New York Times Gets Off on the Wrong Road with Natural Gas

Ian Urbina did another hit piece on natural gas at the New York Times but got his facts all wrong and drew the wrong conclusions, putting himself on the wrong road:

http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/urbina-wheels-his-way-into-...

Views: 758

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 24, 2012 at 6:27pm

Wrong again Jeff, Urbina's article was totally debunked by the hard statistics and thorough analysis provided by Tom Shepstone in his article titled Urbina Wheels His Way into Trouble with Latest Shale Story available here: http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/urbina-wheels-his-way-into-...

 

Don't feel too bad Jeff, a lot of uneducated people are taken in by the sloppy work and faulty thought processes of the Anti-Fracers and pseudo-environmentalists.

 

JS, an environmentalist (of the true variety)

 

 

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on May 24, 2012 at 7:36pm

Hey, Jack, I appreciate the support.  I see you do  a lot of posting and I'd love to talk to you sometime.  Send me an e-mail sometime (to [email protected]).

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on May 24, 2012 at 8:43pm

Well, that's mighty humble of you, Jeff!  I notice you don't challenge any the facts I offered.  Rather, you go straight to the ad hominem.  Tell me where I'm wrong instead of pretending the Times is infallible.  I seem to remember something about a fellow named Jayson Blair, one of the Times' finest.  Is he still there?  Perhaps you'd know.  Also, what do you mean "coming here and telling us"?  I am a landowner with a lease and have lived "here" for my entire life.  How about you?

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on May 24, 2012 at 9:15pm

Still no counter on the facts, I see.

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on May 24, 2012 at 9:30pm

I knew you couldn't do it.

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 24, 2012 at 9:33pm

Actually, the facts (I am glad that you do recognize them as facts) do invalidate the core conclusions in Urbina's story - pure and simple.

If you read Urbina's story and contrast that article with Mr. Shepstone's studied and documented response (and have 8th grade reading comprehension) the facts do invalidate the core conclusions in Urbina's story.

The truth is you lack the ability to provide a cogent rebuttal; when you dig youself into a hole, you really should stop digging - prove us wrong!

 

JS

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 24, 2012 at 9:47pm

RE: “Weak-minded individuals confuse facts with truth.  Facts are merely data points, and data can be used to support just about any argument you care to make.  When people want to distract you from a critical issue, they often attempt to push the debate into factual minutia.  It's a common rhetorical tactic in today's American public forum.”

I believe that the above gobblygook can be distilled down to one concise statement – Don’t confuse me with the facts!

Don’t confuse me with the facts! seems to be the Anti-Fracers mantra.

The truth is you lack the ability to provide a cogent rebuttal; when you dig youself into a hole, you really should stop digging - prove us wrong!

 

JS

 

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on May 24, 2012 at 9:47pm

Your last reply sounds a lot like Dan Rather's excuse for using that false National Guard story on the theory he was telling a bigger truth and Josh Fox when he said, regarding his Memorial Day movie:

"Everything in the film was planned, every scene was either scripted or outlined beforehand – but everything really happened, because it was real, in a sense, we were immersed in that reality."

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on May 24, 2012 at 9:58pm

Yeah, yeah, everything is relative and because you're just so darned smart you're entitled to your own reality.  I get it.  I think we have pretty well smoked you out, Jeff.  You can talk in circles and spin ontological yarns to justify your preconceived ideas but you're not capable of real debate based on facts, unless, of course, they're your facts. 

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 24, 2012 at 10:03pm

RE: " I don't think we want to start debating ontology"

Definitely not. We want to stick with logic and the physical world rather than delve into metaphysics.

RE: "I can barely get you guys past a grade-school understanding of the role of facts in rhetorical argument"

Logic is an element of rhetorical argument.

Now you are throwing around terms that you do not understand.

You are the one who is incapable of engaging in rhetorical argument.

I would suggest that you go out to Amazon.com and pick up a copy of "Logic for Dummies".

The truth is you lack the ability to provide a cogent rebuttal; when you dig youself into a hole, you really should stop digging - prove us wrong!

 

JS

 

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on May 24, 2012 at 9:21pm

Also, I suggest you visit our EID-Ohio site where a number of Ohioans have posted to say they want natural gas development:

http://www.eidohio.org/

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on May 24, 2012 at 9:32pm

Sounds like we want the same things but you insist on this holier than thou attitude.

RSS

advertisements