venomlash
Wichita Falls, TX
report this user

Bio

I'm a straight guy who supports LGBTQ rights, especially considering as I have family and… more »

in the past few hours venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
@108: Ohhhh, I see the problem. When I say "liberal" I mean "liberal", and when you say "liberal" you mean "far left ideologue". THERE'S the confusion!
7:55 AM venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
@98: Her voting record has actually been liberal, more liberal than 70% of her fellow Democrats in the Senate. I hate to disabuse you of your little fantasy (nah, who am I kidding, you'll reject out-of-hand any information that goes against it) but she's actually been liberal her whole career.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hilla…
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clint…
http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/8-…

@99: She's been getting money from the banking industry for her entire political career. When, exactly, is she going to start doing their nefarious bidding?
7:47 AM venomlash commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@84: I'm not claiming expertise in this field; I'm just capable of reading papers and understanding what information is being conveyed. And yes, it is hilariously irresponsible to draw a trendline through three solitary points obtained through three entirely different methodological approaches and expect people to believe that the line accurately models a long-term trend. That's literally what climate deniers do in their attempt to prove that the earth is cooling.

Now, you might also have bothered to read THIS latest paper before posting it in favor of your arguments.
First off, it doesn't support your claim that overall methane emissions in the USA are increasing. It's speaking only in regards to two regions where production is being significantly stepped up. (Emissions increase locally when drilling increases? SHOCKER.) Kudos to the authors for being honest and clear about this, though, and emphasizing that their results are not representative of the country at large.
Secondly, they highlight some big problems with production at Bakken and Eagle Ford. There's atypically high flaring and venting of petroleum, leading to higher emissions. I've already made it clear that I'm in favor of mandating loss-reduction technology (which you've entirely ignored in your zeal to make natural gas the bad guy) in order to curb such carelessness.
Three, and this is the part where your lack of a scientific education comes in, have you SEEN the uncertainties? The uncertainties listed are nearly as big as the statistics to which they pertain!

Any fool can post a study. Apparently it takes a college education to actually READ a study.
More...
12:17 AM venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
@94: "I'm really sick of entitled Clinton supporters complaining that far lefties are acting entitled by demonizing the moderate as hell candidate."
FTFY
I mean, you've literally claimed that she secretly holds a bunch of far-right positions that go against her stated goals, that she will surely enact once she steals the election.
10:51 PM yesterday venomlash commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@81: I'm just going to ignore the fact that you linked a paper entirely unrelated to the abstract you posted, and assume you made a minor error. Now, as for the paper (Turner et. al 2016) whose abstract you posted:
Really? THIS is your best evidence that there's actually an increasing trend in methane emissions due to natural gas extraction? First off, their argument hinges on a trendline drawn through three points, as seen in Figure 1. What are those points? They're the Ch4 emissions (in Tg/yr) at three points in time as estimated by three separate groups using three separate methodologies. They're comparing apples and oranges; to be precise, they're comparing aircraft and satellite measurements using entirely different models. While all of those are useful on their own, it's hilariously irresponsible to draw conclusions from direct comparison. Chronologically, they show increasingly high emissions estimates, but chronologically, they also reflect a shift from atmospheric to satellite measurements; there is no attempt to address this possible confounding factor. (If satellite measurements tend to overestimate emissions relative to atmospheric measurements, that's the trend explained by measurement errors right there.)
You may also note that they mapped out where, in the continental USA, estimated methane emissions have increased the most. (See Figure 2.) If you look at a map of shale gas reservoirs, you'll notice several dramatic discrepancies. Why would there be negligible increases over the Barnett and Antrim plays, which are major areas of gas production from fracked reservoirs, and yet massive increases over northern Baja California and over Georgia, where there is practically no gas extraction going on? It doesn't exactly fit with your narrative.

Next time, I recommend you actually read the papers you're looking at before you share them. Don't just skim the abstracts to see if they agree with you; READ the body of the paper to see if it's worth citing.
More...
1:54 PM yesterday venomlash commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@77: Oh, I do love me some mud. Micrite, phyllosilicates, benthic silica ooze...good stuff. It's fascinating geochemically all the way from origin to diagenesis, and it's excellent at preserving fossils in fine detail. Why, I've been writing my thesis on some beautiful silicified trilobites found in some Ordovician-age argillaceous marls, which are basically just a mix of skeletal fragments in various types of mud.

Of course, all you did was post a source reiterating Dr. Howarth's concerns, while completely ignoring the fact that you lied outright about what the EPA does and doesn't track. Your argument seems to be based entirely on bold claims that all the evidence is invalid. Why? Because you say it's biased by special interests, even though you can't be arsed to show any actual undue influence or to provide any competing evidence to corroborate your claims. You're EXACTLY THE SAME in this regard as the climate deniers, who insist that all evidence against their opinions is the result of some massive conspiracy, that all statistics provided by government agencies are faked, and that they alone know the truth.
Come back when you want to talk evidence instead of conspiracy theory, you tinfoil hatter. In the mean time, I'll base my positions on reality. (Remember, you are dealing with a GEOSCIENTIST here.)
More...
1:44 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..
@204: If you want to risk your own fortunes for four years of Donald Trump, that's your business. But I personally don't want to spend the next few years of MY life wondering if tomorrow is the day the big mushrooms start to grow, and I imagine a lot of other Americans feel similarly.
1:42 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
@69: <<plagiarism joke>>
DAMMIT
12:16 PM yesterday venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
@69: <>
9:46 AM yesterday venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
@47: "I'm not rationalizing idiocy. I'd rather see the Ds lose to Trump than to any of the other jackasses in the party."
It's hella eerie seeing those two sentences right next to each other.

(Personally, I'd rather have Rubio or Kasich in the White House than Trump, given that they have some idea how government works, can be relied on to work with Democrats where there is common ground (such as immigration reform), and have a track record of generally acting like sane and responsible adults.)