McAleer, is that there is "no science" that oil and gas development causes negative effects on the communities in which it takes place. Of course if you look back through history, any science that does not reflect positively for the oil and gas industry has been attacked and attempted to be discredited. However, over the past several years, there has been significant scientific data released. Many of these reports have been peer reviewed and published in scientific journals. I have provided this information to Mr. McAleer on several occasions; however, the oil and gas industry extremist will simply not be confused with facts.
During our debate, I brought several different studies that dealt with the negative effects of oil and gas development. However, these 15 or so scientific studies were completely ignored by the industry
extremist, and no matter how many times they were brought up, they skimmed over them as though they never existed. It was comparable to them holding their hands over their ears and screaming la la la la la. They claim they want science, then they ignore the science that does not support their position.
After the debate a local radio host, had Mr. McAleer on their show, and they continued down the same path that there is simply "no science" to support that oil and gas development causes problems in communities where it takes place. Unfortunately, people like this have an audience and they spread this misinformation to that audience. I am shocked at the willingness of the corporate run media to give people like Mr. McAleer a much louder voice than his talent or credibility would warrant.
There is a theory that if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth. It is apparent that this is the
strategy employed by the oil and gas industry and their paid extremists. There is an industry imposed bar that gets raised to the point that it can never be met, especially on issues that impact their bottom
line. As previously mentioned, I have provided the tangible science on multiple occasions. During the
debate Mr. McAleer specifically wanted to see "peer reviewed science", which over the past few
years, there have been significant "peer reviewed science" released on the effects of oil and gas development. Mr. McAleer typically brings in his supporters on social media to help further his cause. During a recent Twitter discussion, I provided several "peer reviewed" studies regarding oil and gas development to one of Mr. McAleer's supporters and they responded with this:
So they ask for peer reviewed data, and when this data is provided, that attack peer reviewed data, or simply ignore it. This clearly shows that it is not about the data, it is about them spreading false and misleading information. Any "investigative journalist", which Mr. McAleer claims to be, would be aware of the significant science that emphasizes the negative impacts of oil and gas development. However, it is clear that him and his supporters choose to ignore it.
Although he does not have many supporters, some of them regurgitate his attacks without
researching them at all. This helps in his spread of misinformation. I often ask for the evidence to
support their attacks, which of course they can not produce. One of his more aggressive supporters,
began regurgitating the attacks, when I simply asked for evidence to support his claims. He decided
to be the first to f-bomb me on twitter and block me. You can see this below, actions such as this do
not move the debate along at all, but does show that it is not a debate or discussion that they are
after.
Another tactic that is used is to take an excerpt from one of these reports and take it out of context as
a mechanism to discredit it. Then they take this misinformation and extrapolate it to other reports, to
discredit all of the science that shows any negative effects of oil and gas development. In this
particular instance, the example that was used was a report of the social impacts of oil an gas
development, which has been a major problem for rural areas that do not have the infrastructure to
support a large influx of transient labor, which oil and gas development always brings. However, one
section of this report was taken out of context and then portrayed as the only science available on oil
and gas development. This of course shows no ethics in journalism, but rather more propaganda,
that is meant to distort the facts to reach an the outcome that they want. Why would a "investigative
journalist" take these sort of unethical actions? Money of course; they want the industry to throw
some of that big cash their way. This probably works for the unethical journalist, but not for the industry, as the public at large is seeing through their lies and misinformation.
Below are links to several reports of oil and gas development, some of which are peer reviewed. I
would encourage you to not only review the reports, but pay particular attention to the laboratory
results contained in the report. You will clearly see the trend that oil and gas development has
multiple negative effects in the areas in which it takes place. Instead of conceding this fact and looking for real remedies to the blatant problems that exist, the industry chooses to pay "journalist" to
mislead and attempt to cover up the facts. One of my close advisers used a term that describes this
well, when he called them "paid liars". Unfortunately for them the house of cards is coming down,
and the science is proving that this is is not "safe and effective" method of extracting hydrocarbons.
Barnett Shale Monitoring Report:
Garfield County Monitoring Report:
TCEQ Health Effects Review DISH:
Rice University Barnett Shale Air:
VOC Emissions from Oil and Condensate Storage Tanks:
Upstream Oil and Gas Storage Tank Project:
BSEEC Study Fort Worth and Arlington:
Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of
Unconventional Natural Gas Resources (peer reviewed):
Uintah Basin, UT (peer reviewed):
Birth Outcomes and Maternal Residential Proximity to Natural Gas
Development in Rural Colorado (peer reviewed):
Impacts of Gas Drilling on Human and Animal Health (peer reviewed):
Health Impact Assessment for Battlement Mesa, Garfield County, CO:
Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective (peer
reviewed):
Hormones and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (peer reviewed):
An Exploratory Study of Air Quality Near Natural Gas Operations
(peer reviewed):
INVESTIGATING LINKS BETWEEN SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH IMPACTS
THROUGH A COMMUNITY SURVEY PROJECT IN PENNSYLVANIA (peer reviewed):
This is just a fraction of the data available, and this was found with a quick internet search. Therefore, it does not take an "investigative journalist" to find this kind of information. However, on the many occasions, that I have brought this information to Mr. McAleer's attention, he always asks for more evidence, so perhaps the fearless "investigative journalist" needs some lessons on how to find the truth, cause it is clear he is looking in the wrong spot for it.
If we are ever going to truly have a discussion about our energy future, we must first concede that "fracking" is not the cure for everything, and it certainly has many problems associated with it. If we do not objectively look at this, there will be a big mess to be cleaned up in the future. There is one thing that they conveniently overlook, which is that there is no "peer reviewed" science that show this activity is completely safe.