They better start teaching the local florae and faunae how to show common sense and act responsibly too.
No. Itâs not that he became a politician per se. Itâs just that once he entered that sphere he realized that significant compromise was a part of the game. Some of the idealism was knocked out of him, it seemed. He ended up pleasing no-one, really.
It might be naturally occurring if fracking didnât cause it, though.
Iâm concerned about the long-term implications for our attention economy. Induction is a powerful cognitive force in humans. If every time someone Googles a dramatic phenomenon, they find out itâs not quite what it seems, they will learn to distrust dramatic displays that donât agree with their current worldview, while uncritically accepting those displays that do agree with their worldview, because of confirmation bias. If on the other hand, every time you listen to someone, they turn out to be right on the money, you learn to trust that group or that viewpoint.
Think about it this way: When was the last time you really paid attention to an advertisement you already knew was an advertisement? How much have âads that arenât adsâ turned you off or made you skeptical of something that âwas probably a publicity stunt.â The return on investment for theatrics diminishes over time. These waves break dramatically, but quickly. If hunger is the best salt for food, then the unalloyed truth is the best tectonic for a tsunami.
Youâre just glad for an excuse to share that video. I see you!
It does if youâre from Cleveland.
In some cases, yes, but people have long had trouble getting alarmed by complex issues that will gradually cause problems in the future. I still maintain that in a case like this one, âFracking will eventually cause all sorts of problems, including danger to our grandchildrenâ would not rally nearly as many people against fracking as âHoly shit, fracking makes it possible to set fucking rivers on fire!â
Itâs good for the environment, too (well, less bad): Methane has about 600 times the warming effect of C02 - and when burned forms 1 CO2 and 2 H2O.
Oh, stop complaining. It stopped Stannisâ army, didnât it??
I came to the comments to explicitly make that joke
On the plus side, the rest of my morning is now devoted to 80s Australian pop rock.
Itâs definitely naturally occuring; it just isnât naturally in that location. Theyâre trying to deflect attention by exploiting the subset of people who hate fracking but love all things natural. Marketing speak, in other words.
I mostly agree with your assessment, but the
can be helpful to show an otherwise hidden/arcane (from a laymanâs POV) issue. It is bad when the explanation stops there, though I see positive benefits of an eye opener.
So do I have this right? In a locale that is marking the [centenary](file:///Users/mckinndj/Downloads/Methane%20gas%20in%20water%20bores_Final_Report_281014.pdf) of methane being found frequently in water-wells and natural seeps, a politician went to a seep that has been known about for 30 to 40 years (but recently is more active, and that activity directly relates in time to the replenishment of the aquifer) and lit it on fire.
This is supposed to demonstrate that the nonexistent recent activities nearby dormant coal-seam-gas extraction site are the true cause of the seep activity, and not the water-supply changes; and this is somehow related to fracking even though fracking was never used at the site?
It reminds me of Gasland. I donât think these sort of theatrics really help, they just give ammunition to the other side.
people are dumb. you talk about âenvironmental hazard,â itâs a leftist power-grab. you set water on fire, they care.
I fully support your resolution to listen to Australian music but must say that I donât think Midnight Oil can be classified as pop!
Citation please.
And btw, he doesnât say fracking in the video was used âat the site,â if by that you mean the site is the river itself. He says itâs âjust a kilometre away.â