You can't fathom somebody coming to a different conclusion on these matters and assign any dissent as "greed".
I can fathom someone coming to a different conclusion, but I won't change my mind unless I am given evidence that Big Oil operates on something other than a profit motive. I can fathom that you have come to a different conclusion, which is not necessarily motivated by greed, or a profit motive, but a desire to spend less money at the pump. I understand that motivation, I just don't think it stacks up favorably against the destruction caused by fracking.
Why the "If", Derec? He's your boogeyman, you should know a bit about him. If he stood to profit, I can guarantee that the dirty frackers would not have failed to inform you of that fact. On the other hand, we know exactly about the motives of Big Oil, which is profit above all else. Show that Steyer stands to profit monetarily from his advocacy, and then we can discuss whether or not that impacts his motivation.
Again, I do not care if he stands to profit or not. I mentioned him as an example of big money being spent against oil and gas development.
Why he spends that money is irrelevant to my claim that he does.
You may not care about motivation, but I do. One side has a profit motive, the other side has not been shown to have any other motive than to preserve the environment, and reduce harm to people who live in the environment. You really should care about that, but I can't force you to do so.
No. Fiction is quite literally making shit up. It doesn't have to mirror anything about reality.
Quite the contrary! If it had no basis in reality (even when it deals with fantastic things) it would be pointless.
Having a basis in reality and mirroring reality are two entirely different things.
We can reduce our reliance on coal and foreign oil without harming people and destroying the environment in the way that fracking does. It would cost a bit more, but that is the price you pay for being a responsible steward of our natural resources.
How do you propose to do that?
Haven't you been paying attention? Nuclear, wind, and solar.
Yes, I think that is quite accurate. Too bad that one group only believes in profit.
You have yet to provide any evidence for that assertion.
They are fracking for profit, that is the only evidence I need.
As ridiculous as their beliefs may seem to an atheist, like myself, at least their beliefs are not causing further harm to people and the environment. Quite the opposite of the other group that only believes in profit, people and the environment be damned.
On the contrary, if they carry the day, they will cause quite a bit of harm to people of the United States and probably the environment as well if Bakken oil is forced to be moved by trains and/or older pipelines.
Are they the ones fracking? If not, then they are not the ones who are causing this harm.
Perhaps we can, but the way to do it certainly is not fracking. In this thread you have been unable to mount any defense of fracking as being environmentally responsible.
I have shot down every one of your points except for earthquakes which are a limited problem that is only significant in Oklahoma.
No, you haven't. You only shot down a parenthetical comment that was not central to the point being made.
The only thing you have been able to present in favor of fracking is saving money at the pump, increasing profits for Big Oil, and the possibility of this causing pain to the economies of Russia and Saudi Arabia. None of that has anything to do with environmental responsibility.
I have shot your objections to fracking which is enough.
You did no such thing. Here is the last substantive post I made in response to your objections about the problems with fracking:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?9116-Why-are-so-called-quot-progressives-quot-and-quot-liberals-quot-so-deferential-to-religious-nonsense-by-Indians&p=326778&viewfull=1#post326778
The only part of it to which you responded was the bit at the end about Tom Steyer.
The burden of proof is on you to show fracking fundamentally environmentally irresponsible. You have failed to do so.
Incorrect. I have shown that it is environmentally irresponsible because of the following factors:
-Contamination of wells, aquifers, and ground water with the chemicals used in fracking.
-Increased seismic activity due to fracking.
-Diversion of water resources, contributing to droughts.
-Release of methane from far underground, contributing further to anthropomorphic climate change.
You have even used conspiracy theories by Russia Today, even though Russia stands to profit from fracking being shut down.
An issue which I immediately conceded, but only stemmed from a parenthetical comment that was not central to the point being made, which is contamination of wells, aquifers, and ground water with the chemicals used in fracking.
I never said it was. Motivation is the key. That is what you are failing to grasp here.
No, I do not "fail to grasp it", I disagree with it. Big difference.
Great, you don't care about the motivation behind why the players in the game spend their money. That is the big divide between the two of us. Motivation matters to me.
Well, I think you have failed miserably in tying that educational activity to something that supports your argument.
I mentioned him when you stated that Big Oil spends a lot of money on lobbying. I merely retorted that others like Steyer spend a lot of money lobbying against oil. Instead of accepting that big money flows on both sides, you are trying to weasel out by basically claiming that big money does not count if the motives are pure enough.
Moving on to the question of motivation is very much an acceptance that money is flowing on both sides. Beside that, there is the fact that I have agreed with you that there is money being spent on both sides. Perhaps you should pay more attention to our discussion. There is also a conversation to be had on the disparity between sides on how much money is being spent on lobbying. This may not be the place for that.
So? You haven't shown he stood to profit from his activism. It seems to me that he spent that money out of concern for the environment. Show that I am wrong if you think mentioning Steyer supports your argument.
My argument was that he spends big money on lobbying. I never claimed he did it because he stands to profit from it. That is your red herring.
It is not a red herring. Once we have established that both sides are spending money on lobbying, the remaining issues are how much relative spending there is, and what motivation exists on each side for that spending. These things matter. If one side is spending 100x more than the other, that needs to be factored into the equation. If one side is spending money to make money, and the other side is spending money to preserve the environment, that also needs to factor into the equation of which side is doing harm, and which is doing good. After all, we are ultimately talking about the harm that fracking does.
