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha: Most of us are unmoved by climate horror documentaries like the one on your youtube link. These horror 'documentaries' all seek to stampede us toward a big government solution to a problem that doesnt really exist.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jed Clampett was shooting varmints when his bullet hit the ground and struck oil. I saw that on the Beverly Hillbillies.

If it werent for the gun control freaks we wouldnt have to frack.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 5:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fracking is not a bridge to the future? If anyone can tell me how solar, electricity or wind can currently run a big-rig truck, I'll listen.

Otherwise, fossil fuels (preferably natural gas) must be used to run at least vehicles until more practical alternatives are found.

Some people have the common sense of a pet rock.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dolphinpod: Jed went immediately from varmints, to mass murder. Granny also. She got a-holt of Jeds gun and shot up several schoolhouses. So we had to ban guns. Now cuz a that we have fracking, and the Coke brothers. If it isnt one thing its another.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nuffalready - your knowledge of science appears to be non-existent, as is your desire to be more informed, and your grasp of issues are at a level of highly simplistic bumper sticker verbiage. You would not even begin to understand what NOAA, NASA, the Navy, the military, insurance companies, and thousands of scientists worldwide understand. Your mind is slammed shut to everything except to what you want to believe. And you have absolutely zero facts to support your view.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, remove your head from your posterior. Electricity is being used to power railroads in many other countries around the world. Pet rock thinkers such as yourself help keep them from proliferating in the USA. And since I know you don't have the brain cells required to make the connection, I'll give you the punchline: the electricity to power those railroads comes from clean power like wind and solar.

We have to stop thinking so close to our own geography and our own today. Is fracking bad today? Some say no. Some have gotten really sick. Some have seen much pollution. All I know is my sister and my friends are having kids. I don't want these kids to be left with a planet that's a disaster because we wanted to retain those few million $ from a couple of Santa Barbara wells. Money to the oil industry? Or a clean planet for our progeny? I'm for the latter.

z28racergirl (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The reason Europe has electric trains is because they have so much water (and not much oil) it has created waterfalls in the mountainous areas and they built the dams to create electricity. I know. I visit every year. We don't have that luxury in Ca. Plus some special interest group will try to stop the building of dams to catch the water needed for electricity anyway. Haven't we seem that already many times over? Electric cars need batteries. Read recently there is to be a huge plant built in USA using petroleum products to make these batteries for these electric cars. Hummm.

sensiblemolly (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

z28racergirl, do you worry about the massive debt your grandchildren are inheriting for government bills they did not even run up or benefit from? That is a real actuarily threat, for more punishing than vague speculation about climate matters.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Z28 - "I don't want these kids to be left with a planet that's a disaster because we wanted to retain those few million $ from a couple of Santa Barbara wells. "

Gosh Z28, what can I say. If only we don't drill those couple of wells, the planet will be saved!

Get a grip on reality before you start posting.

Botany (anonymous profile)
August 5, 2014 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha: You say that I have zero knowledge of science, that I have a simplistic view, etc. Consider this:

A Pew Research Center poll in June found that 53% are now skeptical of the climate-change hype. Rasmussen found 63% are skeptics.

So while you green-leftists go on flattering yourselves about how intellectually superior you are, it appears you are loosing.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 9, 2014 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not base my opinion of climate change on poll results - if I did, that would indicate both a simplistic view and reliance on many who have little knowledge of science.

Did you watch the video I included in the previous link. If not, please do.

How many people who answer polls even know the science behind climate change? Very few.

In the video to which I linked, Senator Whitehouse mentions insurance companies that are taking climate change into account. How many people who are polled even know anything about actuarial science? Even fewer.

Senator Whitehouse also mentions NASA and NOAA. How many people who are polled even know the full extent of what these institutions do? and what they study wrt climate change. Few.

And you suggest that polls indicate whether climate science is true or not? Nope, the problem is the scientific literacy of those who are polled, which is such that anything they say on the subject is highly suspect and unreliable.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 9, 2014 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"So while you green-leftists go on flattering yourselves about how intellectually superior you are, it appears you are loosing."

Btw the word is losing.

Green-leftists? How about the US Dept of Defense? How about the US Navy? How about insurance companies? How about companies such as Apple, Walmart, Pepsi, Coca-cola, Mars, Nike, Google? How about the Conference of Catholic Bishops? They all believe in Climate Change and are doing something about it.

That is NOT losing.
That is NOT just green-leftists.

And apparently, as the Senator says at the end of the video, the majority of Republicans under the age of 35 believe in climate change as well.

YOU have lost the argument.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 9, 2014 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

" Read recently there is to be a huge plant built in USA using petroleum products to make these batteries for these electric cars. Hummm."

