Wichita Falls, TX
report this user


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.
@94: "I'm really sick of entitled Clinton supporters complaining that far lefties are acting entitled by demonizing the moderate as hell candidate."
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.
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.)
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>>
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.)
Jul 22 venomlash commented on Hillary Clinton Announces Running Mate.
Looks like a pretty solid choice to me. Just worried that his support for the TPP will piss off Sanderinos.
I like how she announced right after the RNC to minimize the coverage Trump's speech got. Keep the focus on what we have to offer.
Jul 22 venomlash commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@69: "20 years is the time scale of interest when climate change will cross thresholds of no return for key climate impacts like the melting of unstable icesheets"
20 years is not the only timescale of interest. If we're hitting a tipping point where we're talking about deglaciating Greenland and Antarctica, methane emissions are going to be the LEAST of our worries. I'm concerned about reducing the effects of sustained warming and ocean acidification in the long term; focusing ONLY on the short term will screw us down the road. (I notice you're also not interested in addressing the massive amounts of heavy metals and nitrogen and sulfur oxides that coal power plants spew out. Are you some kind of big fan of acid rain?)

"Fugitive emissions are NOT reported by the EPA (doh!) but several studies have shown that fugitive methane emissions were real and significant, and concentration of methane in the atmosphere have abruptly started to rise again since the onset of fracking"
ONE, your link doesn't make any claims about the trend in methane emissions. TWO, the EPA ACTUALLY DOES TRACK FUGITIVE METHANE, YOU LYING SCRUB. (source, see Fig. 3-2 for the summary.) What, you couldn't click through to the source material you were so eager to dismiss? Including fugitive methane, both petroleum-related and total methane emissions are falling slightly DESPITE the rise of hydrofracturing.
You want to talk about BASIC FACTUAL ACCURACY? You just built your whole argument on an entirely false claim, one which you'd have known was false if you just took a quick look at the sources I linked.

As for Dr. Howarth, he makes a decent point that methane emissions from natural gas exploitation cause problems. (I'll forgive his repeated reference to a previous paper of his and his use of emissions estimates from that paper that are significantly higher than other estimates, under the assumption that he might very well be right.) However, said paper raises the promising possibility of advanced retention techniques being used to reduce methane losses at well sites, with a reduction estimated at 40% with the adoption of best practices. A 40% reduction of methane losses would make natural gas far more efficient than coal at minimizing warming, but this is tantalizing possibility is entirely ignored in the 2014 paper. When planning future energy policy, shouldn't we base our decisions on what can be done, not what is currently being done?

But to reiterate: you made entirely unsupported claims, completely dismissed the evidence I cited against them, and attempted to explain away the evidence by telling a baldfaced and imbecilic lie. And then YOU had the nerve to lecture ME on basic factual accuracy? Chutzpah!

And I'm talking big game on this issue not because I'm a graduate student, but because I am a geoscientist who actually studies this sort of shit instead of reading somebody's tinfoil blog all day. You don't even know what you're talking about, but you're determined to advance your own political opinions.
Jul 22 venomlash commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
@69: In other words, you're dismissing the evidence I've brought to support my points by claiming that it's all a big corporate conspiracy. Okay, I knew you were nuts, but I didn't know you were THAT nuts.

Despite the fact that I didn't reference the FDA anywhere in my post, you've decided to list some controversies related to the FDA as evidence that, I dunno, all my evidence is faked or something?
The spying began after FDA employees repeatedly sent confidential documents to Congress AFTER a Congressional committee had concluded that there was no wrongdoing in the part of the FDA. And given the history of some of those employees, their motives are certainly suspect; one expressed an intention "to sue the hell out of the agency ... get a couple cool mill and get out". Not exactly an unbiased whistleblower; more like a litigious opportunist.
None of the other claims are "evidence"; they're the sort of thing more properly called "allegations". We can talk about this when you have actual "evidence" of "wrongdoing".

If you actually read Stein's AMA post, it's clear she used the phrase "snake oil" to refer to unreliable approval processes tainted by regulatory capture, not to homeopathy. Need I remind you that the official Green Party platform explicitly endorses homeopathy?

Now, I'm going to give the methane issue its own post because WOW, there's a lot of lies in there to tackle.