---- debunking another lie

In keeping with the environmentally friendly theme, the Gigafactory will be "heavily powered" by both solar and wind energy, and according to our colleagues at Autoblog Green, "will also use older Tesla packs for storage."

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 9, 2014 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha: You're right. Its losing instead of loosing. See you are intellectually superior, just as you freely admit.

We expect the establishment (corporate and government) to push AGW. A carbon tax and a giant gov enforcement effort greatly benefits them. Big oil like BP and CVX are onboard with AGW too. They clearly are part of the establishment. Are you 'establishment' too?

The polls suggest the electorate isnt so much onboard with AGW as it once was. We are weary of the hype and fear mongering. We dont want the EPA to make energy as expensive as it is in the EU.

As for the science, the green, corporate, and government funded scientists (not surprisingly) push AGW. Thats how they eat. If they want more grant money, or another charge number, they need to propose another AGW related 'study'. Zero money if they dare question AGW. They are more likely to be blackballed, called a nutcase, etc. I was part of the grant seeking crowd once, but I clearly wasnt as superior as yourself.

Perhaps you could explain why GW has taken an 18-year break while CO2 concentrations have risen 50-60 ppmv. Should be a snap.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2014 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again, you failed to watch the video, otherwise you would have answered your own questions. And once again, you spout myth instead of fact.

a) Renewable energy in the EU is CHEAPER than that from oil. In fact, it can get to negative when solar panels are supplying more energy than the owner uses.

b) Many energy companies do NOT want renewables, because it is cheaper and less profitable, hence your statement "the green, corporate, and government funded scientists (not surprisingly) push AGW" is utter nonsense. The property insurance sector is concerned about AGW because it may HURT their profits, when they have to cover highly expensive damage cause by extreme weather. Companies are there to MAKE money. If AGW is going to negatively affect that, they are going to take action. Once again, a point you would have got, if you had watched the video.

c) AGW has NOT taken an 18 year break, something again you would have understood if you had watched the video. If you had looked at graphs of the increase in heat, the atmospheric warming increases in steps, that can be falsely interpreted as an hiatus. However, ocean warming from global warming has continued unabated, without stopping. Hence the last decade according to people who know what they doing NOAA, NASA is the hottest on record. Unfortunately the details of science escape those who go for bumper sticker type statements that are patently false.

Please, enough already of the hype and myth. Dig a little deeper. It was only after digging a little deeper that scientists discovered that the world is not flat,and the sun does not revolve around planet Earth.

Lastly, can you please explain why scientific institutions that have long-established credibility in science, are somehow completely wrong when it comes to AGW. That represents a complete and utter disconnect, as a result of unscientific, nonsense thinking by people who do not look for information to understand, but rather regurgitate the anti-AGW that is fed to them by their corporate masters whose only interest is to continue huge profits now and forget about the future. This is most clearly emphasized by the statement from the Kochs about solar panel users being freeloaders. The free part is the sun from which they cannot profit, not the expensive part of gas/oil from which they do profit.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2014 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nuffalready oughta do some reading and pondering of tabatha's research and references; nuff, you stick with throwing silly epithets, such as " green-leftists go on flattering yourselves..." -- see, you got nothing, tabatha has thoughtfully and forcefully demolished your facile assertions. Run for cover, or just fess up.
YES on P!

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2014 at 12:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr. Fred Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Science. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.''

Dr. Robert Laughlin, a Nobel Prize-winning Stanford University physicist: "Please remain calm. The earth will heal itself. Climate is beyond our power to control. The earth doesn't care about government and legislation. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something the earth does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself".

These two flat earth jokers apparently missed the 'science-is-in' memo . . right?

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeez it would be so nice if BOTH sides would try sticking to actual science. Abiotic oil? Earthquakes caused by water disposal? Now climate change denying?
Holy effin Christ! Open a Science book people, BOTH sides!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken_Volok: 'Science books' argue every angle of every issue you list. The real world isnt quite so simple as 'opening a science book'. Sorry to break that to you.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I watched Sen Whitehouse's demolition of Sen Inhofe a few times. On Warmus Interruptus he argued that the ocean ate it, which is the most popular of about 2 dozen explanations floated for the hiatus in the literature.

Its not the hiatus the intellectually superior ought to be embarrassed about. Its how wrong the IPCC models have proven to be since 'the science was settled' in the 1992 Rio Conference.

nuffalready (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry to break it to you astroalready but I have friends in the field and they call BS on BOTb sides. Science rules in the end. YES it does boil down to cracking open a science book, and common sense. Sorry to crack open open common sense to you, you and the water guardians are whack-O!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2014 at 11:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WE are the water gaurdines Ken. We dont like oil in the water. Oil in the oceans hurts the dolphins, whales, sharks, and yes, even seloins.

Switch to ethanol. Alcohol-based fuel is a good thing, even as I down another shot of cognac,

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2014 at 2:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: